Blame Liberals For The Rise Of Populism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 вер 2024
- On February 18th, Intelligence Squared brought together a panel of experts to argue the causes behind the rise of populism and to debate what should happen next. Should mainstream parties adopt the policies of the populists in an attempt to appeal to people who have hitherto felt unheard? Or should liberals refuse to abandon principled and economically necessary immigration policies? Hear the arguments and have your say.
"Populism"" is a word those in power use when democracy has defeated them.
Democracy is breathing its last breath (if it's not dead already) world wide. Populism is a word abused by those disguising a right wing or monied elite agenda. I think one would have to be blind to think trump or boris johnson have anything to do with democracy or populism, though that's what comes out of their mouths. This blindness is worse than the corona virus.
It's a word authoritarians use to hoodwink the masses into believing that they are on their side.
@@ntodd4110: Yet it is only those that have lost the democratic vote that use such a word.
It is similar to those that call others racist, only racists use the race card, only racists point out the colour of ones skin.
If, as you claim it is a word used by authoritarians to hoodwink the masses, then authoritarians are always left-wing.
@@davidphipps1629 * the left/right language is a negative language, wink, wink , nudge, nudge 😉
It's a word those of us who believe in civilization use to describe the forces of barbarism.
I can't stand that conversation after conversation, debate after debate, I find myself agreeing on the facts and principles more with the people who are supposed to represent the right. Leftwing intellectuals are increasingly arguing from a point of view of moral abstractions, counter-factual arguments, feel-good self-congratulatory platitudes, and, most importantly, a sense of good vs. evil people who can't be understood from a materialistic explanation, a complete disregard for empirical and causal arguments.
I generally don't agree with the right-wing people on their policy conclusions, which are just as ideological and simplistic, but it's amazing how easier it is to discuss with right-wing people today than it is with left-wing people.
Totally agree. I always considered myself left wing liberal but have had to admit to myself I now align more with the centre right! Never thought I'd ever say that!!!! My liberal values of secularism, free speech, questioning orthodoxy, equal rights and opportunities, treating people as individuals not groups and listening to people different from myself, trying to see other points of view, they haven't changed, the Left has. The Left has totally lost the plot. That's not to say I'm a right wing or Republican type, I'm pro choice, anti gun, pro LGBT etc but I do stick up for the rights of people to disagree. I understand why people are anti abortion, pro gun etc. I don't think you can force people to think it's ok to be gay but you can stop them from discriminating. I am vehemently pro free speech - that's probably the main dividing line for me. The right is pro free speech, the left is not.
@@mogznwaz
I agree. But I think we also have to realize that it's always the dominant cultural group that's "against" free speech and the cultural minority that is "pro"-free speech.
In the 60s, 70s and 80s, the left was the counter-culture, the right was holding the cultural levers of orthodoxy, media and so on (irrespective of who happened to have won the last election).
Since the 90s, this has started to shift, and the people from generation that eventually toppled the right-wing cultural order in the 70s and 80s are now the people who are the editorialists, tenured professors and journalists and so on, they are now the orthodoxy. As any group who holds the instruments of orthodoxy, they stifle dissent, like the right was doing in the 60s to 80s.
It's not so much that you have moved Right, but that the so-called Lib Left has left you behind in its' embrace of the whole Identity Politics bullshit, Don't worry, it's left most of us behind too!
I've always been a hard-core conservative and I would bet money that you'd agree with me on 90% of things. The greatest trick the left has ever pulled has been to convince people that they believe in exactly the opposite of what the historical record shows.
Watch how easily the Turkish woman claims that the left/liberal is for equality, freedom, etc, which necessarily implies that the right does not believe in these things. That's wholly untrue as history proves time and time again. Similarly, her use of words like 'demagogues' when referring to the populist leadership implies that there are no demagogues on the left -- which again is factually untrue. The left has always been rife with identity politics, creating demagogues to rally around, etc. It's one of their key plays and has been for a hundred years. Woodrow Wilson, for example, was a populist demagogue leftist democrat who supported Hitler, Mussolini and Lenin, etc. His acolyte, President FDR, was a devout democrat in the Wilsonian Tradition, as he said himself, and was also the first/only president to put Americans into concentration camps without any due process. He was very much a demagogue and had the full backing of the US media which was also devoutly leftist then as now.
On the right, you have a wide range of beliefs, but they all center on limited government, more personal freedom, etc. Yes, there is an "us v. them" binary thinking in some areas, but that's because it's recognized as a fundamental part of human nature. You will always separate yourself from others based on certain criteria.... and it's that separation that makes cultures. No culture, no nation. This happens on an individual level which we can all understand, but it also happens at the city level, state level and national level. It does not mean there will be war between the two parties as the panelists want to suggest. Again, it's a trick of the left to imply that you either do it my way or there's going to be a calamity of some sort -- usually war or as Joe Biden said, "They want to put you back in chains."
I loved listening to that Turkish woman list all these problems in the US, like home value stagnation, all the while not mentioning that those things are a direct result of the liberal/democrat policies that have been put in place. She's sitting in a country that the liberal/leftist party/policies have destroyed. These cries for understanding, tolerance, etc, is all well and good on an intellectual level, but their being put in practice against the long-term good of the nation has resulted in a nation that is dead and just doesn't know it yet.
Ok, the left should of course be free speech absolutists, none of the leftist writers or commentators i follow care about Trump tweets, but rather the real leftist concerns are the affordability of healthcare, housing, good quality education, environment etc. I don't know who these social justice warrior anti free speech leftists are, can you direct me, Im a skeptic.
40 minutes in and I dont think they even understand what they're debating?
Bomb the place!
Matthew is the only speaker even attempting to give a thorough explanation of the subject, the other 4 people on stage sound like grandparents dismissing their grandkid's tastes in music. Elites being elites in other words.
@@muchomusiclibre I guess you voted Brexit and liked Trump. Or vice versa.
@@azanulbizar12 That is what is called Knee Jerking! What does it matter who one voted for? What matters is ones ability and desire to contribute to a better life that is not artificial
The BBC guy accidentally said company instead of country - Freudian slip
HAHAHAJAJ😂😂😂😂
He also told that girl to "man up", he clearly hasn't been paying attention.
Noted
Maybe it was a Freudian slip the country should be more like a family or clan but it's run more like a business. I obviously realise that's good when it comes to dealing with other countries but I mean for example when Thatcher closed down the mines the miners got treated like a septic limb that needed to be amputated, rather than treat them like you would family and make sure you retrained them and gave them help setting them on a new path. Look I don't know the ins and outs of all that I'm not even saying I could do it better I don't want to talk about Thatcher it was more of an example of how running the social aspects of the country like a business rather than a family is a really crap way of treating your own people or any people I think alot of the immigration is encouraged to devide the people to more and more separate groups there by getting rid of the people's solidarity pluss they can pit us all against each other so we fight amongst ourselves while the elites carry on f@cking us over business as usual.
