Democracy is when everyone agrees with me and Populism is when people are tricked into disagreeing with me by an evil demagogue.
We can't have people who've been tricked into thinking wrong making decisions. That's just stupid on its face. So we need to have Rational Discourse among people who are already right-thinking. That's Real Democracy. If you're making decisions based on Fake News, that's not Democracy. That's Fascism.
If it has immediate appeal that even some poor, uneducated “Redneck” can understand, then it must be wrong. Econ 101 and Thomas Sowell said so
Thomas Sowell actually wrote a book titled "Black Rednecks And White Liberals" that argued something of the opposite. Of course, he still ended up siding with Nixonian Republicans against Kennedy Democrats. Still, Sowell wasn't afraid to get down and dirty with the Reagan-style populism. Pretty much what you'd expect from a spook.
I think the main issue that I can’t find words for is that liberals are simultaneously very relativistic but still very clearly believing that they are right, Republicans are wrong, and it is a moral imperative that leftists support them against Republicans even as they work with Republicans against leftists.
Modern Democrats are a more modern flavor of American Nationalist. Perhaps more rhetorically humble than their conservative counterparts. But the lessons they've read from history are that the FDR/LBJ/Clinton Era was all about building a consensus in government institutions. Dems are setting themselves in opposition to the now-rampant libertarian attitude within the Republican Party, embracing the state whole-heartedly and exhibiting much of the same patriotic rhetoric you'd have expected to see from Republicans twenty years ago.
They are becoming conservatives in the small-c sense, as they try to get back to the 80s-era of ahem consensus politics. And to that end, they believe they need that Romney-school Republican Party to define the reasonable out edge of the right-wing. They want a Loyal Opposition that they can spare with for all eternity.
It seems like Republicans are treated as Legitimate for the purpose of attacking hardline left stances (“People have good reasons for thinking what they do, you can’t just dismiss it for your radical dogmas!”) while also a malignancy that means not supporting Democrats against them is childish at best and evil at worst.
Not all Republicans are created equal.
The Loyal Republicans - the fellow nationalists - are considered legitimate when attacking the Left, because the Left aren't loyal. The Traitorous Republicans - the Out-And-Proud Trumpians - are considered a threat that Democrats need Loyal Republicans to rein in.
it looks like you start out talking about the right-libertarian vs openly-pro-government Republican divide, then frame it as nationalists vs Trumpians.
The petite bourgeoise business tyrants aren't nationalists. They're probably best described as Anarcho-Capitalists, of the Rothbard / Mises mindset. They generally hate the government, they routinely hate on people from out-of-state, they hate the idea of migratory labor, and they hate paying taxes towards any kind of national projects (military, domestic, or otherwise). These guys are Trump's base.
Well, Trump loves deregulation of businesses but also an open police state, so I’d still say not libertarian-friendly rhetorically. I think I’m misunderstanding something.
Trump's not really pro-government in any substantive sense. He's not a big fan of the imperial project (particularly one that he feels like we're losing). He's not at loggerheads with China or Russia, like his neoliberal/neoconservative peers. He's a white supremacist, but not really a white nationalist, as he shows open disdain for any nationalist institution - be it CIA or Post Office or departments that are run by his own hand-picked cabinet members - that irks him.
His endorsement of the police state hinges entirely on police endorsement of him. It doesn't extend to the FBI or manifest as the Mullar-esque Duty To The Office persona. It's always just "What have you done for me lately?"
deleted by creator
Democracy is when everyone agrees with me and Populism is when people are tricked into disagreeing with me by an evil demagogue.
We can't have people who've been tricked into thinking wrong making decisions. That's just stupid on its face. So we need to have Rational Discourse among people who are already right-thinking. That's Real Democracy. If you're making decisions based on Fake News, that's not Democracy. That's Fascism.
deleted by creator
Thomas Sowell actually wrote a book titled "Black Rednecks And White Liberals" that argued something of the opposite. Of course, he still ended up siding with Nixonian Republicans against Kennedy Democrats. Still, Sowell wasn't afraid to get down and dirty with the Reagan-style populism. Pretty much what you'd expect from a spook.
Modern Democrats are a more modern flavor of American Nationalist. Perhaps more rhetorically humble than their conservative counterparts. But the lessons they've read from history are that the FDR/LBJ/Clinton Era was all about building a consensus in government institutions. Dems are setting themselves in opposition to the now-rampant libertarian attitude within the Republican Party, embracing the state whole-heartedly and exhibiting much of the same patriotic rhetoric you'd have expected to see from Republicans twenty years ago.
They are becoming conservatives in the small-c sense, as they try to get back to the 80s-era of ahem consensus politics. And to that end, they believe they need that Romney-school Republican Party to define the reasonable out edge of the right-wing. They want a Loyal Opposition that they can spare with for all eternity.
Not all Republicans are created equal.
The Loyal Republicans - the fellow nationalists - are considered legitimate when attacking the Left, because the Left aren't loyal. The Traitorous Republicans - the Out-And-Proud Trumpians - are considered a threat that Democrats need Loyal Republicans to rein in.
deleted by creator
The petite bourgeoise business tyrants aren't nationalists. They're probably best described as Anarcho-Capitalists, of the Rothbard / Mises mindset. They generally hate the government, they routinely hate on people from out-of-state, they hate the idea of migratory labor, and they hate paying taxes towards any kind of national projects (military, domestic, or otherwise). These guys are Trump's base.
Trump's not really pro-government in any substantive sense. He's not a big fan of the imperial project (particularly one that he feels like we're losing). He's not at loggerheads with China or Russia, like his neoliberal/neoconservative peers. He's a white supremacist, but not really a white nationalist, as he shows open disdain for any nationalist institution - be it CIA or Post Office or departments that are run by his own hand-picked cabinet members - that irks him.
His endorsement of the police state hinges entirely on police endorsement of him. It doesn't extend to the FBI or manifest as the Mullar-esque Duty To The Office persona. It's always just "What have you done for me lately?"