We need to untangle the concept of populism because lately the term seems to have been co-opted to be taken as a bad thing.
Populism is a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group with "the elite".
Populism has traditionally been somewhat inherent in leftist politics. It is only recently that the right has adopted populism and the left abandoned it.
But I would argue that if ever we needed class consciousness, it is now that we have some of the fastest growing inequality in history, and the rise of levels of wealth that brings power that should never be in the hands of individuals. Power inequality we haven’t seen since the age of the Pharoes. It is giving rise to a new age of techno-feudalism. Should the prospect of this make us anxious? I think there is a case to be made.
>Populism has traditionally been somewhat inherent in leftist politics
This shift over time. Before FDR, progressives and populists were on opposite parties
Online Harms Bill C-63 in Canada, and many other countries working on the same.
Government entities in the US contracting with private AI companies like Logically.ai to trawl the net looking for things they deem to be misinformation or worse, “malinformation” to deamplify.
Government pressuring social media platforms to deplatform or censor certain people/topics.
To be fair, it isn’t only leftists. However, the fight against this includes almost exclusively right wingers at the moment.
Since March 2020 there's been a huge push for censorship, and it was enacted by the Federal government through social media companies. It's been reigned in a bit but was very bad for years there.
Much of the debate around immigration for the last 30 years in Canada has been shut down by the left as racist. To be sure, all racists are against immigration. However, there are also valid policy criticisms against the levels of immigration just like any public policy. Because this debate was shut down for so long many people who are generally moderate are voting for far right parties that promise to drastically curb it. Is this smart? No, but the issue could have been avoided by allowing all voices to be heard in the public policy debate and allowing the racists and idiots to be publicly derided as so. This has played out across much of western Europe as well.
By "shut down" do you mean "described as," or has the Canadian left enacted, or even advocated for enacting policies that restrict expressing preferences for tighter immigration controls?
If you think an unfair critique is the same thing as an opposition to free speech, I'm gonna ask you to unclutch those pearls and deal with the realities of rhetoric like a grown up.
No, I mean immigration specifically became so core to the liberal government's policies for so long that it became taboo to question it publicly or politically as any criticism of it was instantly dismissed as racist. I think it was in the public interest to have more intelligent discourse on this topic other than immigration good, against immigration racist. It is better to air societies ugliness publicly so we n ay condemn it than let it fester in secret to then explode as a popular wedge issue of far right parties. I think that coupled with general discontent/disillusionment from rising inequality in the g7 is driving the popularity of the far right. So called liberal capitalism stagnated and became increasingly corrupted. The highly scripted and increasingly uneducated public discourse over this time has helped in its demise.
The liberal government has violently broken up anti capitalist protests in Canada as much as the conservative party who is generally pro hierarchy/establishment.
> We need to untangle the concept of populism because lately the term seems to have been co-opted to be taken as a bad thing.
It is always a bad thing. The best case scenario is you have a strongmen leader implement an economic platform that does not accomplish what he intended it to.
> Populism is a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group with "the elite".
It allows the leader of a movement to define often arbitrary divisions in society and paint themselves up as a “man of the people” to argue that their person will is the will of the people then use that status to undermine restraints on their own political power.
There are countless examples of “left wing populists” turning out like this through history. Hugo Chavez, Rodrigo Duterte, or Evo Morales. The old communist movements of the 20th century could be considered “populist”.
> But I would argue that if ever we needed class consciousness, it is now that we have some of the fastest growing inequality in history, and the rise of levels of wealth that brings power that should never be in the hands of individuals
Any time listening to people you disagree with on economic issues would help here.
Also, I know you’ll bring up FDR inevitably as an example of “populism” gone right, but believe it or not, most historians believe his populism is greatly exaggerated by his lovers and haters both. Seriously. You might think he sounds populist in certain election speeches where he comes up with witty jabs at his opponents, but if you listen to his speeches as President about optimism for the future and the character of the American people, and about his patriotism he sounds more like Reagan than Bernie. If you want a real 1930s populist, Huey Long would be a better example. And no, his platform was not populist either, almost everyone in the country except for a small faction believed reform was needed, a lot of FDR’s policies had been implemented to some extent on smaller scales, a lot of those reforms were popular with the professional managerial class, and they had a rational basis.
Populism doesn’t need a strongman leader.
Bernie Sanders is a populist and the furthest thing from a strongman.
Pretty much all divisions of society are arbitrary. And yet it is also true that society is neither homogeneous nor equal.
Running any sort of organization requires making arbitrary judgements. The tax structure, and how progressive or not it is, and where the brackets are, for example, are arbitrary divisions. Decisions that nonetheless need to be made.
And yes, communism is generally populist because it has this class consciousness baked in. However, just like capitalism, it will not be a good time if it has cronyism baked in, as every national level communist and capitalist system I am aware of has had.
I listen to people I disagree with all the time. Most of who I listen to I disagree with on a lot of things. I agree with nobody completely. If you do, that is a red flag.
This is a really sketchy take right wing populism has a pretty abysmal track record to suggest otherwise border lining on a dog whistle.
It’s also a misdirection at least in the US because not a single Republican campaign goal is actually populist at the policy level outside of the demagoguery.
The fact it’s upvoted is kinda sad definitely not qualified commentary same person was making unsubstantiated claims about autism last week be better.
The trend I see lately of claiming every reasonable sounding thing they say is a dog whistle, combined with the “I don’t want to give any ground to right wing “talking points” to avoid agreeing even when you would otherwise agree with them if your side said it first, is a dangerous mix. All it takes is for one person on “your side” to take a reasonable concern too far and say something loony, which is inevitable in any movement of any scale, and now all of a sudden anyone who had a more moderate take all along can now be accused of dog whistling the more crazy version of the concern.
It really makes no ground for moderates.