She cracks me up when she's talking about media lies from the right. Give me a break. The media is mostly liberal and the lies they give are and many and often.
And typically she selectively quotes extreme as representative. Whilst being wilfully ignorant of the mass of actual undoctored footage of MSM FAKE NEWS. cnn msnbc nyt wash post +++ I say this as an ashamed employee of the bbc ( I refuse to use cap lock for these discreditrd organs)
If populism means putting your own country and it's people first then I'm all for it...
Well there we go, well-educated affluent people with great jobs and huge pensions don't understand why people are angry nobody got prosecuted for the 2008 banking and debt-accreditation frauds. PS, jabbering about it at Oxford University isn't great optics.
The rich pull up the ladder behind them and history just repeats itself
It’s because the leftist has been completely destroyed by neoliberal capitalism and have failed to rally with proper leftist policies in order to increase quality of lives of the working class which will undermine populism
@@charliehoran3680 leftists do not seek to improve the lives of the working class, leftists seek to control the working class as a power base.
@@darthkek1953 conservatives don’t want to improve the lives of anyone bar the upper class
If by 'liberals' you mean neoliberals then yes populism is their fault.
@@yellowbrand As in the Clintons.
Third way, which has kind of enabled laissez faire because it's so weak.
@@yellowbrand Clintons ARE laissez faire capitalists
#Rsync - No, they misused the word. It’s against Progressives/Socialism; which have gone and sided with the Globalists who ODDLY are the most powerful and richest people, orgs and Banksters in the world. Something the Libs used to reject
Spot on #Rsync yet neoliberal was mentioned only once that I caught.
I love how in her first statements talking about populists she doesn't mention a single leftist movement. If that doesn't give her away, I don't know what does. hahaha
Exactly. It’s like she saw the word “neoliberal” and assumed that it was actually liberal or leftist.
"Populism " is democracy ,is it not ?
They did address that point.
If your let a majority abuse a minority it isn't democracy any more even if it is the will of the people.
@@fuckfannyfiddlefart The minority was not abused and we are talking about a vote ! NB How a minority, reaching a majority, seizing power,hates a minority .
@@fuckfannyfiddlefart Thats why the yanks have the Constitutional Republic Bill of Rights only the so called Liberals want to dismantle it.
Populism specifically argues there is an "elite" working against or disregarding the needs of "everyday people." The problem is that has universally manifested itself as an "us vs them" division. It's a trajectory that leads to ethnic, nationalist, political or religious violence.
@@twelvecatsinatrenchcoatHi "populism" ....................leads to ethnic,nationalist.political,or religious violence ? So does dictatorship and minority .
John Simpson was what i called a real investigative journalist. Unfortunately he has become part of the left woke crowd.
Yes,I used to respect him,now he's just another anti-Trump CNN mouthpiece,a lazy journalist that just accepts spoon-fed 'facts'
Love Dan Hannon. "why did nobody ask people why they voted the way they voted, maybe the problem is in there somwhere?" Rest of the pannel "populist leaders bad, orange man particularly bad". Single handedly got the rest of the panel to demonstrate why liberalism is dieing and populism is flourishing.
furrycannon I’ve been asking that question ever since the result of the referendum but it hasn’t crossed the minds of the politicians or the Remainers
Daniel Hannon is extremely articulate and talks so much sense. I’ve always wondered why the referendum result didn’t alert people to the big divide in country and if the liberals are so empathetic why aren’t they trying to understand the problem instead of considering themselves to be above it all? It’s because they are arrogant and have lost touch.
It’s because politics has become more about winning points and winning votes than about governing, and that’s due to the way our elections work really, and the bipartisanship we have in this country. That and most voters simply don’t know what they’re really voting for, the messaging is never very clear, and no one wants to do anything drastic or against the neo-liberal status quo because it might lose them public favour, which means when someone DOES do this (like The Brexit Party) they very quickly gain traction regardless of whether they’re right or even whether they make good points. Voters didn’t do a for and against chart in their heads, they voted against their own interests because the marketing fed to them was appealing. They thought they were taking back control from the EU (thanks Dominic Cummings for that line), instead they should’ve been focussed on taking back control from big business and crooked government. The referendum was a result of a HUGE misinformation campaign with LOTS of money behind it. To me, it only pointed out that people are unhappy (which we already knew, but because of Brexit the focus was taken away from austerity and inequality and the real reasons behind this unhappiness and directed towards immigration (which has a net benefit) and the EU, which didn’t govern our country nearly as much as they were led to believe) and that money talks, just not always in obvious ways. The right-wing deliberately pits the public against the left-wing because it’s the best way to keep power and to further their own agendas (usually focussed on the wills of their donors and less on the public). The public should be voting in the interests of the whole country, instead they seem to vote for their individual benefit, ironically ignoring that what benefits the most people will ultimately benefit them too, THIS is the divide between left-wing politics and almost all other ideologies. Silly to vote against the EU to benefit your own small business at the expense of the wider economy.
@@AreMullets4AustraliansOnly My take on things (and could be wrong!) is neo-liberalism created a vast wealth as mentioned in the early part of the video. I agree with this. In doing this it created institutions like government think tanks expanded public services more administration state controlled media etc. This apparatus was then replicated at the international level (EU, NATO, IMF, World Bank). This is reasonable, after all this way of managing society had proven to be successful so why change a winning formula?
Then two things happened 1. Financial Shocks 2. The rise of social media
As with all financial crashes (as far as I am aware) the part of society that suffered the most were the poor and middle class - services cut to the poor and the middle class increased taxes less jobs, and nobody of any note was held accountable. Now this had happened before, so what's the big deal? Social Media allowed independents (some honourable some not so) to give a different perspective vs Government controlled media / long existing media, which in effect followed the establishment line.
This new source of information fed into society that "hey what did we do so wrong and why are we carrying the can?" Now you can argue that this is not true but I don't think anyone can argue that it didn't happen,
Meanwhile the national governments in creating international alliances began to move more towards multiculturalism (and again this makes sense if you are emersed into a multi-cultural society you gravitate to this. But if you are NOT involved in this (like say Sunderland) then this creates a divide that becomes bigger over time as the two roads become more and more divergent. The "establishment" was going a lot faster than the populace was.
