Debate: Is the future of western politics populist and not liberal?

Jun 12, 2009
4,420
297
800
#51
You are right, that politicians should decide what is in our best interest. That is the problem though, they aren't picking what is in our best interest. They are picking what is in their best interests.
Well yea, that's partly due to the complexity of life these days and that whatever democratic system you're in can be improved upon.

If you go to countries with a parliamentary democracy, they already show more promise about doing what is legitimately beneficial to their own citizens as compared to the US.

In Canada or Sweden, for example, you have less violence, racism and a generally better standard of living and education.

Beyond that, you can improve the selection process through proportional representation. New Zealand and Germany are fairly good examples.

The US is stuck in this yoyo position partly because private interests have more influence on policy (through $$$) and partly because of the electoral college, which (like First Past the Post in a Parliamentary Democracy) gives arbitrary influence based on geography instead of people.

So you get this endless fight between two major parties that are constantly paid to represent outside interests and they won't change until the system changes to properly regulate private interests and it better (proportionally) represents the body of people who vote.

If the US had a better public education system, I think that you would see the changes I've mentioned above happen a lot sooner.

I think populism is just giving the appearance that the people (or the little guy) have more influence but it's a sham because populist leaders (including Trump) are still giving authority to the elite while they promise the opposite.
 
Last edited:
Oct 5, 2015
4,323
452
290
#52
Populism promises you the moon and maybe for a time you will buy into that promise, especially if you see early results that seemingly confirm there is something positive behind the siren calls, but you're definitely not getting on that spaceship in the long run. And if you do, it'll either crash or at least run out of fuel.

We've seen that numerous times. History has no shortage of examples. Both right-wing and left-wing populism are defined by their blatant appeal to the most basic, selfish and tribal instincts of a society in a superficially charming yet highly irresponsible and dangerous manner, needing to create various scapegoats and enemies everywhere while organizing cults of personality around their leaders, who are portrayed as the saviors of the everyman. That's an illusion.

There are many things needing to be changed or improved about the status quo, but not like that.

Fascism was only one possible variant of populism, yet this video remains valid today:

That video remains excellent.

And the thing is, humanity has been wrestling with this long before that as well. Populism is just another way for leaders to take advantage of the vulnerable. They prey on their insecurities. And so the cycle continues. (And now, we have made it even easier to be the mob with the interent. Hell, you don't even have to get out of your pjs!
 
Likes: Madonis

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,934
3,895
460
#54
If you go to countries with a parliamentary democracy, they already show more promise about doing what is legitimately beneficial to their own citizens as compared to the US.
I am not really sure if it is a parliamentary vs republican issue. Considering most parliamentary systems still have a monarch that has to sign off on all laws, it kept a check on their system that wasn't foreseen as being needed before modern mega corporations becoming virtual state powers and the rich becoming more powerful than monarchs.

In Canada or Sweden, for example, you have less violence, racism and a generally better standard of living and education.
Both of those countries are just as "racist" as the US. Arguably moreso, since they don't have the demographics that the US has to cause it to be as apparent.

Beyond that, you can improve the selection process through proportional representation. New Zealand and Germany are fairly good examples.
This is a good idea, in theory. Ultimately you'd have the same coalitions as we do now, as democratic power comes through a simple binary of yes or no. Maybe part of the problem is that we have far too much focus on national parties that don't really represent their constituents - States and their internal politics were supposed to act as a balancing force via Senate selection and the 17th Amendment ended that.

The US is stuck in this yoyo position partly because private interests have more influence on policy (through $$$) and partly because of the electoral college, which (like First Past the Post in a Parliamentary Democracy) gives arbitrary influence based on geography instead of people.
I have no issue with the electoral college. It is a check on large states having too much power.

So you get this endless fight between two major parties that are constantly paid to represent outside interests and they won't change until the system changes to properly regulate private interests and better (proportionally) represent the people who vote.
Yeah, we need campaign reform, but I am afraid that won't come regardless of who controls the government. At least not as long as the neoliberals control the Democrats. They love that PAC and corporate money just as much as the Republicans.