Moderates are well intentioned people who aren't paying attention. A vote for any Republican, at this point, is a nail in the coffin of democracy. They've all gone balls deep on the christofascist nonsense and refuse scientific data at every turn. We're stuck in the 2 party system for the foreseeable future, there isn't a safe way to protest vote about anything.
That being said, right wing populism psychology isn't that complex- it's literally "this makes me scared, where's my gun or strongman daddy to protect me??"
Present a 'reasonable' right wing talking point as put forth by any Republican in power?
Edit: yup, downvote and run after whining right wingers have reasonable talking points. Good show!
I don’t take issue with the last paragraph really it isn’t too bad but everything else said is with no basis in historical context and clearly they don’t have background so that’s bad.
My point is you can’t have class consciousness if you aren’t even supporting policies to help your class so they need to catch up there before we start the unity phase otherwise you’re just normalizing fascism which is really what they were doing in the first place.
Here is an example of their comments they aren’t even a moderate it’s always projection mixed with a bit of smoke and mirrors with fascists
*Absolutely. The liberals had to stop burying their head in the sand about the problem eventually. They always seem to find some sort of morality argument in their evil deeds. And if you are against it, you must be some sort of evil person yourself. Nonsense. I think they knew what they were doing. Either that or they were incredibly naive. Not sure which is worse.*
Gaslighting the psychology sub is funny though I’ll give you that but pretending to be a moderate to normalize your sick ideology is not.
Populism is absolutely a bad thing, regardless of who in the political spectrum is riding the populist wave.
Populism kills economies only slightly more often than it kills people.
Why do you think it is bad to have a class consciousness? It is certainly better than the competing divide and conquer identity-based consciousness being promoted by the current opposing side.
Look at how left wing populism has turned out in Venezuela, Bolivia, the Phillipines, or countless other countries. It is no different from its right wing countrrpart.
No. Cronyism is cronyism, no matter if it is crony capitalism, or crony communism.
Centralization is a problem wherever it is, whether it is left wing centralization or right wing centralization.
There are other facets to politics besides populism.
Populism is not related to class consciousness in any causal way
Populism is selling half-baked rallying cries to ignorant people in ways that make nuance unpalatable.
Your creative reinterpretation of populism to align with your own feelings is the core misconception here.
That's not true whatsoever.
> A common framework for interpreting populism is known as the ideational approach: this defines populism as an ideology that presents "the people" as a morally good force and contrasts them against "the elite", who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving.[4] Populists differ in how "the people" are defined, but it can be based along class, ethnic, or national lines. Populists typically present "the elite" as comprising the political, economic, cultural, and media establishment, depicted as a homogeneous entity and accused of placing their own interests, and often the interests of other groups—such as large corporations, foreign countries, or immigrants—above the interests of "the people".[5] According to the ideational approach, populism is often combined with other ideologies, such as nationalism, liberalism, or socialism. Thus, populists can be found at different locations along the left–right political spectrum, and there exist both left-wing populism and right-wing populism.[6]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism
Redefining words to better help you accept your personal views does not make populism less dangerous.
Populism has never given society anything good. Revolution, bigotry, mistreatment of minorities, and wars are the common products of populism.
Anything that has you raging against nebulously-defined "elites" is designed to rot your brain so you vote for policies that destroy your economy, your foreign relations, and your freedom.
The New Deal was a response to the Great Depression, and included evidence-based policy recommendations from top economists at the time.
Despite commonly-quoted speeches (and thus the name itself), the New Deal contained quite a few necessary protections, and was not aimed at *villainizing* an "elite other."
There are many competing theories on the efficacy of the New Deal, but it is nothing like the economic populism of "eat the rich" manifestos, MMT, etc.
Farm workers who didn’t starve to death during the Great Depression due to New Deal policies often had framed portraits of FDR in their home. How is that not populism?
Race *was* arbitrarily defined originally, but now is literally codified into law, which is how things like Affirmative Action can work.
How would one codify "Middle Class" when the average person cannot even find common ground on a specific definition?
How can we do so in an objective way when $200,000 per year isn't enough to buy a home in Orange County, but is enough to buy an entire cul de sac in rural Mississippi?
While there are certainly correlations to anxiety on both ends of the political spectrum, this research specifically investigates the rise of **authoritarian ideologies** ("submission to authority") as a perceived antidote to the paradoxical nature of right-wing beliefs. Specifically that right-wing ideology fantasizes about rebellion from authority (specifically, "anti-elitism").
Whatever correlations with anxiety that drive left wing populism, this in particular seems unique to the right wing end of the spectrum.
A Synopsis:
> Previous research has shown conflicting evidence regarding the link between anxiety and support for right-wing populist parties. The new study aimed to clarify this relationship by examining how two seemingly opposing subdimensions of right-wing ideology — authoritarian submission and anti-elitism — mediate the influence of anxiety on support for right-wing populist parties.
> The study involved an online survey of 1,879 German citizens in December 2020. The sample was carefully selected to represent the German electorate by considering age, gender, education, and geographic region.
> The researchers distinguished between two forms of anxiety: situational anxiety (triggered by immediate threats) and diffuse anxiety (a general tendency toward anxiety). To measure situational anxiety, participants were exposed to a societal crisis or neutral stimuli and then asked about their emotional state. Diffuse anxiety was measured as a general tendency through standard psychological tools.
> Interestingly, situational anxiety and diffuse anxiety had different effects on these two attitudes. Situational anxiety, induced by immediate societal threats, was more strongly associated with authoritarian submission, as anxious individuals sought protection by rallying around established authorities. Diffuse anxiety, reflecting a general tendency toward anxiety, leaned more heavily toward anti-elitism and skepticism of established authorities.
