Populism does it matter?

 

You have probably heard the term "populist" but do you know what it means and how to spot it, do you think it's bad, good or really doesn't matter? Is populism something new?

Let's define populist. The broad definition is simply a party or leader that's for the people. Before 1892 and the presidency of Andrew "Old Hickory" Jackson you don't see the term being used but Jackson was really trying to fight for the common voter by attempting to shut down the central bank and reform or abolish the electoral college so the term "populist" fit. Unfortunately I didn't see it used again to describe a leader of a country until Hitler.  You might be thinking wasn't the French revolution for the people? Yes it occurred before Jackson's presidency but it wasn't a populist leader or party it was a "revolution". A violent revolution which failed and came back for a second try and of course there was the revolution in America.  Yes but still a revolution!

BTW Canada had it's own armed revolution in 1837 and 38 which led to independence in 1867! Still a revolution. 

So what is the difference between a populist and a revolutionary? 

In the end there isn't a huge difference between them except that the revolutionary usually starts by battling in a non democratic arena and is a part of the military or is in an armed conflict with the powers that be. 

The populist is usually in a democratic country or a so called democratic country where there maybe issues such as rampant corruption and socio-economic inequality or it could be a populist politician, a politician who is far right or left might be considered a populist.

Then you have the populist dictator. Which is a person who comes to power, in most cases, in a legit way. They get a majority and soon after taking office the populist starts to dismantle the democratic machinery by changing laws, gives the popular voter a handout and then rapes the country financially.

I am getting ahead of myself.

 I started this research, if you can call it that, with some questions. 

1 Have there been good populist leaders?  

2 If there were some where are they now? 3

3 Have there been benign leaders not good not bad?

 I started as said with Andrew Jackson and he is the only populist leader of a country that didn't want to turn away from democracy but wanted the common man's vote to have more power. There are existing populist politicians in every democratic country, some are on the right and some on the left but they believe in the democratic process. A process that's flawed but better than anything else that I see and when a populist decides to limit democracy we end up with "populist dictators".   Just as there is a difference between a populist and a revolutionary the same difference between a revolutionary/military dictator and a populist dictator. The populist starts out in a democracy and comes to power through being voted in.

Adolph Hitler is first on the list and he wrote the play book for Juan Peron 

 Peronism which was started by a guy named Juan Peron in Argentina is in-between a populist and a revolutionary leader/despot. He lived in a "democratic" country that was corrupt and in most corrupt countries the poor are many and any elections held are rigged, he was part of the military and the military wanted change. This led to a military coup which led to a short term military dictatorship and then he ran in a fair election taking it hands down.

A number of years later he started to lose favor with the general population because he seemed to be as corrupt as his predecessors so He was dethroned and exiled to Spain. The question of whether he was all that bad was answered ten years after when he was let back into the country and became Argentina's leader/dictator until his death. Why is he important? 

His legacy is seen throughout South America. Pretty much every country in the continent has had something similar happen such as the poor people of Venezuela having to endure the government of Nicky Maduro or the strange case of El Salvador where the police "cleaning up" the gangs might be the same as having the gangs. Some people in that country are concerned about Nayib Bukele and his move towards being a dictator or in his words "the coolest dictator ever" nice to know he's hip lol. 

The list could go on for a while and every entry has a recurring theme. A brief time where it's all good and then it goes for shit and as things get worse there are "crackdowns" and general fuckery of the general population. I mean there are solid reasons why 23 million people fled South America in 2023. These countries are as Mr T. has said "shitholes". Not because of the people but because of the politics or lack of true democracy.

So that's the situation down south but what about up here in North America?

When talking populist leaders I have to include the D man, Mr T, The Donald.

 At this writing the 2024 election is being held and the D man has muttered that he won't lose this one. He has made proclamations as to what will happen when he wins but I worry more about his mind set when he loses. It seems unlikely but he could be an enabler for real violence in America. Guerilla warfare in the US as a whole is not very likely but it is kind of fun to imagine and if it were just the proud guys and scattered militia groups going at it well that would be really disruptive but in the end futile and probably short lived. However if there is real money put down by someone who has the ability to give not only money but his tech savvy there could be a very prolonged battle. The advent of drone tech is a game changer in the waging of guerilla warfare. Again truly unlikely.

So Mr. T is the new/old populist and by this I mean he leans heavy on Hitler and that lovable Nazi's style. The plays are the same except Adolph had a fertile ground to sow his seeds of rage as in the reparations set against Germany after WWI. So Mr. T has to modify and create shit out of general prosperity. Not that hard to do but it has been, from my perspective, well thought out and truly effective in vilifying a segment of the fact gathering apparatus and endorsing another making it his personal media outlet. Now he can say whatever he wants and his public won't listen to anything said by any other source. 

He smacks of a populist dictator in waiting.

As for the mood of the Americans and the outcome of today's vote. I feel there are a majority of Americans who are tired of the political system. To many people the system seems corrupt without trying to be. It's just denigrated into this mass of jelly with little true connection to the people who live in it.  I will be most interested in voter turnout in this election as that tells me more about the mood of the general public in regards to the system. Although this time around the public has been bitch slapped into going to the polling station.

At this time nearly every democratic country have parties or leaders of parties who are populist and in the harsh light of historical fact I have to say that this type of politician should be avoided for whatever short term gain some might get there will be a long term pain for the general population.