How far will the rise of nationalistic populism go ?

[L00b]

I don't see what the problem is with "populism". Unless this is code for something else.

I certainly mean to use it fully within the plain, dictionary sense of the word every time:

populism

noun [ U ] uk ​ /ˈpɒp.jə.lɪ.zəm/ us ​ /ˈpɑː.pjə.lɪ.zəm/ mainly disapproving

political ideas and activities that are intended to get the support of ordinary people by giving them what they want.

If I was to be accused of using it as "code", then I'd own up to using it as a shortcut for "misrepresenting easy answers without objective basis as solutions to complex problems for short-term political gain", aka snake oil politics.

Our governance has been getting altogether too technocratic and a bit more direct engagement with the demos is a rather positive thing. It's messy, but then democracy always was.

I don't disagree with the sentiment and principle, but beware to let it fall into cop-out territory. Populism never solves anything in practice, it's just short-lived panacea for the tortured soul. Edited December 6, 2016 by L00b

[Justin Smith]

Is there something wrong with nationalism, or do you mean racism?

 

---------- Post added 06-12-2016 at 11:20 ----------

 

I am a proud Yorkshire man, does that mean I am a bad person

 

I take nationalism to be aggressive, or at any rate more extreme, patriotism, possibly at the expense of other countries. I personally would define patriotism as being proud of ones own country, but not wanting to "do other countries down". And you know what they say about (even) patriotism, the last refuge of a scoundrel. I speak as someone who has almost zero patriotism at the moment, a significant change in the last 6 months. I`m no longer proud of my country.

 

I see nothing wrong with being a proud Yorkshireman, it`s altogether less aggressive and more positive than being nationalistic*. I may not be patriotic about Britain, but I`m still a proud Sheffielder.

 

* Cretinous football hooligans excepted of course.

 

---------- Post added 06-12-2016 at 13:50 ----------

 

That's cool. If you don't think that the collapse of the Euro, the disintegration of the EU or Donald Trump taking over the White House will affect your life, you have achieved your ambition of arriving in lala land already.

 

But she`s saying she has no control over those things, so tries not to think about them. Very wise I feel, though maybe easier said than done. If things change, and we get a chance to vote at a General Election or another referendum, that`d be different, I`m sure SK would vote, she may even try to influence other voters. What more can she, or any of us, do ?

Edited December 6, 2016 by Justin Smith

[unbeliever]

Can you explain the bit in bold further? I don't understand what you are saying.

 

The argument for capitalism, free trade, globalisation (all the things which upset people and make them look for radical alternative models like socialism) is that these things grow economies. Everybody gets richer. Now there is also an effect that a few people at the top get very, very, very rich.

Many people would prefer to keep the gap down between the super-rich and the poor even if it makes the poor poorer in absolute terms.

[L00b]

I take nationalism to be aggressive, or at any rate more extreme, patriotism, possibly at the expense of other countries.<...>

Do not mistake nationalism for patriotism, Justin.

 

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first." (Charles de Gaulle)

[Justin Smith]

I'm in favour of globalisation, but I respect the alternative point of view. The world changes very fast these days and it's hard for people to keep up. Protectionist policies can help cushion the blow.

Also, many people believe (not me) that relative wealth is what matters rather than median, or minimum wealth. They'd take £1000 of the poorest if they could also take £millions of the richest. It's what they believe in.

 

You don`t really believe that do you UB ? You come across as a thoughtful sort (not that I agree with many of your thoughts ! ) so if you believe it, what hope have we ? No wonder Trump got in.....

 

---------- Post added 06-12-2016 at 13:54 ----------

 

Do not mistake nationalism for patriotism, Justin.

 

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first." (Charles de Gaulle)

 

Isn`t that more or less what I said ? :

 

I take nationalism to be aggressive, or at any rate more extreme, patriotism, possibly at the expense of other countries. I personally would define patriotism as being proud of ones own country, but not wanting to "do other countries down". And you know what they say about (even) patriotism, the last refuge of a scoundrel. I speak as someone who has almost zero patriotism at the moment, a significant change in the last 6 months. I`m no longer proud of my country.

 

I see nothing wrong with being a proud Yorkshireman, it`s altogether less aggressive and more positive than being nationalistic*. I may not be patriotic about Britain, but I`m still a proud Sheffielder.

 

* Cretinous football hooligans excepted of course.

[sgtkate]

The argument for capitalism, free trade, globalisation (all the things which upset people and make them look for radical alternative models like socialism) is that these things grow economies. Everybody gets richer. Now there is also an effect that a few people at the top get very, very, very rich.

Many people would prefer to keep the gap down between the super-rich and the poor even if it makes the poor poorer in absolute terms.

 

Ah I understand now. I have to say I'm probably one of the latter to be honest, but hopefully with some vague logic. If the wealth gap decreases but average pay did too, then prices would fall and they wouldn't be sustained by the wealthy being able to carry on buying regardless...also countries with lower average wages but better wealth equality have higher population happiness. I'd trade money for happiness, it's what we all do when we buy a load of rubbish we never really use, so perhaps we can just cut out Argos and get ourselves directly to happy

 

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/12/income-inequality-makes-people-unhappy/416268/

[L00b]

You don`t really believe that do you UB ? You come across as a thoughtful sort (not that I agree with many of your thoughts ! ) so if you believe it, what hope have we ? No wonder Trump got in.....

unbeliever's not wrong as a matter of principle.

 

Just about every country is still protectionist to an extent, for socio-historical reasons, and likely always be, if only for reasons of national security.