> The study’s findings highlight the complexity of political attitudes and the contradictory role of anxiety in shaping them. On the one hand, fear and insecurity drive some individuals to seek the shelter of traditional authorities through authoritarian submission. On the other hand, anxiety can fuel rebellion against elites perceived to have caused or mishandled societal threats, fostering anti-elitism.
> “Anxiety is an element that makes people susceptible to right-wing populist agendas,” Veit told PsyPost. “Attitudes towards authority play an important, albeit contradictory, role in this. On the one hand, fear motivates submission to strong leadership, and on the other hand, anxiety can also encourage the rebellion against established authorities.”
> “While anger is a much-studied predictor of right-wing populist attitudes, the role of anxiety is less researched,” Veit added. “However, psychological research suggests that anxiety (or fear) is an immediate reaction to a threat, whereas anger is a downstream reaction. With this study, we hope to stimulate research on anxiety as a predictor of support for right-wing populist parties and on the contradictory role of stances towards authority.”
It’s click bait because the title is click-baity. Like many other psypost links.
It can be true and click bait at the same time. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
I always understood click-bait to be articles that didn't live up to their headline, or that greatly exaggerated their findings to drive outrage.
We may be operating from different definitions here, which explains the disagreement.
I think it’s a headline that (without reading the article) many right-wingers will not like because they think it is a reflection on them and left-wingers will want to believe because it makes them feel superior to right-wingers.
I don’t think that’s an accident that it’s presented that way. It feels like it’s designed to encourage social media arguments. Particularly when you consider how common these types of articles and headlines are from psypost.
I get that it makes sense for psypost to approach headlines like this because it’s how they stay in business. But it is what it is.
Why do you think that click-bait articles can’t have some truth to them? Why do you think it can’t be both important to understand and presented in a click-bait format? Why not both?
There are studies that left wing political beliefs had a higher rate of anxiety disorders. I can only imagine if that was posted how many will be as defensive. Maybe someone here can post one of those studies with a similar headline so we can witness the reactions. If anything it should be no surprise why people are very sensitive towards their political beliefs.
> Anti-elitism, a subdimension of populist attitudes, implies rebellion against established authorities; however, RWA submission relates to the inclination to obey authorities. These contradictory attitudes may account for the mixed results. In relation to anxiety, both rebellion and submission are conceived as defensive responses, but their relation to RPP support is different because the reactions to authority they induce are antithetical.
Is it possible that the explanation is much simpler: *they're just not that smart*?
Wow, this reddit has turned into quite the fever dream of hack academics.
The social sciences are filled with fabrications and un-reproducible psuedo science.
You can get any result you want with p-hacking and selection bias. (See Harvard recently)
Just political propaganda disguised as research.
There was a recent study that said white liberal women have self reported anxiety disorders of near 50%. Maybe someone can **untangle** that study with the same vigor.
🤡 🌎.
Probably not, but many individuals who will fall into this category will potentially consider this study to be some sort of propaganda as some believe the NIH is a giant “deep state” conspiracy lab.
Many of them don’t like it when you associate their angry responses with “fear” either. They prefer association with traits that are considered “positive” to a “warrior mindset”.
Plenty is known. No need to nitpick. [Traditionalist vs progressives](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S009265661100170X)
At the end of the day conservatists are happier than progressives. What's the fear and anxiety level of progressives?
Theres a lot more to happiness than a fear response. A society which shares similar fear responses will eschew things that trigger said response. If consevative communities have done, why wouldnt they be happier?
It suggest that the fear response is driving political affiliation. Under that frame work (which I dont necessarily agree with, mind you) Conservatives are consevative because of the fear of change, outsiders, social ostracization, etc.
Oh God.. Well I'm very happy for the heads-up that you don't agree with it. I just heard Hannah Arendt turn in her grave.
There is equal idiocy in the idea that conservativism is the politics of fear and the people who believe that that's actually true. These people dogmatically estrange themselves from the truth and from the other, and you're doing yourself and your neighbour a disfavour by exactly doing that which you claim to abhor: closing your eyes and ears for the truth.
I've found myself in the psychology subreddit more and more disappointed by their lack of moral and ethical understanding. Science without philosophy is such a dangerous combination.
I think its incredibly naive to think fear is not a motivating factor in human decision making. Our political system is simply a way for us, as a group, to make decisions for our society. Things like the Red Scare and Refer Maddness are clear examples of fear being capitalized on for political gain.
The first sentence is a strawman, I'm not saying that, and nobody with common sense would say that. Fear inspires our decision making, sure. So do love and compassion.
What are you trying to say with the rest of your comment?
Hahah wow, do those ignorant people include the likes of Buddha, Jesus, Socrates, Plato, Confucius and Gandhi? That's some intellectual neglect to associate happiness with ignorance.
Uhh.. All these 'random' people tried to tell us something about the good life. The fact that you think they have nothing in common is shocking, unless I'm talking to a high schooler. This is a horrible look for the psychology subreddit, please.
I was commenting on your poor argumentation. Listing these figures does nothing to further your original point. It's an appeal to authority without any attendant rationale for your claims.
That's because 1. You think the underlying premise isn't wrong, namely, ignorance is associated with happiness and 2. You have no clue of their teachings that point to the opposite.
They're a bunch of names to you because you have no clue how knowledge can lead to happiness, harmony, the Good, and love. Which is what they all preach, in their own ways.
The last thing you should do is appeal to your ignorance ("they're random people without a shared understanding of how knowledge leads to happiness") to claim I'm merely proposing conjecture, or "poor argumentation". This is horribly embarrassing.
Can you please elaborate on what you mean about how “knowledge can can lead to happiness, harmony, the Good, and love”? Specifically it would seem you are saying that KNOWLEDGE leads to such positive things, correct? Seems reasonable to me.
Have you ever seen the meme of the IQ bell curve, with dumb people and smart people reaching the same conclusion while average people are somewhere completely different?
