For not understanding why "populism" is seen as such a bad thing

[TemporaryPosition]

Is the point of democracy not to have popular support?

No. I dislike most politicians, that doesn't make them Populists. Populists are the conmen of politics and that's a low bar they're going under.

Actually, I can't understand how you got that from my post.

@Dolphinnoises

"It’s telling people what they want to hear as a way of winning votes, over promising what’s popular but also realistic (eg you can have your better public services but yes there will have to be a tax rise because things need paying for)"

But don't all politicians left and right do this and tell voters what they want to hear - "populist" or otherwise.

If political candidates ever told the truth to the electorate then no one would ever vote for them so in order to become politicians (rather than remain as candidates) they have to lie or at least be evasive with the truth.

If the average voter was given the choice of your example:
A) "you can have your better public services but yes there will have to be a tax rise because things need paying for" or
B) "you can have better public services and we are going to pay for it by cutting wasteful Government spending and growing the economy or closing tax loopholes "

Then B gets the vote every time even if it's not deliverable.

A is realistic and deliverable.
B is a con for votes aka Populism.

I know that B will get votes, but I also know people will vote A. Because they aren't stupid.

It was more just a general musing about this thread tbh

Really?

I think this has been a very measured thread considering it's in AIBU.

Posters have explained that populism can be right or left wing. It's based on manipulation and examples have been provided. The consensus seems to be that Populism is not the same as popularity. It is reactionary rather than responsive and often ends in a bad outcome for the majority

It's still riddled in contradiction and makes no sense. Left wing reactionaries? I wouldn't describe Corbyn or Sanders as reactionaries. I am trying to understand but it has cemented my view that there is no stable definition, or core characteristic. As such, it has no utility as a descriptor and its purely intended to malign.

Given this, it seems perfectly reasonable to wonder if I'm being unreasonable, after how many pages, it's as clear as mud.

I typed out a response and then deleted it. Simply not worth it. Anyone can read the thread and see the absurd distortions here.

Yes correct, I do find it best to use accurate descriptions.

But from past experience the majority of voters will vote B.

Just look at the last election, Labour basically won because they weren't the Conservatives and a view amongst voters that "well they can't be worse than the current lot".

But now the opinion polls show Labour at an all time low, debt at a record high, taxation highest in over 50 years etc etc.

I am trying to understand but it has cemented my view that there is no stable definition, or core characteristic. As such, it has no utility as a descriptor and its purely intended to malign.

You've pretty much summed it up here

"I am trying to understand but it has cemented my view that there is no stable definition, or core characteristic. As such, it has no utility as a descriptor and its purely intended to malign"

I don't disagree with your summary, but if it has any meaning I would say that the term "populism " is used more in a derogatory or dismissive manner to describe any viewpoint or policy that an individual finds objectionable but recognises that a large number of voters support.

For example "Brexit voters voted for Brexit because they are all thick and racist ". Rather than for example a more rational or intellectual investigation of the motives that led to their vote.

Utopia is a fictional place.
But I have decided a shit hole with nicer weather and sewage free rivers & beaches is a step up.

For example "Brexit voters voted for Brexit because they are all thick and racist ". Rather than for example a more rational or intellectual investigation of the motives that led to their vote.

Not all Leave voters were thick and racist, but some were. Others voted Leave because:
They they could make money out of it.
They thought they'd be better off.
They wanted to destabilise the UK.
They saw criminal opportunities in it.
They wanted to return to a time in their history where they were happier.
They wanted to piss off the "metropolitan elite".
The local council closed the play park.
They were gullible, not stupid.
They were afraid of an European Army, 70 million Turkish people wanting to come here etc.
They thought it would reduce immigration.

Populist politicians divided the country, increased suspicion and sold Leave as a panacea to their ills, knowing it was no such thing. Knowing that leaving the EU would be detrimental the UK they manipulated the British people into voting against their own interests.

Brexit is a great example of Populism at work.

I forgot about the people who voted Leave because they believed it was what God wanted.

With so many EU countries shifting politically, plus the US the term will lack meaning

It won’t. Populism will always exist. Just like socialism and fascism.

What?

What's going on here? You think Populism doesn't exist? Or are you unhappy with the definition because it applies to you and you dont like that?

I wish people could read and understand😔

I have read @TemporaryPosition.

You studied politics and sociology at university, but you don't know what Populism is. You cast your vote without knowing what you are voting for. You vote for the party that tells you the prettiest lies., even though you know they're lying to you.

You are a Populist, but you don't like that term so you pretend it's meaningless.

So, by moving at speed with these executive orders and doing what he promised, does that mean that Trump is not a populist then?

Do you mean actually exist outside of textbooks in the real world?

Well, at least one of those orders goes directly against the Constitution, so it can't be delivered. Populism in a nutshell.

So when the SNP were blocked by the constitution when they were trying to change laws around sex identification - they were populists?

Oh come on. Making undeliverable promises is not the same as making a policy in a devolved government situation and having it blocked. One could argue that the act of blocking it was the populist move; certainly it was done to appease GC voters and take an ideological stand. And of course,but for the block, the policy could have been delivered.

Going against the US Constitution is a whole different ballgame. Are you aware of the requirements for making an amendment to the Constitution?