Circle back to the "Hey why am I been expected to pay for this and I didn't cause it?" combined with "I have no idea what those guys are up to anymore" created the scenario for the rise in Trump (Sunderland = Rust belt states) and Brexit. The "carrying the can" created the resentment and the independent social media pointed this frustration at the establishment. Cue Trump et al who then stepped into the breach and basically said "We'll reverse what those well paid bureaucrats have wrought".
This to mind appealed to parts of society who perceived an injustice to have been done to say "Yes I'll have some of what you are selling".
So in conclusion I agree that liberalism and more specifically the apparatus created lost touch with and then ignored the populace and therefore played a big part in the rise of populists.
One final stat to add to this - White Male Working Class represents 12% of the population but only 5% of the university going population. This is the second lowest class of people in colleges, the traveler population is the lowest. This screams to the disconnect between the establishment and society.
@@AreMullets4AustraliansOnly you are exactly part of the problem of why people voted for Brexit and Trump in America. The fact that you say the same annoying things that made people vote forBrexit, and abandon the Labour Party for the cons, while blaming politicians for doing the same thing is so funny. People know exactly why they voted for Brexit. They did it because they wanted to govern themselves, make their own decisions about I migration and not by corrupt, unelected, politicians that know nothing nothing about the UK, or Greece when they are thousands of miles away. People are not stupid like you make them out to be sir.
@@thomasneedham1224 So beliveving that NHS would receive 350 million £ if UK left the EU is not being stupid and willing to believe anything populist leaders say? That was misinformation, but you can't challenge it when you are blinded by emotional and hysterical nationalism.
@@azanulbizar12 get over it already you sore loser. Your side lost.
This is what it looks like when elites have no idea what’s going on, and get on a stage and blather. One guy understood it, the others are lost.
Why didn't they invite you to speak? Perhaps your speaking schedule is full. I know it is demanding when one is so brilliant.
Bill Freed
I gave one guy his due. The others are lost.
Is there a reason why you don't hold a little gathering, record it and put it on line?
Calorus
Sure, it would be pretty quick. I’ll summarize....
‘Progressive/Liberal ideology is consequentialist and toxic to the moral well being of society.’
Kaireh Ismail
I agree for the most part. Ergo, the future is bleak.
I'm 11 minutes in, and the lady with the glasses on her head is already on my last nerve with her "talking in circles", hedging and placative rhetoric.
I stopped when she painted Trump and Balsonaro as liberal populists. These men are conservative right-wing fascists. And I’ve never heard a woman speak where you could tell her nose was stuck so high up in the air. She’s so snooty I’ll bet she would drown if she got caught in a rainstorm without an umbrella.
@Zippity Trump is more like a 1980's business democrat. His stances on gun control reflect that. Borders are simply something that have always existed even the poorest nations throughout all of human history. If anything- the extreme, utopian, unworkable stance- is - the denial that such things are still needed to maintain a nation.
The Wall Street Journal
This isn’t the 1980’s and you cannot define a person by a cherry-picked view on one topic. As long as white, right wing, evangelicals that worship the military, police, the flag, wars, anti-gay, racist, anti marijuana legalization, nationalism and tax cutting small government Republicans are his base, he is not a liberal.
I can understand why conservatives are trying to flip it and blame progressive for his ignorance though.
@@NicePersonNumberSeven ok... I can agree with some of what you say, if I put my hyperbole filters on, but not all of it.
You're right that it isn't the 80's. People in America have moved further from racism, sexism and anti-homosexual views since then. Largely, newer generations, like mine (gen x), helped produce that cultural change.
But whats also shifted is a quick-to-judge-ness, and a stubbornness politically that I've never seen until the last 10 years.
The last 10 years coincides with the rise of internet social media. I think it's made us more judgemental and angry.
All this is to say that I don't think Trump is fascist. I'd say he's conservative only insofar as he's rolled back some Obama era changes, like parts of the ACA.
I think too many people, like these panelists in the video, like to use strong-sounding political words, without really having an in-depth understanding of what they really mean.
Monty Cantsin
Agreed except I think cable news has caused the divide. The very entrenched folks are the MSNBC and CNN Russia-gators and the elderly Fox News viewers. Like you said, the younger generation that doesn’t rely on television are not as immovable. The youth (everyone is youthful compared to me) are much better at culling dishonest news sources and better at defining reasonable views.
We saw this reflected in Hillary’s emails from Wikileaks where Hillary’s campaign complained about the political audience on the colleges campus being hard to handle because they were more informed and willing and eager to confront them on debate.
One thing I notice about the young from university background is most might as well be the same person, you here the same words, and virtue signalling, it's almost as they are realing out the stuff their teachers, professors feed them do they even tell you how to think now as apposed to what to think, I have to ask why pay thousands of pounds to learn to self-loath, self hate yourself and culture, the what seems to be pathological guilt for the past as well its cringe, maybe alot have found out about what some of their families got up to in the past but please stop projecting it onto all of us, yes don't forget, and acknowledge, but people will never move on, I also worry that it will cause trouble when the demographics are higher of certain groups, it will end up with trouble, also the British weren't the only empire, theirs to much concentration of the big bad empirical white people, maybe start bigging up the advances and the benifits it's brought people, people have never had it so good yet now people are being taught how bad everybody has it, victim mentality needs to stop being pushed so much. The everyday working class people find it hard to see the victim hood in certain people
Haidt describes a study in which he examines how well liberals, conservatives, and moderates understand each other. From his book The Righteous Mind:
"When I speak to liberal audiences about the three “binding” foundations - Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity - I find that many in the audience don’t just fail to resonate; they actively reject these concerns as immoral. Loyalty to a group shrinks the moral circle; it is the basis of racism and exclusion, they say. Authority is oppression. Sanctity is religious mumbo-jumbo whose only function is to suppress female sexuality and justify homophobia."
"In a study I did with Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than two thousand American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a “typical liberal” would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a “typical conservative” would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing people’s expectations about “typical” partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right)’ Who was best able to pretend to be the other?"
"The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with questions such as “One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal” or ”Justice is the most important requirement for a society,” liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree. If you have a moral matrix built primarily on intuitions about care and fairness (as equality), and you listen to the Reagan [i.e., conservative] narrative, what else could you think? Reagan seems completely unconcerned about" the welfare of drug addicts, poor people, and gay people. He’s more interested in fighting wars and telling people how to run their sex lives."
"If you don’t see that Reagan is pursuing positive values of Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity, you almost have to conclude that Republicans see no positive value in Care and Fairness.
You might even go as far as Michael Feingold, a theater critic for the liberal newspaper the Village Voice, when he wrote: "Republicans don’t believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don’t give a hoot about human beings, either can’t or won’t. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm."