If the US had a better public education system, I think that you would see the changes I've mentioned above happen a lot sooner.
I don't even know how to fix it. We throw more money per student at the problem than other first world countries and get worse results, like with many other things. Too many hands in the cookie jar though, and demographics are a factor that people want to ignore.

I think populism is just giving the appearance that the people (or the little guy) have more influence but it's a sham because populist leaders (including Trump) are still giving authority to the elite while they promise the opposite.
Warren and Sanders are both populists. Left wing populism is possible...
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,687
2,321
470
Brampton, Ontario
#55
You gotta choose a country man, different ones have different things going on. For example that Sweden one already raises question marks at face value Which country do you reside in?

There's a million articles on labor shortages. Maybe you don't live in the U.S., but are you aware of what's going on in the economy? There are more job openings than available labor to fill them right now.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/truck-driver-shortage-is-pressuring-businesses-1531526402

https://www.ibisworld.com/media/2018/07/12/top-five-sectors-exposed-to-labor-shortages-in-2018/

https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/warehouse-labor-shortage-recruiter-adapt/523563/

https://agamerica.com/farm-labor-shortage/

Just a few of many.
Bumping this again because I've found a rebuttal.

Why am I bringing up other countries? Is the point of globalism not to create the same mass migration of people all over? Sweden in particular should be very relevant, because it follows the Nordic model which is more government control/socialism.

Also, in regards to immigration driving down wages,

"White workers at B.C. resort suffered racial discrimination, tribunal finds"
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/white-workers...acial-discrimination-tribunal-finds-1.4161590
Before Chan hired the new employees, he mentioned on multiple occasions that he wanted to bring in Chinese students because they wouldn’t demand holiday pay, overtime pay or days off, according to Eva.

"I find that over a period of months Mr. Chan repeatedly said that he wanted to replace Caucasian employees with ethnically Chinese employees to reduce labour costs," the tribunal's decision reads.

"Mr. Chan said words to the effect, 'Chinese workers are better and cheaper than white workers.'"
 
Jun 12, 2009
4,420
297
800
#56
Warren and Sanders are both populists. Left wing populism is possible...
I mean, sure, you could peg Sanders as populist because of the 1% thing but Sanders is really just a socialist.

I don't think he's about tearing down institutions like a true populist might be.

And I think he's more of a globalist than a populist would be. I can see him endorsing more trade with other countries as long as it was 'fair trade'.

That said, I really don't like the guy as a politician. He's old and slow and not very articulate.
 
Last edited:

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,934
3,895
460
#57
I mean, sure, you could peg Sanders as populist because of the 1% thing but Sanders is really just a socialist.

I don't think he's about tearing down institutions like a true populist might be.

And I think he's more of a globalist than a populist would be. I can see him endorsing more trade with other countries as long as it was 'fair trade'.

That said, I really don't like the guy as a politician. He's old and slow and not very articulate.
Why does it not surprise me that you wouldn't like Sanders all while stumping for Democrats on this forum...

Sanders has been against international trade agreements his entire career. Fair trade is the populist position. Supporting workers is a populist position.

Sanders has also fought against immigration policy that would harm American workers. This is also a populist position.

Populism isn't about tearing down institutions, it is ultimately about keeping power with the people instead of the elite.
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,974
12,968
555
USA
dunpachi.com
#58
Populism, Liberalism, and Conservatism are just notches on the rotating wheel of American politics.

As a society grows, there will be haves and have-nots. Liberal ideals help guide society during that period of growth by representing the have-nots. Eventually, the liberal ideals become calcified and are incorporated into the conservative viewpoint. Liberals then find something new to champion.

However, as the growth naturally slows down (since it is an ebb and flow) the liberal ideals will overstep their bounds and will fail to adequately represent the have-nots. If this continues for a sustained period of time, populism rises as a response, as if to say "our champions aren't sticking up for us anymore. I might as well take to the streets". Populism is almost never good, but it is sometimes necessary as a indicator that liberals need to re-align.
 
Likes: Cybrwzrd
Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,513
935
#60
Bumping this again because I've found a rebuttal.

