Post by cjm on Aug 1, 2019 18:03:43 GMT
en as teëvoeter
Ek is bra skepties oor enige uitsprake oor populisme synde 'n selfstandige fenomeen. Vir my is die akademiese belangstelling daarin bloot 'n uitvloeisel van die Demokratiese Party in die VSA se dagga-drome oor Trump. Tot my onsteltenis lees ek dat party mense selfs 'n ideologiese inslag daarin sien wat gekoppel kan word aan 'n ons/hulle sindroom, waar "ons" die agterlikes is, wat "hulle" wil vermorsel. "Hulle" is die "elites" en die immigrante. Daar is darem ook die wat dink dat die term populisme te vaag is om enige akademiese ondersoek te onderskraag.
Ek is nie in staat om te onderskei tussen nasionalisme en populisme nie. Miskien is populisme 'n breër term. Ek sou sê dat die moontlikheid om massas te mobiliseer 'n inherente aspek van demokrasie is (ook van meer outoritêre samelewings). As dit afwesig is in 'n demokratiese bestel, is dit bloot die onvermoë van leiers om die massas te begeester. Nasionalisme in meeste gevalle is 'n verdedigingsmeganisme teen aanvalle op 'n gemeenskap en kan nie weggewens word nie. Groepsvorming is 'n natuurlike reaksie van gemeenskappe om hulself teen uitwissing te beskerm. So, om nou begeesterde groepe as die Satan te skilder, is 'n dwaalleer. Die groepe sal begeesterd wees tot tyd en wyl hulle uitgewis is, of die aanval teen hulle afneem. Dit sal nie 'n permanente tendens wees wat gevoed word deur sy eie dinamika nie. Eksterne faktore is onontbeerlik vir die bestaan daarvan.
Die huidige vlaag van "regse" groepe is bloot 'n verdedigingsmeganisme teen die ongebrydelde invloei van immigrante in samelewings met gevestigde tradisies. Dit is 'n verdedigingsmeganisme en hoe enigeen in sy regte verstand kan dink dat die betrokke gemeenskappe tevrede moet wees met die braaksels wat hule oorspoel, is bo my. Om verder diegene, wat ten gunste van die verval is en wat dit aktief in die hand werk, wat agter hoë mure skuil in luukse lewenstyle, nie kwalik te neem nie, is om die onmoontlike te verwag. Die "deplorables" gaan reageer. 'n Mens kan tersyde opmerk dat die hoon van groepe nie net afkomstig is van die populiste nie, maar dat die aanvalle juis op die "populiste" is deur die elite wat die meeste voordeel te trek het uit die instromings: Die werkgewers wat goedkoop arbeid soek, die partye wat mense wil invoer om vir hulle te stem, diegene wat die nie-bestaande "rykdom" van die gemeenskap wil verdeel. Inderdaad, is hulle nie juis die populiste nie; wat bestaande, ordelike gemeenskappe wil toespoel met armoede, misdaad, aborsies, dwelms, seksuele vergrype, verkragtings, ekonomiese insinking en korrupsie nie, wat produktiewe lede van die gemeenskap in hul peetjie wil inwerk nie - alles om hul eie profyt en genoegdoening?
In elk geval ek dink die tweede artikel is in die kol:
Politics after all, is about the contestation of power and within the modern, democratic framework the person or party that wins the “popular vote” in the end attains the power that is needed in order to advance a certain political programme or agenda. (Although, this “popular vote” phenomenon did not work for Hillary Clinton in the context of the American electoral college system). So populism is by definition a permanent feature of democratic politics not a recent, unwanted phenomenon.
In fact, the best politicians throughout history have used populist appeals to advance themselves and whatever agendas they espouse to, whether right or wrong. Hence, Adolf Hitler, one of the greatest orators in history, was a brilliant politician. At this point, I must put forward the disclaimer that this is an objective analysis of Hitler the politician’s modus operandi to attain and retain power through populist, nationalist appeal within the modern political context, not a normative approval of his warped, evil ideas lest I end up in trouble like a mate of mine who is a prominent #FeesMustFall leader in this country.
Democratic politics and populism go hand in hand. It is only those who can appeal to the heart issues, the felt needs and fears of society who can successfully attain power within a democratic dispensation. For a deeper analysis of this, one needs to read Drew Westen’s brilliant book, The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. It is through populist appeal that Sir Winston Churchill kept the British public’s hopes up in their fight against the evils of Nazism, hence his brilliance.
One of the greatest politicians in history, the Roman Senator Marcus Tulius Cicero, also renowned as one of history’s great orators understood the power of populist appeal in the art of politics and politicking.
Karl Rove, a brilliant right wing, conservative political strategist and the many conservative think tanks in the USA also understand this and hence their many electoral successes.
In fact, Karl Rove and the many conservative think tanks in the USA disprove the misnomer that populism equals or results in/from anti-intellectualism. Again, this is not a normative statement on Karl Rove’s politics but rather an objective statement looking at his politics’ efficacy in terms of electoral outcomes. It was the renowned former New York Governor, Mario Cuomo after all who coined the well-known and overused phrase, “you campaign in poetry. You govern in prose” out of an understanding of the power of populist appeal in democratic politics.