One of the many ironies in this quotation is that it shows the inability of a theater critic-who skillfully enters fantastical imaginary worlds for a living-to imagine that Republicans act within a moral matrix that differs from his own. Morality binds and blinds."
American politics is an extension of the American Civil War. Meaning American Conservatives are fighting, defending and upholding the supremacy of a a section of declining white segments interest in continued societal rule.
The rest you wrote is just prejudice mascareding as social science.
"mascareding"
@@Aan_allein Take it for what you wish, those are not my words but a quote of words written by a liberal Phycologist who claimed these are his findings from a study he engaged in for nearly a decade. I will state one fact I have seen over 50 years however, the most prejudice strains of thought and action I've ever encountered were from people claiming to be liberal - anyone who tosses people into classes and boxes via physical immutable attributes are prejudice - that is what profiling exactly is.
@@Johnny_Savage Yes, he meant "masquerading" but I see no reason to point spelling mistakes.
"finally inequality is at the center of our debates in the year 2019, for such a long time it was just on the fringes"
this is getting painful to watch
He meant to say 1919.
@@bourbonchicken except it was her who said that, you even watch it or just like smugly commenting?
It’s a number often overlooked, but over two thirds of immigrants to the UK are from former colonies such as India, Pakistan, Nigeria, etc. NOT the EU.
And there's too many of them too. I have no problem with them it's just the sheer numbers and the lack of assimilation that bothers me.
I am glad i persisted ; she finally hit the nail on the head with her clarity around neo liberalism and everything that has blown out of that ....that’s the transformation...in our lives which is what is at the root of the malaise and with subtle changes it is the same problem everywhere around the world where this corrupt form of capitalism is practiced; simple.
There’s corrupt capitalism for sure
But if you think it’s not more widespread in socialism and/or communism you have another thing coming
For each action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So now, let us reconsider who really should be blamed for the rise of populism.......
If I try to stop your bleeding wound, and you punch me in the face, that’s an action with an equal and opposite reaction, was I wrong to try to help you?
@@AreMullets4AustraliansOnly We’re you the one that caused the wound in the first place? Was it intentional?
@@AreMullets4AustraliansOnly Well, it depends on if your idea of "help" is raising taxes, banning cars, promoting "equity" and the like.
What a mess of a debate. Everyone was talking past each other. Nobody agreed to what they were talking about before the debate? I think debate organizers failed...
Is liberal a classical liberal in the vein of Smith, Locke, etc?
Is liberal a US type libertarian, free market apologist?
Is liberal like the people who flipped the term in 20th century, like Roosevelt and Wilson?
Is liberal more like a neoliberal of the 90's, Clinton, Yuppies, professional class?
Is liberal like the equivalent of social democrats in USA, progressives as an alternative to neoliberals?
Is liberal like SJW, online perpetual outrage machine of the left?
Organizers could not have picked a worse word, and it derailed the whole discussion.... At they should have agreed before hand what the word means, not try to define ad hoc on stage and make a mess...
I believe they touched on that at the beginning but yes I think half the issue on this, is a murky cultural definition that we have in the West, where everyone's own idea about the word is unique with no central consensus. I'm not American so I can't speak for them but I'm very sure that Libertarian(as a word) did not originate from Liberal. It's origin is in the word Liberty or Libertas in the Latin.
Agreed. What the term 'liberal' means currently depends on who is using it and why, and the various interpretations of the term needed to be thoroughly laid bare before this discussion could progress in any useful way.
As I see it in the UK, the contemporary use of 'liberal' as a term of disparagement equated with 'social justice warrior', anti-racist, ferminist, person on the left etc. as used widely online by the US conservative right, has no obvious connection to British economic liberalism, or the 'neo-liberal' consensus of the nineteen eighties onwards. The former use stereotypes and trivialises the political left, whilst the second denotes the market-fundamentalism favoured by the right. A contention like 'liberals are to blame for populism can't reasonably be addressed without unpicking this ambiguity in the word.
So the term 'liberal' can be used conveniently to denote those on polar extremes of the political spectrum and its very slipperiness proves useful for right-wing populism. It permits the lumping together of both the advocates of unregulated capital (the 'elites') and the political left who would seek to critique and overthrow that same system. The misunderstanding or misuse of 'liberal' and 'liberalism' helps populists to co-opt popular outrage at an economic system but to deflect criticism away from the system itself (the real 'liberals') and refocus it on those who actually oppose the system (the left stereotyped as over-moralising authoritarians).
The guy sitting second from the right is keen to demonstrate this with his interjections about 'left liberals'. The phrase is an patent oxymoron for the British left and the peculiarity is perhaps a product of it being an online importation from a country which has historically been more stridently anti-socialist than Britain.
Vaidas Sukaukas Please don't do that! You are misrepresenting me, a social democrat. People on this comments section may confuse us for those left wing totalitarian Bernie Bro nut jobs in America. We are social democrats, the are democratic socialists. Here's the difference it's all in the wording. We are capitalists who accept that a certain number of limited social programmes are necessary in society. They are socialists who believe in the democratic process (Usually socialists don't eg Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini) while it suits their needs. The wording is similar but the difference is huge.
@@miloholmans9665 Both liberal and libertarian originate from the latin word Liber, meaning Free. It's just a quirk of history, that in USA liberals came to be called libertarians.
@@thebaconsnake Thank you, your comment had such great clarity. You are absolutely right.
the woman on the total left is smart as hell yet offers no solutions , i wish there had been a topic to debate about rather than talk in circles
Feminist = socialist. Women tend to fall on the emotional side of any debate. This means they struggle to come to conclusion.
@Gayle Elizabeth yes you get it
Blame. The problem with so many things in the world today. It solves _nothing._
I do not believe we have been more supportive of immigration in the last few years.
Populism divides into 2 groups, the 1% and the 99%. Sounds like a fucking fantastic idea to me
The lady on the left doesn't really say anything the entire conversation.
She is an anxiety driven wreck of a person.
Several times she disagreed with people without ever giving a reason as to why they were wrong.
@@gerardmulder7656 LOL. I was thinking the same thing. She's a sad and delicate flower, wilting from the very presence of populism in her world.
She simply emotes feelings while droning on about equality and respect for minorities, as if we all have not been beaten over the head with that message for the last 50 years.
@@nerthus4685 yup.
Great debate (as in funny): love the super-articulate guy in the blue suit - not what he said, just the way he said it. Only joking - what he said was pretty good too. Just two points - Brexit in the UK was won by that section of the populace who were desperate to stop Islamic migration (which no one says). And the threat of Islam is the elephant in the room here - and the fact no one is even touching on this is quite possible the reason for the fog. The Turkish women was a perfect example of the elites who have learned nothing. Her old neo-Marxist views spilling out between the talk of freedoms.