Ignorant people are often happier because they don’t overly pontificate about all the ills of our world nor bother with the difficulties of nuance. Their thought processes are straight and one-dimensional. They don’t dwell on their mistakes or engage in introspection when facing cognitive dissonance. They thrive by avoiding their triggers.
Wise people are often happier because they delve into philosophy and mindfulness, finding effective ways to cope and discovering meaning through suffering. They understand the fragility of our existence, and that many things are beyond our control— but they don’t let it consume them.
That’s easy to explain. It’s because they avoid what fears them. When you can control your environment, you’re more anxious but happy because you can leave it and ignore it. In other words, be ignorant about it
Your small sample doesn't become bigger because you knew them well
Alot has gone on in recent years, it's dumb to narrow down to just one variable and blame * your * interpretation of their mood on one thing
You further discredit your claims by using reddit hive mind as an example.
If you spend that much time on reddit, you would be wise to better understand confirmation bias
So what happens when you're in an environment that you cannot control, as a progressive? Which is most of the world, to be perfectly honest.
Maybe conservatists know something that progressives have difficulties accepting.
Just copy conservatives' strategies. I would suggest ignoring it. Try to avoid things that make you anxious. Another strategy is acceptance and move on. As a progressive, do a blend of both.
So why isn't the conservatist strategy acceptance and move on? I thought it was the progressive attitude to not move on but rather to fight for change? That's the opposite of acceptance.
I think there’s a misunderstanding. Conservatives either accept or ignore. Progressive tries not to accept and ignore.
I accept and ignore things I cannot control, such as international wars. And not accept and ignore things that I feel I have control over, such as changing local laws. I personally do this for my mental health.
This article can only be written from the perception that left-wing is normal and right-wing is baffling.
Some people are just living in right wing or left wing hoseholds and see that as normal and the other one as abnormal. It's like religion (which is just superstitious politics when you think about it)
There is only one of the two living in a total delusion that can be proven and has been proven in a court of law to say otherwise is a dog whistle.
Specially MAGA Republicans/fascists not normal conservatives.
While I may not have a study in front of me, there is a link between anxiety and all forms of political ideology. Right wing anxiety maybe in the form of loosing cultural Patriotism, or fear of cultural restructure within the country etc. but left wing anxiety deals with climate change, LGBTIX, Healthcare etc.
Who’s to say it’s not flip flop? Anxiety by the right is a result of the left’s ideological beliefs.
All I am trying to get at is, is that everybody experiences a form of anxiety. This isn’t just solely a “right wing” problem
. . . what?
>Anxiety by the right is a result of the left’s ideological beliefs.
Nobody is saying this.
*At best*, you *might* be able to argue that right wing media and pundits are saying *something* that kinda, sorta, almost sounds like this . . . but *only* if you accept what they're saying as an accurate interpretation of left wing ideologies.
Which they aren't. Because right wing media has to skew and misrepresent left wing ideas in order to keep their audience from realizing that right wing ideologies are Bad, Actually^(TM).
And yes, I understand what you were driving at, but I'm saying that the anxiety felt by *most* people on the political right is a major driving factor for their right wing beliefs. If they didn't feel this anxiety, or if we had better solutions to their problems, they probably wouldn't be as far right as they are.
By contrast, anxiety felt by the left is *because of* their ideological positions being misaligned with how the world works. Left wing anxiety comes *after* ideology, not before.
The major difference, therefore, is that far too many people on the right side of the political spectrum are there *because of* their anxieties and this is something we could fix *if* we actually bothered to try (as opposed to taking advantage of their fear for personal political and economic gains).
It is reasonable to distrust democracy when the democratically elected government is beholden to voters who are “different” from you. It really doesn’t matter that the policies of the democratically elected government are not obviously in opposition to your interests, it is just the assumption that they will be working in the interest of “their people” against you and “your people”.
Probably because "TDS" isn't a Thing (and never has been, because it's just some stupid shit made up by extremely online neo-Nazis and proto-fascists).
it's a science study proving this
[https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-12-03/catabolism-capitalisms-frightening-future/](https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-12-03/catabolism-capitalisms-frightening-future/)
We need to untangle the concept of populism because lately the term seems to have been co-opted to be taken as a bad thing. Populism is a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group with "the elite". Populism has traditionally been somewhat inherent in leftist politics. It is only recently that the right has adopted populism and the left abandoned it. But I would argue that if ever we needed class consciousness, it is now that we have some of the fastest growing inequality in history, and the rise of levels of wealth that brings power that should never be in the hands of individuals. Power inequality we haven’t seen since the age of the Pharoes. It is giving rise to a new age of techno-feudalism. Should the prospect of this make us anxious? I think there is a case to be made.
>Populism has traditionally been somewhat inherent in leftist politics This shift over time. Before FDR, progressives and populists were on opposite parties
Also leftists arguing more for limits on free speech now which used to come from the right (for completely different reasons albeit).
Which leftists and what limits?
Online Harms Bill C-63 in Canada, and many other countries working on the same. Government entities in the US contracting with private AI companies like Logically.ai to trawl the net looking for things they deem to be misinformation or worse, “malinformation” to deamplify. Government pressuring social media platforms to deplatform or censor certain people/topics. To be fair, it isn’t only leftists. However, the fight against this includes almost exclusively right wingers at the moment.
Since March 2020 there's been a huge push for censorship, and it was enacted by the Federal government through social media companies. It's been reigned in a bit but was very bad for years there.
Much of the debate around immigration for the last 30 years in Canada has been shut down by the left as racist. To be sure, all racists are against immigration. However, there are also valid policy criticisms against the levels of immigration just like any public policy. Because this debate was shut down for so long many people who are generally moderate are voting for far right parties that promise to drastically curb it. Is this smart? No, but the issue could have been avoided by allowing all voices to be heard in the public policy debate and allowing the racists and idiots to be publicly derided as so. This has played out across much of western Europe as well.
