Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Looks to me like Hillary Clinton's campaign is shaping up to [View all]YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)69. Some academic definitions of "populism" from Wikipedia
Academic definitions of populism have varied widely over the centuries, and the term has often been employed in loose and inconsistent ways to denote appeals to "the people", "demagogy" and "catch-all" politics or as a label for new types of parties whose classifications are unclear. A factor traditionally held to diminish the value of "populism" as a category has been that, as Margaret Canovan notes in her 1981 study Populism, unlike conservatives or socialists, populists rarely call themselves "populists" and usually reject the term when it is applied to them.[3]
Nonetheless, in recent years academic scholars have produced definitions of populism which enable populist identification and comparison. Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell define populism as an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous others who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice".[4]
Rather than viewing populism in terms of specific social bases, economic programs, issues, or electorates as discussions of right-wing populism have tended to do[5] this type of definition is in line with the approaches of scholars such as Ernesto Laclau,[6] Pierre-Andre Taguieff,[7] Yves Meny and Yves Surel,[8] who have all sought to focus on populism per se, rather than treating it simply as an appendage of other ideologies.
Although in the US and Europe, it currently tends to be associated with right-wing parties, the central tenet of populism that democracy should reflect the pure and undiluted will of the people, means it can sit easily with ideologies of both right and left. However, while leaders of populist movements in recent decades have claimed to be on either the left or the right of the political spectrum, there are also many populists who reject such classifications and claim not to be "left wing", "centrist" or "right wing."[9][10][11]
Although "populist" is often used pejoratively in the media and in political debate, exceptions to this do exist, notably in the United States. In this case, it appears likely that this is due to the memories and traditions of earlier democratic movements (for example, farmers' movements, New Deal reform movements, and the civil rights movement) that were often called populist, by supporters and outsiders alike.[12]
Nonetheless, in recent years academic scholars have produced definitions of populism which enable populist identification and comparison. Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell define populism as an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous others who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice".[4]
Rather than viewing populism in terms of specific social bases, economic programs, issues, or electorates as discussions of right-wing populism have tended to do[5] this type of definition is in line with the approaches of scholars such as Ernesto Laclau,[6] Pierre-Andre Taguieff,[7] Yves Meny and Yves Surel,[8] who have all sought to focus on populism per se, rather than treating it simply as an appendage of other ideologies.
Although in the US and Europe, it currently tends to be associated with right-wing parties, the central tenet of populism that democracy should reflect the pure and undiluted will of the people, means it can sit easily with ideologies of both right and left. However, while leaders of populist movements in recent decades have claimed to be on either the left or the right of the political spectrum, there are also many populists who reject such classifications and claim not to be "left wing", "centrist" or "right wing."[9][10][11]
Although "populist" is often used pejoratively in the media and in political debate, exceptions to this do exist, notably in the United States. In this case, it appears likely that this is due to the memories and traditions of earlier democratic movements (for example, farmers' movements, New Deal reform movements, and the civil rights movement) that were often called populist, by supporters and outsiders alike.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#Academic_definitions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
84 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
No... Defining populism this way is a "tactic". Real populism is not just a "tactic"....
cascadiance
Apr 2015
#66
Oh good god like she hasn't been a populist all along.....she is a freaking Liberal...to the Left of
VanillaRhapsody
Apr 2015
#8
Yes she has...and THAT is only one issue out of MANY that Liberals care about....
VanillaRhapsody
Apr 2015
#72
The best strategy is one that doesn't look forced or phony, but ratha is based on one's core beliefs. Hillary's needs to work on that & look comfortable doin it, but ...
InAbLuEsTaTe
Apr 2015
#77
Avoiding the fray as long as possible is strategically and tactically sound...
DemocratSinceBirth
Apr 2015
#21
Bernie outlined his policy objectives pretty clearly. Hopefully HRC will do this as well & soon
think
Apr 2015
#7
Things are pretty crowded over on the right, I don't think she has much choice.
bemildred
Apr 2015
#9
Bet the secret Service is pleased. Not big enough for comfort for a long trip, though, IMO.
freshwest
Apr 2015
#79
omg. and just yesterday i was learning about our very own PC (that opposes pc), lol
seabeyond
Apr 2015
#17
i just put out that i think we all learned a lot in 2008 about a woman running. over the last 8 yrs
seabeyond
Apr 2015
#26
The Question is , Will she be a Populist after elected. She wasn't one before now.
bahrbearian
Apr 2015
#20
It's a good start, but she'll have to explain why she's changed positions on some issues.
jeff47
Apr 2015
#25
It doesn't take many "for it before I was against it" statements to cause a problem.
jeff47
Apr 2015
#32
I don't buy it. I think the main reason why she is coming off as a populist
totodeinhere
Apr 2015
#29
There really is never such a thing as "no" in politics. Even if Warren should give
totodeinhere
Apr 2015
#38
There is something about her campaign this time around that I didn't see in 2007-2008
LynneSin
Apr 2015
#41
Hillary is a good, solid, true Democrat. I don't have to agree with a candidate on every
OregonBlue
Apr 2015
#45
Populism "as a campaign method" is basically saying working FOR the masses...
cascadiance
Apr 2015
#65
I'm still waiting for populist SUBSTANCE, rather than a populist LABEL for her campaign...
cascadiance
Apr 2015
#62
Warren is likely educating her on how to make the changes. And Bernie will, too. n/t
freshwest
Apr 2015
#78
Saying "I want to empower families and communities" isn't populism, it's pablum.
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2015
#80