It was the left that turned authoritarian (against free speech Mrs - labelling everyone who dissents as evil etc) when it thought it had won, just like the right always said it would. However - they showed their hand too soon. Hence the populist backlash (in the West). Now the left are backtracking - but will those who voted left - and even left the left, ever trust the left again? I doubt this - and who will suffer. The usual people - the weak, the people that old commie still pretending her ideology cares about.
Neo-Marxist? Is everything to the left of Genghis Khan "marxist" for you?
@@Magnulus76 Well there are so many claimed variations on what Marxism is, like Islam, those who punt it are about as truthful as a member of the Albanian mafia on his asylum claim. I find "neo-Marxist" is a good blanket term - other prefer "those utter c**** " but I prefer neo-marxist.
"Most of the criticism comes from the far right?" What?
Any criticism of 'progressive values is apparently far right.
i cant take seriously someone with 1 fingerless glove on.
Matt Goodwin and Daniel were excellent in this
Elif Shafak, a writer, storyteller, essayist, academic, public speaker, and women's rights activist, underscores the sadness that I am host to of Turkey, a country which I do value as much as I value Greece, the country that my parents are from.
"As a writer who believes in the freedom of speech and the importance of diversity, minority rights, I am very used to defending Liberal values and Liberal democracy in a country like Turkey where sadly, today, there is no freedom of speech and where minority rights are being trampled upon. And, there is zero appreciation for diversity. So, against that background, I am very used to defending Liberal democracy.
But, I never thought that I would feel the need to defend Liberals and Liberal values here in London, in the hearts of the country that has given us some of the biggest and earliest Liberal political philosophers in world history.
So, it feels a little bit surreal for me. But, we are where we are. It's the year 2019 and we have to discuss this. I think it's going to be one of the major debates in front of us."
It may be that populism, nationalism, and other such -isms are descriptors which may be obscuring what may be happening and which we, the general public/populace, are often powerless to impede. Harmful governments and their enablers are exploiting the freedoms that Liberal democracies have fought, struggled, and lost countless lives for. Harmful governments and their enablers adding to the hardships of others while increasing their own wealth and power appear to be the norm. Things have to change. May they change sooner than later.
You have forgotten to NAME the panel. "A panel of experts" but no names. First time I've seen that in the video description for a proper debate. Can you please list each participant by name. Thank you.
Eli shafak
Daniel Hannan
Those are the two I know.
In a multicultural society, all politics becomes identity politics.
Elif, the lady on the left in panel, talked a lot but said very little!
That's their idea of communication. : (
She told us all about her feelings, isn't that enough for you?
'Feelings,
Nothing more than feelings...
Trying to forget yououououououououou...'
@@markkavanagh7377 She also is a populist.
Smokin' hot though right?
"liberal democracy is not a bed of roses but it is a better system than anyone has come up with so far"
Where have I heard that before...
The People opposed to Rule-by-Experts.
Or rather psuedoexperts.
Elif Shafak simply can not stay on topic or respond honestly to a question without speaking in metaphors. Her faux-compassionate, “we need to talk about...we should be very concerned about...we need to keep an eye on” prefixes are very grating too.
The fellow with the green tie is solid. He is right about the bailouts as a revealing moment.
There is no 'community cohesion' without common values and identity. Most cultures and ethnicities rub along fine together but others do not. We should not have to tolerate cultures and values that are diametrically opposed to our own or that expect us to put their interests above our own. Period.
Social cohesion/ community solidarity was among the first casualties on the Globalist altar and their mass immigration/open labour source ideology!
Yes. Lets blame people for the actions of others. That'll solve it!
OK, fine, using the word 'Blame' has shaded the whole question, really the debate is, could Liberals have done something to avoid the rise of Populism. Your example of jumping on the specific wording rather than the intent of the debate in order to provide an easy dismissal of the problem is precisely the type of unwillingness to engage on the issue that has caused 'liberalism' to lose its position in the world.
@@arthurbiggins *_"could Liberals have done something to avoid the rise of Populism."_*
Yea, they could stifle right-wing propaganda. Of course, that would require severely curtailing freedom of speech, so they wouldn't be liberals anymore.
Alternatively, you could just purge the regressive populist elements of society. But once again, if you're purging people from society, you're not liberal.
So I'm going with "No, liberals couldn't do this".
@@Falcrist What Liberals could have done is distance themselves from the rising tide of 'social justice' campaigners, who wrap themselves in the cloak of Liberalism, but in fact (as Matt in this presentation put so well) are espousing an intolerant ideology that does not brook discussion. In my opinion.
@@arthurbiggins And once again, you're blaming people for the actions of others.
@@Falcrist then I have failed to make myself understood.
Elif Shafak at 11:40: "Most of the criticism comes from the far right, populist right. They lump everybody into one group."
Does she even realize the irony in that sentence? "I will lump the critics into one conflated group: populist far right. It's ok when I do it."
When in doubt, ask yourself one question: Would I still make the broad claims I make and would they apply to me, if I were on the opposite side? If you immediately start mental juggling to justify why it's asymmetrical and always to your advantage, congratulations, you're a partisan zealot.
Magnificent commentary.
It’s not the left that uses idiotic acronyms like SJW and NPC or “regressives”. Right wingers poison the dialogue cynically - and lumping critics is not the same as lumping entire groups
This discussion could have been helped by clearer differentiation of the two quite different meanings of liberalism. Classical liberalism had its term highjacked by progressives in the early 20th century. For many today liberalism means left leaning.
Current Liberals bear ABSOLUTELY no resemblance to Classical Liberals.
Bruce they mention it at 16:54, you just missed it.
The woman from Turkey is in denial, absolutely as those on the panel criticising liberals maintain liberals are. She just asserts her own position, says that it represents all liberals, and refuses to engage.
Well, at least they're starting to think about asking the right questions....
And that will be the end of their thinking.
Haven't watched it yet but it sounds like such a cold take
Next step is that they try to answer their questions. I know, much to ask.
Why not call them non globalist parties
Finally implicitly got there after 37 minutes, although Islam wasn't mentioned.
The guy to the right of the moderator is fantastic. The woman from Turkey is right that it is neoliberalism that is the problem, not liberalism. Liberalism no longer exists apart from Bernie Sanders.
Why is that lightweight Simpson on the panel? Surely, they could get a better class of drone thinker, chuntering Guardianese cliches for oh-so neutral BBC chums?
"Populism" is such a dishonest word how ever it is defined. People forget the "Stupid ignorant masses" were the only people trying to defend Democracy and opposed every Dictatorship, Communist, Fascist and Nazi. It was academics, from playwrights to journalists to every noble prize winner and every student movement who still refused to denounce the Nazi's even when the UK stood alone against Hitler who was the last person to be accused of "Right-Wing" Fascism. This view of history, coming from the very demographic who supported the Dictators is out right disgusting.