 

And because nothing sits still in this world, trading conditions vary and imbalances develop at any given time, and countries frequently react with (WTO-compliant) temporary protectionist measures.

 

That's how and why e.g. the EU wanted to promulgate extra (and temporary) protectionist measures against China, to protect the EU steel industry from the Chinese' dumping of steel earlier this year. The UK opposed the measures (-then Port Talbot ).

 

Seems to me Trump is no different to Brexiters in that respect: all for free trade about this when it works (only-) for them, all for ultra-protectionism about that when it doesn't work (only-) for them, [aka the having its cake and eating it school of policy ] and never the two shall sensibly meet somewhere in the middle so that both sides profit.

 

But, without wanting to drag this thread into an n-th Brexit/Trump -fest, hopefully you see from the above paragraph the relevance to a thread about populism.

 

Isn`t that more or less what I said ? :

rather less than more, since you conflated both in your first sentence Edited December 6, 2016 by L00b

[unbeliever]

I take nationalism to be aggressive, or at any rate more extreme, patriotism, possibly at the expense of other countries. I personally would define patriotism as being proud of ones own country, but not wanting to "do other countries down". And you know what they say about (even) patriotism, the last refuge of a scoundrel. I speak as someone who has almost zero patriotism at the moment, a significant change in the last 6 months. I`m no longer proud of my country.

 

I see nothing wrong with being a proud Yorkshireman, it`s altogether less aggressive and more positive than being nationalistic*. I may not be patriotic about Britain, but I`m still a proud Sheffielder.

 

* Cretinous football hooligans excepted of course.

 

 

I'm quite fond of Samuel Johnson, although Oscar Wilde put it better I think: "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious."

 

Perhaps, to avoid confusion, we should follow L00b's example and stick with the dictionary definitions:

 

Nationalism: Advocacy of or support for the interests of one's own nation, esp. to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. Also: advocacy of or support for national independence or self-determination.

 

Patriotism: The quality of being patriotic; love of or devotion to one's country.

 

Both from the OED.

 

Now I think we are all talking about nationalism here. The highest form of morality would probably lack nationalism, but we all have to live in the real world. If the rest of the world is practising some nationalism then we have to keep up or lose out massively.

 

---------- Post added 06-12-2016 at 14:04 ----------

 

You don`t really believe that do you UB ? You come across as a thoughtful sort (not that I agree with many of your thoughts ! ) so if you believe it, what hope have we ? No wonder Trump got in.....

 

I do believe it. i.e. that protectionist policy can cushion the blow of rapid change.

I'm not supporting it. It does too much damage elsewhere.

[Gamston]

Are we really that badly affected by terrorism in the UK? Or do the Mail et al just want us to think that?

 

Think about it for a minute - how many terrorist related attacks have there been in the UK since say 2010?

 

The answer is 4 according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain#2010.E2.80.93present).

 

Two 'right wing white supremacist' lunatic attacks, and two 'islamic' lunatic attacks.

 

(I use quotes there as I'm sure the Jo Cox killer represents most UKIP members as well as ISIS represents Muslims.)

 

But anyway, that's three deaths from four attacks. Three deaths in six years? Hardly anything to worry about really! More people are killed on average by wasps and bees (5 per year - https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/28/mortality-statistics-causes-death-england-wales-2010).

 

Surely wasps should be more terrifying than ISIS, given their successful slaughter campaign in the UK?! 30 deaths in six years as opposed to 3!

 

Seriously though, the risk of death in terror attacks in this country is very, very, very, very low! This is of course thanks mainly to our very good security services, police etc.

 

The example is exaggerated of course, but the point remains. The 'threat' of terror attacks works well for the terrorists, who want to cause terror, but also for the polar opposites, such as for example the BNP, Britain First, the Daily Mail etc, who want to cause division and segregation.

 

You need to think for more than a minute about the reasons why there haven't be many terrorist related attacks in the UK, since 2010. After a little thought, then you may appreciate the reasons there hasn't been many recent terrorist attacks in the UK is because our authorities take the threat of terrorism very seriously and have prevented numerous terrorist attacks from being carried out.

 

If you look back to last year and the Russian plane crash, which happened after taking off from an Egypt airport, then you might remember, it was the British Authorities who alerted the World to what had happened as consequence of British intelligence.

[unbeliever]

Are we really that badly affected by terrorism in the UK? Or do the Mail et al just want us to think that?

 

Think about it for a minute - how many terrorist related attacks have there been in the UK since say 2010?

 

The answer is 4 according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain#2010.E2.80.93present).

 

Two 'right wing white supremacist' lunatic attacks, and two 'islamic' lunatic attacks.

 

(I use quotes there as I'm sure the Jo Cox killer represents most UKIP members as well as ISIS represents Muslims.)

 

But anyway, that's three deaths from four attacks. Three deaths in six years? Hardly anything to worry about really! More people are killed on average by wasps and bees (5 per year - https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/28/mortality-statistics-causes-death-england-wales-2010).

 

Surely wasps should be more terrifying than ISIS, given their successful slaughter campaign in the UK?! 30 deaths in six years as opposed to 3!

 

Seriously though, the risk of death in terror attacks in this country is very, very, very, very low! This is of course thanks mainly to our very good security services, police etc.

 

The example is exaggerated of course, but the point remains. The 'threat' of terror attacks works well for the terrorists, who want to cause terror, but also for the polar opposites, such as for example the BNP, Britain First, the Daily Mail etc, who want to cause division and segregation.

 

 

Ask a Frenchman.