Also, in regards to immigration driving down wages,

"White workers at B.C. resort suffered racial discrimination, tribunal finds"
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/white-workers...acial-discrimination-tribunal-finds-1.4161590
How is this a rebuttal? This is a one-off racial discrimination case, do you know how many there have been since 2010 across the U.S.? Several hundred. Also, I already mentioned that J-1 visas can be used inappropriately, see silicon valley.

A Chinese guy favors Chinese workers. I actually have a similar anecdotal story about that from 2012 that I happened to witness, but the mfg facility shut down before this situation became very obvious.
 
Sep 4, 2018
2,488
2,762
255
#61
maybe look at the last "liberal" option for President. voted for the Iraq War. voted for the Patriot Act. all-in on the surveillance state. all in on homeland security. those child cages? we built that. look at all the biggest #Resistance members, all of them vote for the defense industry. in practice "liberal" doesn't really stand for much.

Sanders is different. he actually votes against Trump's defense bills! imagine that! calling someone a dangerous authoritarian and actually having the balls to vote against them. most of the resistance gives him money for guns no matter what.

my dad voted Trump and he would have voted Sanders. the first time we became aware of Sanders was during the bank bailout, he was ranting on the floor, furious that our money was going to the people who fucked up the financial system and sent several countries into banktrupcy. he was one of the only people actually saying what people think. he was ignored, we bailed them out, and Dems suffered immensely in the following midterms. this is the source of his populism, not pontificating on his class warfare in the abstract. he dgaf and people know authenticity when they see it.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Cybrwzrd

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,687
2,321
470
Brampton, Ontario
#62
How is this a rebuttal? This is a one-off racial discrimination case, do you know how many there have been since 2010 across the U.S.? Several hundred. Also, I already mentioned that J-1 visas can be used inappropriately, see silicon valley.

A Chinese guy favors Chinese workers. I actually have a similar anecdotal story about that from 2012 that I happened to witness, but the mfg facility shut down before this situation became very obvious.
For reasons that are damaging to the Western style of life.
Immigration can change a country's culture, how do you stop that? If you say "pass laws against discrimination" then what happens when one group becomes the new majority and just straight up ignores it?

British Colombia is already heading in that direction, so again, how do you know this is only going to be a "one-off" case?
 
Last edited:
Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,513
935
#63
For reasons that are damaging to the Western style of life.
Immigration can change a country's culture, how do you stop that? If you say "pass laws against discrimination" then what happens when one group becomes the new majority and just straight up ignores it?

British Colombia is already heading in that direction, so again, how do you know this is only going to be a "one-off" case?
Our laws protect against this, and society tends to push back on it. If you can find enough evidence and a lawyer to support you (or other means), you sue and win. It's not okay when Americans do it now, even though they often get away with it. Plus your hypothetical is very hypothetical.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,687
2,321
470
Brampton, Ontario
#64
Our laws protect against this, and society tends to push back on it. If you can find enough evidence and a lawyer to support you (or other means), you sue and win. It's not okay when Americans do it now, even though they often get away with it. Plus your hypothetical is very hypothetical.
Only because the current demographics in Western countries supports egalitarianism.

You go to other non-Western countries and it is absolutely not the case. I don't want to pick on just China, because there's more out there.

But the increasing Chinese migration to British Colombia has lead to tensions such as cities now trying to pass language laws to keep English alive.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/richmond-signs-chinese-english-1.4150456

Or the laundering and corruption surrounding vancouver's real estate coming from chinese gangs
https://globalnews.ca/news/4155822/vancouver-model-david-eby-money-laundering/

You say "society will push back" but again, when the demographics shift from people who support equality (Canadians), to a new group where equality doesn't exist (China), it's not hypothetical.
 
Last edited:
Feb 25, 2018
155
217
225
#65
Munk is the premiere debate form in the world and ive watched alot of them, this is most decisive defeat ive seen. Frum sucked tho and bannon is an excellent orator, so it was kinda baked in. Still only the toronto elite goes to these things and they are certainly a progressive globalist bunch, so the results are stunning really.