I am sad to see the empty seats in the auditorium. This i, relatively, the best debate on these issues that I've seen in quite a while. Without the big stars on the podium, the conversation went better. Very good!
I would say to the Turkish lady: "The people are ALL persons, who are not connected, have no ties with power and the elite, the very rich and the powerful."
Elif Shafak is intelligence inverted
Her liberal points are empty and nonsensical. Even progressives take these liberals apart.
@Yama Kazoo time stamp? I must have missed her saying that second part
@Yama Kazoo she never said it... You're hallucinating pink haired college SJWs. These aren't American media corporation definitions of Liberal. They're talking about the same kind of Liberalism the American Founding Fathers were inspired by, Scottish Enlightenment philosophers like Adam Smith and John Locke. Basically all Americans who aren't Marxist are Liberal, Trump included, or else you're anti-American.
Turn off the Cable news clips and try reading a book written more than 50 years ago.
@@metalboostable my last message applies to you also. Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington would not be torn apart by snowflake progressives. Get a grip on reality. Liberalism built American Enterprise.
@Yama Kazoo everything they were talking about was Liberalism from the British perspective. The British Liberal party is their version of a right wing party, basically meaning "capitalism" and "individualism". She was talking about individual rights and liberty the whole time, this is Liberalism.
You'll notice they called Trump liberal. Only when the dude mentioned Limbaugh did they refer to what you're imagining.
She said nothing similar to 1960s radical feminism. She simply talked about women having human rights, this is also Classical Liberalism, look at Mary Wollenstonecraft the Liberal author of The Rights of Man and other works.
Nobody defined populism for what it is, they dodged the question. Populism is a way of doing politics and public debate, that gains power by telling the group what they want to hear, not the truth.
It's interesting how Liberals are hated by both the right-wing and the left wing
TheSquad plus1 so we can learn. The US Liberals had the nerve and confidence to run fucking Hillary Clinton (possible the rightfully most hated woman in America) and that they'd get away with it? Clearly their thinking WAS impaired. They DID do something wrong, and we need to see why they had such an absurd lapse in judgement. They didn't consider any of the opposition a threat and didn't satisfy the wants of many republicans when obama was in. The reason there needs to be blame is so they learn, and I think they have. Look at how many self-deemed 'socialists' are running in America for the democrats. They're actually looking to support the working class now.
Twat
Don’t bet on them learning anything at all. The DNC purged people who had supported Bernie Sanders on 2016. They recent held a meeting on how to stop the momentum of Sanders that included Pete Buttigeig and Nancy Pelosi. The corporate media and corporate newspapers are nonstop critical of Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard and they are pushing Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren hard.
Plus to avoid learning anything from 2016, they spent 3 years on this silly Russiagate theory which they still embrace and are now using to smear Tulsi Gabbard. First Sanders was a Russia plant, then Jill Stein, then Trump, and now Tulsi. The liberals are just as clueless as Right Winger birtherism / Benghazi nuts.
Elif is an advert for steve Bannon.
You keep doing what you're doing - we'll keep winning.
Bannon is based.
Who are these elite? This question never gets answered
You can just Google them yk
Bankers, Capitalists, Media, Government, Education, Culture, etc. They all have a relatively small constellation at the top which holds most of the influence. Each respective elite has its own interests, but they often find common ground and cooperate.
@bj0rn
What is that common ground? Much of those fields you just listed are heavily occupied by those who call themselves “chosen”. I don’t believe in coincidences, these people are organized. There is also this:
bloodyshovel wordpress com/2017/11/14/biological-leninism/
theamericansun com/2019/01/09/cloak-in-woke-woke-capital-as-a-strategy/
It doesn’t matter who they are. They are humans and any of us would be doing what they are doing if we were them. People with that kind of money and power are almost alien to most people. What we need to focus on is building a system in which the people have control. Populism is smeared here as sort of mob rule and by the elites who would not exist in a communist system.
After the French Revolution they adapted and hid behind so called democratic politics and bankers. Who can blame them...
Liberalism is not the middle ground it is as extreme as any other political ideology. Accountability directly to the people is the only check on extreme policies and the ballot box is the only expression of balance. Brexit with all it's vagaries is the populist expression of frustration of having the checks and balances removed.
Just in Case anyone's interested, the grey haired guys theory isn't as mad as it initially sounds. Anyone who wants more information search the Strauss-Howe Generation theory.
This theory isn't considered to be useful for analysis by the vast majority of historians, it just makes a nice dramatic story and is far too simplistic
its absolutely retarded to be fair
*"Blame Liberals For The Rise Of **-Populism-** Radical Extremists [in Power]"* Populism is not a good or bad thing per se. The term is too broad and needs a modifier in order to define when it is helpful and when it is not.
Brexit was all about protecting Liberal values, protecting our democracy and our individual freedoms.
That comment didn’t age well Claire.
ELITISTS discussing definning " populism." ............ Says it ALL.
There is one key element that was not discussed as a part of the question. Capitalism. They did mention inequality some, but the root to that and much of the anxiety that drives Liberals and Populists is Capitalism. As John Simpson did indicate, we have been prosperous for many decades and everyone for the most part was satisfied with their "positions" in life. Then something happened in the early 1980's. The change to empower Capitalists and Globalization. It was this dramatic shift that has continued to this day that has left more and more of the population of the world behind. Think about it, over 50% of the world's wealth goes to the top 1% of the global population. The bottom 90% have to fight for the remaining crumbs and it is only getting worse.
It's easy for the Populists, which could be considered Nationalists, to point to the "others" as the problem and the elite on the one side stoke that message to distract them, generally causing a racial divide. On the other side the Liberal elite stoke the equality message, but never come up with real solutions to address the problem, further exacerbating the racial undertones. Both are only distracting and dividing the population keeping the top 1% in control and doing nothing more than transferring more wealth in their direction. If you were doing well, living a decent life, not necessarily rich, and your "foreign" (not of your racial background) neighbor was also doing well, would you care about them or would they care about you? I would argue that neither would care about the other being there or how well they were doing. There will always be racists, but it is the quality of life one is experiencing that creates wide-spread racism in an attempt to blame someone else for one's own current situation. Too many have been brainwashed into believing they can be in the top 1% if we just would believe in Capitalism and what it can deliver. Everyone needs to realize that Capitalism only has one rule. Making a profit at the expense of others. The top 1% will never move to being the top 5% and certainly will never get anywhere near the top 50% in equal distribution of wealth that is expected by most. This is the real divide we need to come to grips with and its name is Capitalism. Not everyone can or should be wealthy, but everyone has a right to live a decent and productive life and not be cast aside in the name of Capitalism, and nobody has the right to gain wealth at the expense of another. Conservatives claim big government is a redistribution of wealth. I argue the same applies to Capitalism. It takes from the system, labor, resources, etc., and gives to the shareholders all the profit, at the expense of others in the form of low wages, pollution and wasted resources. It does not allow for all to thrive. By design there can only be a few who will benefit if left unfettered as the trend is today with deregulation, lower taxes and trade treaties protecting companies. Capitalism needs to be reigned in if we are to ever get to a civil society.
