tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post1369144958408399740..comments2024-03-19T09:54:37.187+00:00Comments on mainly macro: Did centrism beget populism?Mainly Macrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09984575852247982901noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-28532334133173298972017-01-26T20:40:53.392+00:002017-01-26T20:40:53.392+00:00Nice to see that everyone else is joining me in th...Nice to see that everyone else is joining me in the top right corner. StuartPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13748038209546648459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-33559321265426279702017-01-25T17:56:55.393+00:002017-01-25T17:56:55.393+00:00antitribalism itself marks a tribe, one that is sm...antitribalism itself marks a tribe, one that is small and often insular.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-34129670972415945352017-01-25T14:01:14.144+00:002017-01-25T14:01:14.144+00:00I’d be careful before we start talking about popul...I’d be careful before we start talking about populism and Trumpism as some new “movement.” First, the discontent has been there (and maybe some degree of discontent is always there). Trump has this small core of support, and an outer ring of resentful voters—but are they new? We had Pat Buchanan in 1992, for example—he just didn’t have the machismo that Trump has (and wasn’t post-2008). Second, Trump was bound to happen—we’ve seen in past GOP primaries that the crazies do well. In 2012, Romney held out because, IIRC, he was the dominant moderate—all he had to do was wait for the crazies to whittle away. In 2016, the “moderates” were clogged, and GOP voters moved between crazies. Trump just had to wait it out & play divide & conquer. As for the election, we had voter ID reduce the black vote, we had the continuation of this Hilary hate (1992-2016), and we had another factor that no one has really talked about—sexism. It may be the USA is most sexist than racist (and Trump oozed more machismo and misogyny than racism, if you ask me). <br /><br />So do we have a populist movement? Or just something already there that came out? And is it populism or this racist/sexist ressentiment? (I’d argue the latter, because from what I can tell, this isn’t about economics—it’s about “reclaiming” the USA, and the UK in the case of Brexit.) this is resentment against those who would be critical of the white male status quo (or more accurately, against this idealized white male, to which some of us white males do not conform and do not want to conform).<br /><br />All of this is a long-winded way of saying that the chart is okay, and that there is this void that did seem to appear—but that there is something more fundamental going on, and that we might not be talking about traditional “populism” but something darker.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-19082673743581271792017-01-24T18:08:39.959+00:002017-01-24T18:08:39.959+00:00"Did centrism beget populism?"
No, glob..."Did centrism beget populism?"<br /><br />No, globalisation did. As Jimmy Goldsmith foretold in 1993 :<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6I5R5_bnFYAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-57966043496656341582017-01-24T12:53:35.384+00:002017-01-24T12:53:35.384+00:00"...yet it is they who have just voted for a ..."...yet it is they who have just voted for a populist President." Um, they didn't. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by some 3 million. It was the Electoral College system (and a tiny fraction of the popular vote, in just three states) that put the Orange One in the White House. Geraldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17319994161960244400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-15641693319136940362017-01-24T11:06:47.570+00:002017-01-24T11:06:47.570+00:00Having read only this post and not his article, I ...Having read only this post and not his article, I guess that Wood's problem is the word "centrism". I think he means "elite consensus" and more specifically "austerity". I will try as you do, to move beyond 1 dimesional abstraction (which leads mostly to semantic debates).<br /><br />I think that the rise of populism was in large part caused by the clash between very strong general support for the welfare state and elite hostility. I would guess that part of the reason the populists are so crazy is that they claim to hate welfare and are ashamed that they love it so much.<br /><br />Some examples.<br />1) Brexit campaigners claimed that they would get more money for the NHS. Passionate support for the NHS is neither right wing nor radical -- the NHS is a formerly far left inditiative (also far left by the standards of most developed countries) which is a beloved national institution. <br /><br />2. In the US, Republicans won a landslide presenting themselves as defenders of Medicare (public insurance for those over 65) against Obamacare. The passionate opposition to the expansion of the welfare state largely consisted of people with government health insurance who didn't want to share it (and refused to believe the fact that the ACA expanded their benefits). Now the GOP attacks Obamacare because it is not generous enough. In each case, ultra right Republicans attacked the Democrats from the left. Both attacks were successful, because the Democrats were determined that the reform reduce the Federal budget deficit. <br /><br />3. Trump claimed that, unlike other Republicans, he wouldn't cut government pensions or health insurance. Le Pen campaigns as a defender of welfare state spending.<br /><br />I think the key vulnerability of the old non populist establishment is an obsession with budget deficits (during a recession in a liquidity trap) and hatred of spending on public pensions and health care.<br /><br />These are a fairly narrow if extremely important policy positions. I think the mistake is to call that elite outlook "centrism". As you note the alleged centrism combines budget cuts which would have shocked Eisenhower and Churchill and gay marriage which would have shocked Roosevelt and Atlee. <br /><br />Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14455788499385673507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-86895334857741554652017-01-23T15:10:18.997+00:002017-01-23T15:10:18.997+00:00For the UK, those supporting Leave have essentiall...For the UK, those supporting Leave have essentially endorsed Iain Duncan Smith's leadership of the Conservative Party in the early 2000s. <br /><br />It's no wonder New Labour cannot understand what has happened.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-51840978347913946602017-01-23T14:39:57.662+00:002017-01-23T14:39:57.662+00:00not centrism, but bothsidelism - the unwillingness...not centrism, but bothsidelism - the unwillingness of the press etc to distinguish between radical extremism and politcal norms. The outcome is the normalisation of relentless semi-fascism and the acceptance of alternative facts, resulting in unsubstantiated beliefs of victimisation, and the election of candidates who actually revel in and exacerbate the real problems people face in the USUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13937889436871408744noreply@blogger.com