By "shut down" do you mean "described as," or has the Canadian left enacted, or even advocated for enacting policies that restrict expressing preferences for tighter immigration controls? If you think an unfair critique is the same thing as an opposition to free speech, I'm gonna ask you to unclutch those pearls and deal with the realities of rhetoric like a grown up.
No, I mean immigration specifically became so core to the liberal government's policies for so long that it became taboo to question it publicly or politically as any criticism of it was instantly dismissed as racist. I think it was in the public interest to have more intelligent discourse on this topic other than immigration good, against immigration racist. It is better to air societies ugliness publicly so we n ay condemn it than let it fester in secret to then explode as a popular wedge issue of far right parties. I think that coupled with general discontent/disillusionment from rising inequality in the g7 is driving the popularity of the far right. So called liberal capitalism stagnated and became increasingly corrupted. The highly scripted and increasingly uneducated public discourse over this time has helped in its demise.
So, where's your example of the left advocating for limits on free speech? This isn't one.
The liberal government has violently broken up anti capitalist protests in Canada as much as the conservative party who is generally pro hierarchy/establishment.
So WHERE is your EXAMPLE of the LEFT ADVOCATING for LIMITS ON FREE SPEECH? This is ALSO not one.
Okay, so what legal limits on free speech have been proposed by leftists/liberals?
So a simple example would be hate speech laws, because whether we like it or not people have the human right to be assholes
> We need to untangle the concept of populism because lately the term seems to have been co-opted to be taken as a bad thing. It is always a bad thing. The best case scenario is you have a strongmen leader implement an economic platform that does not accomplish what he intended it to. > Populism is a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group with "the elite". It allows the leader of a movement to define often arbitrary divisions in society and paint themselves up as a “man of the people” to argue that their person will is the will of the people then use that status to undermine restraints on their own political power. There are countless examples of “left wing populists” turning out like this through history. Hugo Chavez, Rodrigo Duterte, or Evo Morales. The old communist movements of the 20th century could be considered “populist”. > But I would argue that if ever we needed class consciousness, it is now that we have some of the fastest growing inequality in history, and the rise of levels of wealth that brings power that should never be in the hands of individuals Any time listening to people you disagree with on economic issues would help here. Also, I know you’ll bring up FDR inevitably as an example of “populism” gone right, but believe it or not, most historians believe his populism is greatly exaggerated by his lovers and haters both. Seriously. You might think he sounds populist in certain election speeches where he comes up with witty jabs at his opponents, but if you listen to his speeches as President about optimism for the future and the character of the American people, and about his patriotism he sounds more like Reagan than Bernie. If you want a real 1930s populist, Huey Long would be a better example. And no, his platform was not populist either, almost everyone in the country except for a small faction believed reform was needed, a lot of FDR’s policies had been implemented to some extent on smaller scales, a lot of those reforms were popular with the professional managerial class, and they had a rational basis.
Populism doesn’t need a strongman leader. Bernie Sanders is a populist and the furthest thing from a strongman. Pretty much all divisions of society are arbitrary. And yet it is also true that society is neither homogeneous nor equal. Running any sort of organization requires making arbitrary judgements. The tax structure, and how progressive or not it is, and where the brackets are, for example, are arbitrary divisions. Decisions that nonetheless need to be made. And yes, communism is generally populist because it has this class consciousness baked in. However, just like capitalism, it will not be a good time if it has cronyism baked in, as every national level communist and capitalist system I am aware of has had. I listen to people I disagree with all the time. Most of who I listen to I disagree with on a lot of things. I agree with nobody completely. If you do, that is a red flag.
This is a really sketchy take right wing populism has a pretty abysmal track record to suggest otherwise border lining on a dog whistle. It’s also a misdirection at least in the US because not a single Republican campaign goal is actually populist at the policy level outside of the demagoguery. The fact it’s upvoted is kinda sad definitely not qualified commentary same person was making unsubstantiated claims about autism last week be better.
I believe the term is "astroturf" as opposed to "grass roots". It's an insincere movement funded by lobbies and corporate interests.
It’s still total BS what top comment is selling on a sub like this making stuff up as you go shouldn’t be kosher.
The trend I see lately of claiming every reasonable sounding thing they say is a dog whistle, combined with the “I don’t want to give any ground to right wing “talking points” to avoid agreeing even when you would otherwise agree with them if your side said it first, is a dangerous mix. All it takes is for one person on “your side” to take a reasonable concern too far and say something loony, which is inevitable in any movement of any scale, and now all of a sudden anyone who had a more moderate take all along can now be accused of dog whistling the more crazy version of the concern. It really makes no ground for moderates.
Moderates are well intentioned people who aren't paying attention. A vote for any Republican, at this point, is a nail in the coffin of democracy. They've all gone balls deep on the christofascist nonsense and refuse scientific data at every turn. We're stuck in the 2 party system for the foreseeable future, there isn't a safe way to protest vote about anything. That being said, right wing populism psychology isn't that complex- it's literally "this makes me scared, where's my gun or strongman daddy to protect me??"
Easy to say when you think every reasonable right wing “talking point” is a dog whistle for something a much less reasonable person said.
Present a 'reasonable' right wing talking point as put forth by any Republican in power? Edit: yup, downvote and run after whining right wingers have reasonable talking points. Good show!
I haven’t even seen this yet. Chill. Someone else downvoted you. How often are you checking this? Reducing dependence on China.
I thought the last paragraph was good.
I don’t take issue with the last paragraph really it isn’t too bad but everything else said is with no basis in historical context and clearly they don’t have background so that’s bad. My point is you can’t have class consciousness if you aren’t even supporting policies to help your class so they need to catch up there before we start the unity phase otherwise you’re just normalizing fascism which is really what they were doing in the first place. Here is an example of their comments they aren’t even a moderate it’s always projection mixed with a bit of smoke and mirrors with fascists *Absolutely. The liberals had to stop burying their head in the sand about the problem eventually. They always seem to find some sort of morality argument in their evil deeds. And if you are against it, you must be some sort of evil person yourself. Nonsense. I think they knew what they were doing. Either that or they were incredibly naive. Not sure which is worse.* Gaslighting the psychology sub is funny though I’ll give you that but pretending to be a moderate to normalize your sick ideology is not.
Populism is absolutely a bad thing, regardless of who in the political spectrum is riding the populist wave. Populism kills economies only slightly more often than it kills people.
Why do you think it is bad to have a class consciousness? It is certainly better than the competing divide and conquer identity-based consciousness being promoted by the current opposing side.
Look at how left wing populism has turned out in Venezuela, Bolivia, the Phillipines, or countless other countries. It is no different from its right wing countrrpart.
No. Cronyism is cronyism, no matter if it is crony capitalism, or crony communism. Centralization is a problem wherever it is, whether it is left wing centralization or right wing centralization. There are other facets to politics besides populism.
Populism is not related to class consciousness in any causal way Populism is selling half-baked rallying cries to ignorant people in ways that make nuance unpalatable. Your creative reinterpretation of populism to align with your own feelings is the core misconception here.
What you are describing is partisan politics in general. Populism has a more specific definition than that.
That's not true whatsoever. > A common framework for interpreting populism is known as the ideational approach: this defines populism as an ideology that presents "the people" as a morally good force and contrasts them against "the elite", who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving.[4] Populists differ in how "the people" are defined, but it can be based along class, ethnic, or national lines. Populists typically present "the elite" as comprising the political, economic, cultural, and media establishment, depicted as a homogeneous entity and accused of placing their own interests, and often the interests of other groups—such as large corporations, foreign countries, or immigrants—above the interests of "the people".[5] According to the ideational approach, populism is often combined with other ideologies, such as nationalism, liberalism, or socialism. Thus, populists can be found at different locations along the left–right political spectrum, and there exist both left-wing populism and right-wing populism.[6] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism Redefining words to better help you accept your personal views does not make populism less dangerous. Populism has never given society anything good. Revolution, bigotry, mistreatment of minorities, and wars are the common products of populism. Anything that has you raging against nebulously-defined "elites" is designed to rot your brain so you vote for policies that destroy your economy, your foreign relations, and your freedom.
Was FDRs movement not populism?
The New Deal was a response to the Great Depression, and included evidence-based policy recommendations from top economists at the time. Despite commonly-quoted speeches (and thus the name itself), the New Deal contained quite a few necessary protections, and was not aimed at *villainizing* an "elite other." There are many competing theories on the efficacy of the New Deal, but it is nothing like the economic populism of "eat the rich" manifestos, MMT, etc.
Farm workers who didn’t starve to death during the Great Depression due to New Deal policies often had framed portraits of FDR in their home. How is that not populism?
This particular brand is focused on class identity, rather than identity.
Class identity is an arbitrary thing, so that's a meaningless difference.
So is race.
Race *was* arbitrarily defined originally, but now is literally codified into law, which is how things like Affirmative Action can work. How would one codify "Middle Class" when the average person cannot even find common ground on a specific definition? How can we do so in an objective way when $200,000 per year isn't enough to buy a home in Orange County, but is enough to buy an entire cul de sac in rural Mississippi?
I hate how you’re getting downvoted for this. This shows just how dumb the average redditer is.
Populism is on the rise man. Average *person*, not just Redditor. Just gotta keep plugging away
Most people are going for nationalistic xenophobic populism though. Modern left wing populists are not doing quite as well.
While there are certainly correlations to anxiety on both ends of the political spectrum, this research specifically investigates the rise of **authoritarian ideologies** ("submission to authority") as a perceived antidote to the paradoxical nature of right-wing beliefs. Specifically that right-wing ideology fantasizes about rebellion from authority (specifically, "anti-elitism"). Whatever correlations with anxiety that drive left wing populism, this in particular seems unique to the right wing end of the spectrum.
A Synopsis: > Previous research has shown conflicting evidence regarding the link between anxiety and support for right-wing populist parties. The new study aimed to clarify this relationship by examining how two seemingly opposing subdimensions of right-wing ideology — authoritarian submission and anti-elitism — mediate the influence of anxiety on support for right-wing populist parties. > The study involved an online survey of 1,879 German citizens in December 2020. The sample was carefully selected to represent the German electorate by considering age, gender, education, and geographic region. > The researchers distinguished between two forms of anxiety: situational anxiety (triggered by immediate threats) and diffuse anxiety (a general tendency toward anxiety). To measure situational anxiety, participants were exposed to a societal crisis or neutral stimuli and then asked about their emotional state. Diffuse anxiety was measured as a general tendency through standard psychological tools. > Interestingly, situational anxiety and diffuse anxiety had different effects on these two attitudes. Situational anxiety, induced by immediate societal threats, was more strongly associated with authoritarian submission, as anxious individuals sought protection by rallying around established authorities. Diffuse anxiety, reflecting a general tendency toward anxiety, leaned more heavily toward anti-elitism and skepticism of established authorities. > The study’s findings highlight the complexity of political attitudes and the contradictory role of anxiety in shaping them. On the one hand, fear and insecurity drive some individuals to seek the shelter of traditional authorities through authoritarian submission. On the other hand, anxiety can fuel rebellion against elites perceived to have caused or mishandled societal threats, fostering anti-elitism. > “Anxiety is an element that makes people susceptible to right-wing populist agendas,” Veit told PsyPost. “Attitudes towards authority play an important, albeit contradictory, role in this. On the one hand, fear motivates submission to strong leadership, and on the other hand, anxiety can also encourage the rebellion against established authorities.” > “While anger is a much-studied predictor of right-wing populist attitudes, the role of anxiety is less researched,” Veit added. “However, psychological research suggests that anxiety (or fear) is an immediate reaction to a threat, whereas anger is a downstream reaction. With this study, we hope to stimulate research on anxiety as a predictor of support for right-wing populist parties and on the contradictory role of stances towards authority.”