@@OpiumBride - not me. I figured out a long time ago the difference between wants and needs. My phone is an off brand I purchased about 2 years ago now and would not have purchased it but for my old phone dying after 5 years. It serves the purpose I need it for. Same for much of what I own. You are right about some who have been brainwashed by capitalist marketing into convincing them that they "need" that new iPhone. Many do need to wake up and discover what "need" really means.
@@edbenton5899 100%
@@OpiumBride Pure strawman, gross generalization, hollow virtue signaling, zero substance. Comments like these truly give me cancer everytime.
What nonsense. Look at the data. We have never been so rich, no one has been 'left behind'. Yes, some people have become much richer than others because they have contributed more (as determined by the market, and if you have a better way of measuring contribution I would like to hear it). But everyone has become richer. Since the end of the 1970's, real incomes for the poor have more than doubled, public spending is at a record high, employment is now at a record high, inequality has been static to falling for the past 30 years in the UK, medical and technological progress is at a record high, living standards are at a record high, access to higher education is at a record high.
importantjohn A better measure of progress might be that we look at the total increase or progress for the world and see how that has been distributed. It’s really pointless if 99% of that has gone to 1%. How in this deeply interdependent world will this bring overall peace and happiness for anyone.
I think one of the panelist opposed European integration to globalism in line with saying European integration reduces freedom and globalism is liberating. It is in fact China, a totalitarian state, who benefitted the most from globalism, now, China raised hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, but the European integration project seems still way more appealing than the Chinese way.
I so hope we keep"lurching" further towards more populism.
Blame stupidity of human beings for the rise of populism. Stupidity, intellectual laziness, tribal fear and the desire for simple solutions to complex issues.
Turkish lady felt out of place, she comes from a place where the situation and the politics are completely different. She really brought down the level of the discussion tbh.
Populism is politics that appeals to the masses. So... democracy.
I disagree with the title of the debate. It can be misleading.
I would define liberalism as a balance between democracy and liberty. It is a form of government. Populism is a sociological perspective. It seeks a shifting in that balance toward democracy. This comes at the expense of liberty. On the left, this liberty that is being infringed is the supposed 'property rights' of the wealthy, and on the right, this liberty is other minority rights.
Is this really the best woman you could find? She is not at the same level. She is an emotional freak. Why not include an analytical woman and an emotional freak if you really need the latter?
She is the only panelists allowed to rant and rant. Why doesn't people stop her?
Lefties will will always complain about neoliberalism but never point to a nation that has adopted an alternative that works sustainably in the long run . China, India and Vietnam liberalising their economies to varying degrees has lifted 100s of millions from poverty. Are lefties against that? A number of years ago they were going on about Venezuela (even including nobel prize economists like Stiglitz), now they have gone quiet. The UK declined after WW2 after nationalising a large share of their economy and went from the richest country in Europe to becoming poorer than France, Germany and Italy. A few decades after Thatcher UK gdp pc had surpassed all 3 countries.
Elif Shafak does an amazing job with her thoughtfulness, understanding of both sides and she's the one who really answers the question (57:07) highlighting issues with the "left" but underlying historical issues such as representation, class barriers, inequality, unrestrained markets, demographics, and social media.
Frankly, I felt the exact opposite. She didn't define populism at the start, she went on to bring any part of the discussion back to class warfare through a personal definition of it that seemed to boil down to 'anything that targets x'. The two gentlemen on the right seemed to have a better grasp on things.
Props to the audience for their questions and all of the panel members for a good discussion regardless.
He argues that liberalism is to blame for populism, but conservatism is to blame for progressive liberalism. At least in America, anyway.
The flakey Turkish lady keeps getting invited onto these panels but she makes little sense. What does she know about Britain?
The discussion wasn’t about Britain.
So this is a debate on populism ... without any populist on stage ?
Why does populism get such a bad rap? Isn’t it a core virtue of democracy?
Just shut up and do what brown people tell you antisemite
Puppet Perception Haha but Bernie Sanders is a populist and a Jew
Goodwin spot on, Hannon is good but too polite
Nicely loaded blurb above . Well at least , from the beginning its obvious that you are Biased .
Matthew Goodwin gave a very coherent argument that actually reflected what the average person actually thinks rather than intellectualising every topic to the point where it becomes some esoteric nonsense or some ad for UNICEF. Daniel Hannan's good but as a politician he thinks in terms of policy. But ,hey! That's what we pay him for!
I thought the same. Goodwin seemed the only one to really 'get it', get what was driving the popular disquiet with the agenda the political and media elites keep pushing. And when he brought up mass immigration/demographic change, I thought a tumbleweed should have rolled across the stage...…….no one else was going to touch that one!
Daniel Hannan belongs to the same political class who supports policies turning ethnic English to minorities in their homeland
There are the same discussions since years but no action about, for example, inequality ! There is nothing but talks, tales and talkshows. From my perspective there is no interest to change anything.
I totally agree with you, it is getting even tiring to discuss about that.
Unfortunately I think we're all prioritising the wrong things. Trump and Brexit supporters/haters have just doubled down. They've all refused to address the issue - hence why Trump has a good shot at winning next term, and why Brexit hasn't been dealt with and the situations even more dire.
I could not agree more. I suppose its because people do not look to blaming Wall St., big banks and corporations and putting their bodies on the line. The system must go.
Ron Krate exactly. Doesn't help when America starts relaxing the banking regulations imposed as a result of the financial crisis...when they weren't strict enough in the first place...
There's no hope for most of these types. They swim around in their little fishbowl thinking they are educated, when in fact they insist on turning their head the other way any time they even get close to pertinent issues.
To me: the woman comes across as soppy, silly, and fuzzy-thinking.
She was infuriating for a couple of minutes in the middle of the debate but she has some good points.
@@amalguptan6716 She needed a large cup of coffee and pair of testicles.
>Believing a woman’s political opinion in the current year
People are pissed off at being fucked over by 40 years of "free" market capitalism. None of these four have been particularly hurt by it, and Dan Hannan is all for it. I'm afraid I switched off after 7 minutes.
