We should NOT cede terms like “populist” and “nationalism” to the extremists

[icehorse]

populist: a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.
or,
a person who holds, or who is concerned with, the views of ordinary people.

nationalist: a person who advocates political independence for a country.

When I see these words used by the media, they are almost always meant to convey a negative connotation.

In the case of nationalism, I see it used as a shorthand for extreme white supremacist groups.
In the case of populist, I see it used as a shorthand for socialism maybe even bordering on communism.

As a centrist, I don’t want to cede these important ideas to folks on either extreme end. The west is mostly democratic. Isn’t democracy supposed to represent the interests of the people? Why is populism bad? The west has a mostly shared set of values. Why is defending those values against multi-culturalists a bad thing? Why is it bad for a centrist to say that they want to defend their country against countries whose values run counter to theirs?

As an example, here’s Hillary using the term “nationalist” to smear Brexit voters, and those European “radicals” who don’t think open immigration policies are a good idea:

Hillary Clinton: Europe Needs Tougher Immigration Laws To Stave Off Nationalism

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Then what terms would you suggest to describe the phenomenon?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I view both as negative because they both tend toward traditionalist value judgements and certainly can take on xenophoia. I dont view either as white nationalism although white nationalism sure likes to disguise itself as 'merely nationalism'.

 

[Jumi]

Populism seems to be used differently in different countries. In my corner of Europe it's meant to mean courting what people want instead of a long term ideological party lines. As a result most vocal "nationalists" are populists here. It's lost much of it's meaning though, with politicians slamming each other for populism whenever they themselves hold an unpopular opinion and see their opponents as taking an easy out.

 

[sun rise]

I agree that "populism" is being misused based on its traditional, common meaning. The same thing happened to the word "hacker" and all the railing against that misuse was utterly ineffective.

 

[Estro Felino]

Populism seems to be used differently in different countries. In my corner of Europe it's meant to mean courting what people want instead of a long term ideological party lines. As a result most vocal "nationalists" are populists here. It's lost much of it's meaning though, with politicians slamming each other for populism whenever they themselves hold an unpopular opinion and see their opponents as taking an easy out.

"When they accuse me of Souverainism and Populism, I love to remind them that sovereignty and people are terms present in the first article of our constitution: sovereignty belongs to the people"
Italian Prime Minister, before the UN

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then what terms would you suggest to describe the phenomenon?

Jingoism usually fits, though it's not a one-to-one replacement:

jingoism
noun

jin·go·ism | \ˈjiŋ-(ˌ)gō-ˌi-zəm \
Definition of jingoism


: extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy

Definition of JINGOISM

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As a centrist, I don’t want to cede these important ideas to folks on either extreme end.

What's the ordinary person? Can we assume they are well informed enough to know what is in the best interests to balance individual liberty with social responsibility? The problem with :"populist" is it tends to very overwhelmingly benefit only those who claim it. Trump's populism, for example, is a disaster for the ordinary American citizens who aren't white, heterosexual, cisgender, and male, and it's certainly a disaster in regards to environmental conservation and attempting to leave the Earth cleaner than it was when we got here.
With nationalism, as has been thoroughly discussed in another thread, has always had negative connotations. And in a nation like America especially there is no single identity we can cling onto for a national identity. Here we're all a bunch of mutts from all over the world. The cultural differences between the different regions of America also poses many problems to such an idea. The idea is also becoming increasingly obsolete as we live in an increasingly globalized community. Isolationist policies are no longer viable, and we've only become more globally connected since we learned that.

 

[Stanyon]

As an example, here’s Hillary using the term “nationalist” to smear Brexit voters, and those European “radicals” who don’t think open immigration policies are a good idea:
Hillary Clinton: Europe Needs Tougher Immigration Laws To Stave Off Nationalism

Let's not forget that quite a few in the U.K. media did go as far as claiming Brexiteers were "far-right" and even Nazis, or that Russia was supposedly behind all of it.

Nationalism is a good thing in my mind as I see it as no different than locking your house door and picking and choosing who you let through your door and who can stay or just visit. It makes no sense to leave your door open with a come one come all approach nor does it make any sense to let a governing body tell you you have to leave the borders open as in the case of the EU immigrant quotas. I see Nationalism as protecting ones interests and preserving what one has built, that does not necessarily mean isolation.

 

[Skwim]

We should NOT cede terms like “populist” and “nationalism” to the extremists

As a centrist, I don’t want to cede these important ideas to folks on either extreme end. The west is mostly democratic. Isn’t democracy supposed to represent the interests of the people? Why is populism bad? The west has a mostly shared set of values. Why is defending those values against multi-culturalists a bad thing? Why is it bad for a centrist to say that they want to defend their country against countries whose values run counter to theirs?

How do you propose we stop them?

.

 

[Stanyon]

Then what terms would you suggest to describe the phenomenon?

It's not a phenomenon, it's a logical reaction to years of failed leadership and policies. All this demonization of the right with claims of racism, xenophobia etc. are just petty smokescreens to attempt to obscure the fact that the old accepted order has failed, they are the last burps and farts of the diseased and dying. It is a change of seasons that shouldn't be feared, accept it.

 

[David T]

Populist nationalism is totally natural.

populist: a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.
or,
a person who holds, or who is concerned with, the views of ordinary people.

nationalist: a person who advocates political independence for a country.

When I see these words used by the media, they are almost always meant to convey a negative connotation.

In the case of nationalism, I see it used as a shorthand for extreme white supremacist groups.
In the case of populist, I see it used as a shorthand for socialism maybe even bordering on communism.

As a centrist, I don’t want to cede these important ideas to folks on either extreme end. The west is mostly democratic. Isn’t democracy supposed to represent the interests of the people? Why is populism bad? The west has a mostly shared set of values. Why is defending those values against multi-culturalists a bad thing? Why is it bad for a centrist to say that they want to defend their country against countries whose values run counter to theirs?

As an example, here’s Hillary using the term “nationalist” to smear Brexit voters, and those European “radicals” who don’t think open immigration policies are a good idea:

Hillary Clinton: Europe Needs Tougher Immigration Laws To Stave Off Nationalism

Some forests are extremely nationalistic. Here we have one such group that hates decideous types. They come in and make a mess of the lawns by dropping leaves, and all conifers know that is not natural and against god!

 

[Skwim]

Populist nationalism is totally natural.

Some forests are extremely nationalistic. Here we have one such group that hates decideous types. They come in and make a mess of the lawns by dropping leaves, and all conifers know that is not natural and against god!
View attachment 25526

Just as nit-picking FYI, not all conifers are evergreens. Some are deciduous.

.

 

[David T]

Just as nit-picking FYI, not all conifers are evergreens. Some are deciduous.

.

Gay is what that is called in conifer world

 

[icehorse]

What's the ordinary person? Can we assume they are well informed enough to know what is in the best interests to balance individual liberty with social responsibility? The problem with :"populist" is it tends to very overwhelmingly benefit only those who claim it. Trump's populism, for example, is a disaster for the ordinary American citizens who aren't white, heterosexual, cisgender, and male, and it's certainly a disaster in regards to environmental conservation and attempting to leave the Earth cleaner than it was when we got here.
With nationalism, as has been thoroughly discussed in another thread, has always had negative connotations. And in a nation like America especially there is no single identity we can cling onto for a national identity. Here we're all a bunch of mutts from all over the world. The cultural differences between the different regions of America also poses many problems to such an idea. The idea is also becoming increasingly obsolete as we live in an increasingly globalized community. Isolationist policies are no longer viable, and we've only become more globally connected since we learned that.

Wait what? Are you arguing against the idea that our elected leaders ought to do what most of us want them to do?

As for nationalism - I agree with you if you're saying the term has recently been besmirched.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wait what? Are you arguing against the idea that our elected leaders ought to do what most of us want them to do?

No. I'm saying "populist" is inherently flawed because the "ordinary citizen" is so abstract that it can't really be accurately defined. Working class? Blue collar? White Collar? HS Diploma? Bachelors degree? Fast food workers? Factory workers? Doctors? Lawyers? Teachers? Republican? Democrat? As I mentioned earlier, Trump's "populism" is a disaster for anyone who isn't white/male/hetero/cis. So how do we then define who and what an "ordinary citizen" is?

 

[Estro Felino]

No. I'm saying "populist" is inherently flawed because the "ordinary citizen" is so abstract that it can't really be accurately defined. Working class? Blue collar? White Collar? HS Diploma? Bachelors degree? Fast food workers? Factory workers? Doctors? Lawyers? Teachers? Republican? Democrat? As I mentioned earlier, Trump's "populism" is a disaster for anyone who isn't white/male/hetero/cis. So how do we then define who and what an "ordinary citizen" is?

@icehorse is right. Populism is another term for socialism....since our Government defines itself populist and wants all citizens, regardless of their profession to have similar incomes. Populism detests classism....and wants all citizens to belong to the same middle class.
This is the antithesis of Smith's Liberism: the state forges and recreates the society.
That's why the Minister of Labor said he wants to potentiate public enterprises and neglect the private ones.

Trump, au contraire, is not a Populist. He's a Pro-Free-Capitalism Nationalist

 

[icehorse]

No. I'm saying "populist" is inherently flawed because the "ordinary citizen" is so abstract that it can't really be accurately defined. Working class? Blue collar? White Collar? HS Diploma? Bachelors degree? Fast food workers? Factory workers? Doctors? Lawyers? Teachers? Republican? Democrat? As I mentioned earlier, Trump's "populism" is a disaster for anyone who isn't white/male/hetero/cis. So how do we then define who and what an "ordinary citizen" is?

No, I'm just talking good old democracy - where if the majority of the people want something attainable, the government works to achieve it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

@icehorse is right. Populism is another term for socialism.

No, it's not. Populism is a concept revolving around what the "ordinary citizen." Socialism is the common/public ownership of labor.

Trump, au contraire, is not a Populist. He's a Pro-Free-Capitalism Nationalist

Yet he has been labeled a populist.

No, I'm just talking good old democracy - where if the majority of the people want something attainable, the government works to achieve it.

America very fortunately does not work that way because "good old democracy" is, at best, mob rule. America was set up to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, not in a way to open the flood gates to let the majority drown the minority.

 

[icehorse]

America very fortunately does not work that way because "good old democracy" is, at best, mob rule. America was set up to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, not in a way to open the flood gates to let the majority drown the minority.

Fair point, up to a point. We have a strong legal system to maintain law and order, and - as you say - to defend minorities. But within those bounds, the idea is that we vote for stuff, and whoever or whatever gets the most votes wins.