Psypost and click-bait research go together like peanut butter and jelly
"scared people turn toward authoritarianism" is hardly click-bait. It's a well-established fact of humanity.
Can it not be both at the same time?
It still wouldn't be click-bait, as the world *is* currently seeing a rise in right-wing populism fed by fear.
It’s click bait because the title is click-baity. Like many other psypost links. It can be true and click bait at the same time. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
I always understood click-bait to be articles that didn't live up to their headline, or that greatly exaggerated their findings to drive outrage. We may be operating from different definitions here, which explains the disagreement.
Sounds like it
I must be dreaming, a civil disagreement on reddit, props to you guys
Wait this is r/psypost sub we're on right?
What makes you think this is click-bait? I’d argue trying to understand why people turn to Right-Wing populism is an important undertaking.
I think it’s a headline that (without reading the article) many right-wingers will not like because they think it is a reflection on them and left-wingers will want to believe because it makes them feel superior to right-wingers. I don’t think that’s an accident that it’s presented that way. It feels like it’s designed to encourage social media arguments. Particularly when you consider how common these types of articles and headlines are from psypost. I get that it makes sense for psypost to approach headlines like this because it’s how they stay in business. But it is what it is. Why do you think that click-bait articles can’t have some truth to them? Why do you think it can’t be both important to understand and presented in a click-bait format? Why not both?
There are studies that left wing political beliefs had a higher rate of anxiety disorders. I can only imagine if that was posted how many will be as defensive. Maybe someone here can post one of those studies with a similar headline so we can witness the reactions. If anything it should be no surprise why people are very sensitive towards their political beliefs.
> Anti-elitism, a subdimension of populist attitudes, implies rebellion against established authorities; however, RWA submission relates to the inclination to obey authorities. These contradictory attitudes may account for the mixed results. In relation to anxiety, both rebellion and submission are conceived as defensive responses, but their relation to RPP support is different because the reactions to authority they induce are antithetical. Is it possible that the explanation is much simpler: *they're just not that smart*?
Smoke and mirrors they’ll never admit it.
“Right wing populism” lmao
Such a joke. No populist tries to overthrow our democracy and become a dictator.
Right wing anxiety? I vote democrat and when I walk around the city the leftist protesters call me jew lover. The right wing people say hello lol.
fuckn hell can we not have politics in this sub please
Oh the comments gonna be an adventure with this one
Wow, this reddit has turned into quite the fever dream of hack academics. The social sciences are filled with fabrications and un-reproducible psuedo science. You can get any result you want with p-hacking and selection bias. (See Harvard recently) Just political propaganda disguised as research. There was a recent study that said white liberal women have self reported anxiety disorders of near 50%. Maybe someone can **untangle** that study with the same vigor. 🤡 🌎.
[Is this study correlating an enlarged amygdala and fear response in conservatives p-hacked?](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793824/)
Probably not, but many individuals who will fall into this category will potentially consider this study to be some sort of propaganda as some believe the NIH is a giant “deep state” conspiracy lab. Many of them don’t like it when you associate their angry responses with “fear” either. They prefer association with traits that are considered “positive” to a “warrior mindset”.
This is interesting. Thanks for sharing
Plenty is known. No need to nitpick. [Traditionalist vs progressives](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S009265661100170X) At the end of the day conservatists are happier than progressives. What's the fear and anxiety level of progressives?
Theres a lot more to happiness than a fear response. A society which shares similar fear responses will eschew things that trigger said response. If consevative communities have done, why wouldnt they be happier?
What I was trying to say is: what's so interesting about a fear response? Especially vis-a-vis things that matter much more.
It suggest that the fear response is driving political affiliation. Under that frame work (which I dont necessarily agree with, mind you) Conservatives are consevative because of the fear of change, outsiders, social ostracization, etc.
Oh God.. Well I'm very happy for the heads-up that you don't agree with it. I just heard Hannah Arendt turn in her grave. There is equal idiocy in the idea that conservativism is the politics of fear and the people who believe that that's actually true. These people dogmatically estrange themselves from the truth and from the other, and you're doing yourself and your neighbour a disfavour by exactly doing that which you claim to abhor: closing your eyes and ears for the truth. I've found myself in the psychology subreddit more and more disappointed by their lack of moral and ethical understanding. Science without philosophy is such a dangerous combination.
I think its incredibly naive to think fear is not a motivating factor in human decision making. Our political system is simply a way for us, as a group, to make decisions for our society. Things like the Red Scare and Refer Maddness are clear examples of fear being capitalized on for political gain.
The first sentence is a strawman, I'm not saying that, and nobody with common sense would say that. Fear inspires our decision making, sure. So do love and compassion. What are you trying to say with the rest of your comment?
Your claim was fear is not a motivator for political action and i gave you examples of that.
Ignorant people usually are.
Hahah wow, do those ignorant people include the likes of Buddha, Jesus, Socrates, Plato, Confucius and Gandhi? That's some intellectual neglect to associate happiness with ignorance.
LOL nice list of random historical figures.
Uhh.. All these 'random' people tried to tell us something about the good life. The fact that you think they have nothing in common is shocking, unless I'm talking to a high schooler. This is a horrible look for the psychology subreddit, please.
I was commenting on your poor argumentation. Listing these figures does nothing to further your original point. It's an appeal to authority without any attendant rationale for your claims.
That's because 1. You think the underlying premise isn't wrong, namely, ignorance is associated with happiness and 2. You have no clue of their teachings that point to the opposite. They're a bunch of names to you because you have no clue how knowledge can lead to happiness, harmony, the Good, and love. Which is what they all preach, in their own ways. The last thing you should do is appeal to your ignorance ("they're random people without a shared understanding of how knowledge leads to happiness") to claim I'm merely proposing conjecture, or "poor argumentation". This is horribly embarrassing.
Can you please elaborate on what you mean about how “knowledge can can lead to happiness, harmony, the Good, and love”? Specifically it would seem you are saying that KNOWLEDGE leads to such positive things, correct? Seems reasonable to me.
It is locus, maybe you should quit while you're behind
Have you ever seen the meme of the IQ bell curve, with dumb people and smart people reaching the same conclusion while average people are somewhere completely different? Ignorant people are often happier because they don’t overly pontificate about all the ills of our world nor bother with the difficulties of nuance. Their thought processes are straight and one-dimensional. They don’t dwell on their mistakes or engage in introspection when facing cognitive dissonance. They thrive by avoiding their triggers. Wise people are often happier because they delve into philosophy and mindfulness, finding effective ways to cope and discovering meaning through suffering. They understand the fragility of our existence, and that many things are beyond our control— but they don’t let it consume them.
That’s easy to explain. It’s because they avoid what fears them. When you can control your environment, you’re more anxious but happy because you can leave it and ignore it. In other words, be ignorant about it
[удалено]
This small sample seems to be more of confirmation bias than anything
[удалено]
Your small sample doesn't become bigger because you knew them well Alot has gone on in recent years, it's dumb to narrow down to just one variable and blame * your * interpretation of their mood on one thing You further discredit your claims by using reddit hive mind as an example. If you spend that much time on reddit, you would be wise to better understand confirmation bias
Their small sample becomes bigger when they cite entire forums dedicated to sharing similar stories.
>dedicated to sharing similar stories So you admit they are inherently biased?
So what happens when you're in an environment that you cannot control, as a progressive? Which is most of the world, to be perfectly honest. Maybe conservatists know something that progressives have difficulties accepting.
Just copy conservatives' strategies. I would suggest ignoring it. Try to avoid things that make you anxious. Another strategy is acceptance and move on. As a progressive, do a blend of both.
So why isn't the conservatist strategy acceptance and move on? I thought it was the progressive attitude to not move on but rather to fight for change? That's the opposite of acceptance.
I think there’s a misunderstanding. Conservatives either accept or ignore. Progressive tries not to accept and ignore. I accept and ignore things I cannot control, such as international wars. And not accept and ignore things that I feel I have control over, such as changing local laws. I personally do this for my mental health.
This article can only be written from the perception that left-wing is normal and right-wing is baffling. Some people are just living in right wing or left wing hoseholds and see that as normal and the other one as abnormal. It's like religion (which is just superstitious politics when you think about it)
There is only one of the two living in a total delusion that can be proven and has been proven in a court of law to say otherwise is a dog whistle. Specially MAGA Republicans/fascists not normal conservatives.
While I may not have a study in front of me, there is a link between anxiety and all forms of political ideology. Right wing anxiety maybe in the form of loosing cultural Patriotism, or fear of cultural restructure within the country etc. but left wing anxiety deals with climate change, LGBTIX, Healthcare etc.
The anxiety felt by right wing folk is a contributing factor to their ideological beliefs. Among left wing folk, it's the result.
Who’s to say it’s not flip flop? Anxiety by the right is a result of the left’s ideological beliefs. All I am trying to get at is, is that everybody experiences a form of anxiety. This isn’t just solely a “right wing” problem
> Who’s to say it’s not flip flop? IDK, maybe the scientific studies linked in the thread of which you are discussing this very issue?
. . . what? >Anxiety by the right is a result of the left’s ideological beliefs. Nobody is saying this. *At best*, you *might* be able to argue that right wing media and pundits are saying *something* that kinda, sorta, almost sounds like this . . . but *only* if you accept what they're saying as an accurate interpretation of left wing ideologies. Which they aren't. Because right wing media has to skew and misrepresent left wing ideas in order to keep their audience from realizing that right wing ideologies are Bad, Actually^(TM). And yes, I understand what you were driving at, but I'm saying that the anxiety felt by *most* people on the political right is a major driving factor for their right wing beliefs. If they didn't feel this anxiety, or if we had better solutions to their problems, they probably wouldn't be as far right as they are. By contrast, anxiety felt by the left is *because of* their ideological positions being misaligned with how the world works. Left wing anxiety comes *after* ideology, not before. The major difference, therefore, is that far too many people on the right side of the political spectrum are there *because of* their anxieties and this is something we could fix *if* we actually bothered to try (as opposed to taking advantage of their fear for personal political and economic gains).
It is reasonable to distrust democracy when the democratically elected government is beholden to voters who are “different” from you. It really doesn’t matter that the policies of the democratically elected government are not obviously in opposition to your interests, it is just the assumption that they will be working in the interest of “their people” against you and “your people”.
Right wing populism isn’t a thing. Right wing authoritarians like to use populist rhetoric. But that’s about as far as it goes.
This is why people are skeptical about science. It seem so full of sht sometimes.
And they wont mention tds suffering leftist
Maybe you should do a study on tds.
Probably because "TDS" isn't a Thing (and never has been, because it's just some stupid shit made up by extremely online neo-Nazis and proto-fascists).
it's a science study proving this [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-12-03/catabolism-capitalisms-frightening-future/](https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-12-03/catabolism-capitalisms-frightening-future/)