I always thought populism was a good thing?..
Keeping the majority happy, is one of the best ways to keep the most amount of stabilty.
Just ask Switzerland. The only country with true populism enshrined in its constitution and democratic exercises.
Also a country consistently in the Top 5 in regards for longevity of life, healthcare provision, education, GDP and overall happiness of its citizens.
Not a coincidence in my opinion, when you consider it is a land locked country, with few natural resources or other basic essentials which can be easily capitalised on by other much larger countries.
Im an individualist through and through.
But it's true. Tribalism/Group thinking is what makes people happy.
People usually don't choose to go to the bar/pub with people they don't like.
And it will be the same with politics/ideologies, etc.
Familiarity allows for trust.
Trust allows for co-operation.
Co-operation allows for progress.
Just don't be a Communist about it.
No body is my master.
Kind of amazing that ten minutes in and our regular Times & Guardian columnist hasn't even heard the definition of liberal being offered by a Brexiter, and instead just wants to pour derision on the concept that there could be anything about her values which limit diversity or freedom of expression.
John simpson may have had it good all his life. Don't speak for the rest of us.
The two of you are so bitter. Skilled my arse.. Do you have a degree in scientific discipline? If not you aren't skilled. I see you have already bought into the blame game, poles are responsible for you being on the minimum wage, oh do me a favour..
@MrKingdig We are crying out for more construction workers, there is a massive skills gap. Not sure how you claim your job (or those around you) have been 'taken by a pole'
@MrKingdig Their is a skills shortage. They need more people. There are not enough Brits or Poles etc The company does not need to train you. Get off your arse and train yourself
@MrKingdig A construction engineer isnt skilled in my book. An accountant is skilled, an Actuary is skilled, a practising Doctor or Lawyer is skilled. A Quant or Algo Trader is skilled. So stop blaming others for your shortcomings. As another poster pointed out, we have a lack of construction engineers in the UK anyway..
@MrKingdig Mate bring them on, I have the home ground advantage. As native brit, where English is my mother tongue, if a Pole can beat me out when English isnt his mother tongue and isnt well versed in English culture like say our humour, fair play maybe the sod deserved the job.
Two competition is what Capitalism is all about. It is cut throat and seemingly unfair at times. But skill shows through, so no I am not bothered about a Pole or anyone else for that matter taking my job. In my work I need to make sure I always do one thing, "BLOODY WELL DELIVER!"
Stop making excuses, man the f*** up, work hard and take your place.. That oh its cos of them I dont have X BS I have no time for it.. Sod off
Presided over by a BBC robot . Impartiality out the window there straight away .
Very bad "debate". The left never accepted that they could be wrong. More importantly, they never acknowledged that the problems they were complaining about are the direct result of the leftist/democratic policies that they campaigned for and enacted.
Note how easily our Turkish guest says that liberalism is about freedom, tolerance, love, peace and all that. Such a statement necessarily implies that the opposition to her is against all those things. The left stands for good stuff, so if you don't stand for the left you must not stand for good stuff.
Similarly, she constantly references these "demagogues" when referring to right-wing figures. This is, again, a trick of wording that implies there is no demagoguery on the left. We all know that this is patently false, but she constantly pulls that trick throughout her portions.
House values in the US have been stagnant for decades? Yea, sure. But only because of the policies put in to place by the democrat party, lobbied for by democrat demagogues.
And I would point out that "democracy" is not a good thing. The word "democracy" actually means 'rule of the mob". The US is a Constitutional Republic. There's a very good reason why leftists refuse to use that term, but I'll never understand why rightwing conservative types go along with it. Democracies are always bad things. Always. Mob Rule is what allows demagogues to rise up and do bad things.
So, in the end, yes, you can blame the liberals for the rise of current-era populism. But the important point is that you can see right there on the panel exactly what the problem is --- liberals refuse facts, rely on emotions, and don't care one jot about the fallout from their policies because they are isolated from the ramifications.
Liberalism and democracy are often in tension. Some liberals, when push comes to shove, choose liberalism over democracy. And attacking "populists" is an easy way to justify obscure that that is what you are doing.
Love elif. She could be speaking of India. This is what's happening here.
This debate feels remarkably old even though it’s only 3 years old . A lot has happened since then and Hannah‘s pathetic book about Brexit , for instance , has found its use : toilet paper.
Bullshit to proclaim your immoral behaviour is an economic necessity - that's why we have populism.
Not one pro populist on this panel. What is completey lacking in the forum on "populism" is an actual populist. Next this group can talk about racism against black people.
If Daniel Hannon was the extent of Liberalism, then it would not be worth much. A right wing Tory who backed the Leave Campaign and it's scapegoated xenophobia, only to disagree with this nasty display, hypocritically, two days after the vote.
A bunch of Liberal elitists discussing populism. The only one who was remotely populist was the Brexit guy.
The word “populism” is being used in ways that are as lazy and inappropriate as “fascism”. In my dictionary a populist is “ a person who believes in the right and ability of the common people to play a major part in government.” There’s nothing pejorative about that but the word spills out of the mouths of the left-leaning and chattering classes with a condescending sneer. And their use of the term is very selective : if they were consistent it would be applied to Macron who came from nowhere, formed a party and sprung to power in the space of a few years. He, of course, is approved of as part of the pro-European “in-crowd” and is fawned over as a man of vision and intellect.
When dictionaries are revised may I suggest that the definition of a populist becomes : “ a person whose political views are uninformed, unacceptable and to the right of mine.” Until then, stop misusing it.
The woman is not very intelligent. Comparing democracy in Turkey and Hungary in one sentence. Wtf??? Matt is asking a question. She is shaking her head in disagreement, and then start talking about something else. Wtf? "We need to move beyond. We need to talk about inequality" Wtf??
The guy with the green tie is clear and smart. A Tory saying that the 2008/9 response was to subsidise an undeserving elite. I like it.
If the liberal left and far left has insulted traditional thinking at every level.
What did you think was going to happen.
The Cultural Collapse Progression
1. Removal of religious narrative from people’s
lives, replaced by a treadmill of scientific and technological
“progress.”
2. Elimination of traditional sex roles through
feminism, gender equality, political correctness, cultural Marxism,
and socialism.
3. Delay or abstention from family formation by
women to pursue careerist lifestyles while men wait in confused
limbo.
4. Decreasing birth rate among native population.
5. Government enactment of open immigration
policies to prevent economic collapse.
6. Immigrant refusal to fully integrate, forcing
host culture to adopt external rituals and beliefs while being
out-reproduced.
7. Natives becoming marginalized in their own
country.