Republicans: continued

Post Reply
User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 20866
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Hermit » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:33 pm

JimC wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:04 pm
The ALP's '72 campaign and modern day populism may have some overlap in surface style, but they are also very different. The bulk of today's populist programs are right-wing at heart, and appeal not to idealism but fear and hatred.
The ALP's '72 campaign was essentially populist in style, Jim. I cited it to prove that it does not appeal only to the worst in people rather than the best.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 25309
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Brian Peacock » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:46 pm

Yeah, popularism was much better in the olden days. During the oil crisis we were far more productive on a three-day week than the regular five day-day week - four of which we were on strike anyway. :tea:
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 62623
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by JimC » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:19 pm

Hermit wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:33 pm
JimC wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:04 pm
The ALP's '72 campaign and modern day populism may have some overlap in surface style, but they are also very different. The bulk of today's populist programs are right-wing at heart, and appeal not to idealism but fear and hatred.
The ALP's '72 campaign was essentially populist in style, Jim. I cited it to prove that it does not appeal only to the worst in people rather than the best.
And my point was that populism in its current form is not just a matter of style, but that its roots are dark, which is a genuine difference to what lay beneath the surface glitz of the Whitlam campaign...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 20866
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Hermit » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:41 pm

JimC wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:19 pm
Hermit wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:33 pm
JimC wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:04 pm
The ALP's '72 campaign and modern day populism may have some overlap in surface style, but they are also very different. The bulk of today's populist programs are right-wing at heart, and appeal not to idealism but fear and hatred.
The ALP's '72 campaign was essentially populist in style, Jim. I cited it to prove that it does not appeal only to the worst in people rather than the best.
And my point was that populism in its current form is not just a matter of style, but that its roots are dark, which is a genuine difference to what lay beneath the surface glitz of the Whitlam campaign...
Brian was not talking about "populism in its current form". He wondered why popul(ar)ism appeals only to the worst in people rather than the best. If you want to look at the root of populism, I suggest you consult a dictionary. Any dictionary will do. Take the Cambridge Dictionary, for example: "populism noun political ideas and activities that are intended to get the support of ordinary people by giving them what they want" There you have the root of populism. Darkness, or the lack of it, are just subsets of populism. Neither is the root of populism.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 29444
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Tero » Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:57 am

Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:46 pm
Yeah, popularism was much better in the olden days. During the oil crisis we were far more productive on a three-day week than the regular five day-day week - four of which we were on strike anyway. :tea:
They changed shifts at the plant side from 8 to 12 hours. I asked an engineer how much work the hourlies get done in 12 hours. "Same as they did in 8 before."
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 62623
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by JimC » Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:49 am

Hermit wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:41 pm
JimC wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:19 pm
Hermit wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:33 pm
JimC wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:04 pm
The ALP's '72 campaign and modern day populism may have some overlap in surface style, but they are also very different. The bulk of today's populist programs are right-wing at heart, and appeal not to idealism but fear and hatred.
The ALP's '72 campaign was essentially populist in style, Jim. I cited it to prove that it does not appeal only to the worst in people rather than the best.
And my point was that populism in its current form is not just a matter of style, but that its roots are dark, which is a genuine difference to what lay beneath the surface glitz of the Whitlam campaign...
Brian was not talking about "populism in its current form". He wondered why popul(ar)ism appeals only to the worst in people rather than the best. If you want to look at the root of populism, I suggest you consult a dictionary. Any dictionary will do. Take the Cambridge Dictionary, for example: "populism noun political ideas and activities that are intended to get the support of ordinary people by giving them what they want" There you have the root of populism. Darkness, or the lack of it, are just subsets of populism. Neither is the root of populism.
As a broad definition perhaps. But simply to give the Whitlam campaign and modern populism the same label is to obscure the very significant differences between them. The ALP of the day and their supporters were full of a naive idealism far removed from the cynical spin merchants of the populist right.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 20866
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Hermit » Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:23 am

JimC wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:49 am
Hermit wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:41 pm
JimC wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:19 pm
Hermit wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:33 pm
JimC wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:04 pm
The ALP's '72 campaign and modern day populism may have some overlap in surface style, but they are also very different. The bulk of today's populist programs are right-wing at heart, and appeal not to idealism but fear and hatred.
The ALP's '72 campaign was essentially populist in style, Jim. I cited it to prove that it does not appeal only to the worst in people rather than the best.
And my point was that populism in its current form is not just a matter of style, but that its roots are dark, which is a genuine difference to what lay beneath the surface glitz of the Whitlam campaign...
Brian was not talking about "populism in its current form". He wondered why popul(ar)ism appeals only to the worst in people rather than the best. If you want to look at the root of populism, I suggest you consult a dictionary. Any dictionary will do. Take the Cambridge Dictionary, for example: "populism noun political ideas and activities that are intended to get the support of ordinary people by giving them what they want" There you have the root of populism. Darkness, or the lack of it, are just subsets of populism. Neither is the root of populism.
As a broad definition perhaps. But simply to give the Whitlam campaign and modern populism the same label is to obscure the very significant differences between them. The ALP of the day and their supporters were full of a naive idealism far removed from the cynical spin merchants of the populist right.
Yes, I agree with you that Whitlam's populism was of a different hue compared to the populism of present day right wingers. I really do. The difference is not populism, though.

As someone who has spent 40 years teaching mathematics on a secondary education level you ought to know how to identify and treat common factors in order to identify differences. I suggest that in this case the common factor is "populism" and the differences are "social-democratic" and "conservative", or, for our less perceptive members, "left" and "right", or, for our thick as two planks member, "good" and "bad".

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 62623
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by JimC » Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:26 am

Anyway, I think the original post by Brian which triggered this fascinating detour was about current, right-wing populism; I'm sorry he offended your rigorous approach by using the general word... :tea:

I'll slap him around with a frond of wet celery for this affront if we ever meet up IRL...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 20866
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Hermit » Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:52 am

JimC wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:26 am
Anyway, I think the original post by Brian which triggered this fascinating detour was about current, right-wing populism; I'm sorry he offended your rigorous approach by using the general word... :tea:

I'll slap him around with a frond of wet celery for this affront if we ever meet up IRL...
I am not offended by his approach, but I insist that
1) populism does not appeal only to the worst in people.
2) whether populism appeals to the worst in people or the best is not due to populism itself.

As for slapping Brian with a frond of wet celery, now I am seriously offended. How very dare you abuse the excellence and dignity of such a delicious vegetable! It has a long and illustrious history as a valued ingredient in cuisines all over the world. Don't. Just don't!

If you can't resist your sadistic desire to slap the Brian Peacock about, use a fish. A big fish.


User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 25309
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:10 am

Hermit wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:23 am
JimC wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:49 am
Hermit wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:41 pm
JimC wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:19 pm
Hermit wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:33 pm

The ALP's '72 campaign was essentially populist in style, Jim. I cited it to prove that it does not appeal only to the worst in people rather than the best.
And my point was that populism in its current form is not just a matter of style, but that its roots are dark, which is a genuine difference to what lay beneath the surface glitz of the Whitlam campaign...
Brian was not talking about "populism in its current form". He wondered why popul(ar)ism appeals only to the worst in people rather than the best. If you want to look at the root of populism, I suggest you consult a dictionary. Any dictionary will do. Take the Cambridge Dictionary, for example: "populism noun political ideas and activities that are intended to get the support of ordinary people by giving them what they want" There you have the root of populism. Darkness, or the lack of it, are just subsets of populism. Neither is the root of populism.
As a broad definition perhaps. But simply to give the Whitlam campaign and modern populism the same label is to obscure the very significant differences between them. The ALP of the day and their supporters were full of a naive idealism far removed from the cynical spin merchants of the populist right.
Yes, I agree with you that Whitlam's populism was of a different hue compared to the populism of present day right wingers. I really do. The difference is not populism, though.

As someone who has spent 40 years teaching mathematics on a secondary education level you ought to know how to identify and treat common factors in order to identify differences. I suggest that in this case the common factor is "populism" and the differences are "social-democratic" and "conservative", or, for our less perceptive members, "left" and "right", or, for our thick as two planks member, "good" and "bad".
I guess all politics is popularism to some extent. After all, in a democracy it basically boil down to a foot race between the parties for the popular vote. I didn't articulate my question well (enough for Hermit). It seems to me that popularism is a term being used to sugar coat nationalism at the moment. And when I say nationalism (looking at Hermit over the top of my specs here) I don't mean the kind of popular, nationalist impulse expressed by a common people in their desire to secede from a larger political entity or regional power, but the good old idea of some default virtue or privilege being automatically bestowed on or accrued by people who identify themselves in a particular way with regards to their status as citizens or patriots etc...
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 29444
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Tero » Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:03 pm

DB13A568-9A21-4993-B15C-C6446C435B03.jpeg
Conclusion: they don't have to give a shit. My city of 250 000 has a good chunk of immigrants, liberals etc. But our congressman has so many rural counties that it always ends up being 55-60% Republican. He has shown some concern for environmental issues. But mostly because water etc relate to farming.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 12717
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijk beschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Scot Dutchy » Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:45 pm

Maybe Trump should go back to Germany. Oh he cant :hehe: His father was kicked out :lol:
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
Cunt
Lumpy Vagina Bloodfart
Posts: 8270
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Cunt » Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:20 pm

Thiel is claiming that google has been infiltrated by Chinese Intelligence services. :)
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists


Hermit aka Seraph wrote:
Wed Jul 24, 2019 7:25 pm
placed himself within a swinging arm's distance from said antifas

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 25309
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:09 pm

There's no intelligence in Google, Chinese, Artificial or otherwise. :tea:
Billionaire Silicon Valley investor and Trump ally Peter Thiel said Sunday that Google needs to be investigated by the FBI and CIA for the company’s “seemingly treasonous” decision to work with the Chinese military instead of the U.S. government—although there is no evidence that Google’s senior management has been “infiltrated” by Chinese intelligence as Thiel implied.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsand ... reasonous/
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 4703
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Natural instinct for science
Location: DPRNA
Contact:

Re: Republicans: continued

Post by Seabass » Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:34 pm

Alabama candidate for senate:
He fielded a question from the group gathered about the shift in the culture and noted that some of that shift could be attributed to the changes in pop culture, including what was being shown on television.

“[T]hat’s what we’ve allowed to happen,” Merrill said. “How have we allowed it to happen? There are no more good TV shows on like ‘Gunsmoke,’ ‘Bonanza,’ ‘The Virginian,’ ‘Andy Griffith,’ ‘I Love Lucy.’ We don’t have those shows anymore. We’re too interested in homosexual activities. We’re too interested in seeing how this family’s finding a way to mess on this family or to see how people are trying to date on TV, or having wife-swapping on TV. That’s what we watch. When we push back against that, and we quit allowing it to be in our homes – that’s how those changes have occurred because we’ve allowed them to slowly but surely come into our lives.”
https://yellowhammernews.com/john-merri ... opponents/
:think:
The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots. ―H.L. Mencken

Bad government is the natural product of rule by those who believe government is bad. —Thomas Frank

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. —Einstein
I’m a nationalist. —Trump

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. —Hermann Göring

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests