Talk:Populism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

NPOV

NPOV - First paragraph: Many populists appeal to a specific region or a specific social class such as the working class, middle class, or farmers. Often they employ dichotomous rhetoric, and claim to represent the majority.

This is not a fair and unbiased assessment. The use of the word "dichotomous" suggests that their claims are incorrect as opposed to another way of viewing. Further, to describe their claims as "rhetoric" in this context serves as a form of political dialogue that in itself is a form of rhetorical posture. Also, the use of the word "claim" in the context of this set of sentences insinuates that populists are posing inaccurate remarks. A more neutral-sounding tone would use the word "suggest".

---

I think that any good list of populists shouldn't omit William Goebel

---

I rewrote the page on populist to add more detail on historic and current populist movements in the U.S., and because the existing page didn't reflect a neutral point of view at all even though I did agree with the point of view expressed. I was hoping to reflect the essence of the previous page while making it more neutral and detailed. But yeah, I do agree that populist and populism should probably be linked and their contents combined in some fashion.

'Also, on the populism entry, I don't really agree that the word 'dictator' would apply to Huey Long. Corrupt yes, autocratic maybe, but he was not on the same level as Hitler or Stalin. -- Canyonrat'

Being a dictator is quantitative question, not a qualitative.-FredrikM

I would disagree. Autocratic is sufficient here. Dictator implies a ruler of a country.

---

Should this be merged with Demagogue? -- The Anome

A true populist is not a demagogue. Demagogues are concerned with their own ambitions and might (mis-)use populism (or other means) to achieve them. IMO, the "Descent into demagoguery" is not particular to populists, and perhaps some of this section should be moved to Demagogue. Jrv 22:12 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

What is a "true populist"? One of the chief features of populism, it seems to me, is that it offers a simplified version of reality. And simplified versions of reality (Ideologies) are naturally dangerous for a variety of reasons and people who peddle them would then naturally be demagogues, in the colloquial sense of "dangerous ideological rhetorician."

Would your "true populist" then be someone who realizes he's a dangerous ideologue/demagogue or someone who does not realize he's a dangerous idealogue/demagogue? Since we can never know the mind of populist, it doesn't matter. You cannot answer the question, "what does the demagogue think he is doing?" However, part of the definition of "populist" is that "popularity" is sought, in particular, political popularity. Thus, all populists are naturally "concerned with their own ambitions" and since populist messages are dangerously simplified, populists (true or not) are prone to the misuse of said popularity for the furtherance of their own ambitions. Thus Populists are natural Demagogues. However, I don't think the two pages should be joined. However a link should be provided and explained.

---

Seems to me that the Populist and Populism pages should be linked, at the very least. IMO, ideally the Populist page would merely be:

A Populist is an advocate or practitioner of Populism. Famous, infamous, or otherwise well-known Populists include: (list of people).

Jrv 22:12 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

As far as I am aware, populism is "government" (or other socio-political support) for the benefit of common people, as contrasted with corporatism for example. I don't believe that populism assumes or requires "elites". Jrv 22:12 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

How can one separate "the people" out from the whole populace, unless "the people" are being rhetorically separated from some other faction within the population? By which I mean to say, asserting the category, "the common people" auto-asserts "the uncommon people", i.e. "elites." Thus the category "elites" is asserted by populism, even when the assertion is not explicit.

I think populism is generally contrasted with libertarianism. -Phoebus 05:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I would think populism would be contrasted with wonkishness or intellectualism, or elitism, which are characteristics that can be, but are not necessarily, associated with libertarianism.

That doesn't make much sense to me. In the last decade, libertarian property rights activists have used a heavily populist approach in promoting ballot initiatives limiting regulatory taking in the American West (notably, Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004).) Libertarianism is not a rhetorical style, but perhaps one of the purest political philosophies; as such, it seems to make good use of the rhetoric of populism (even though the legislation can be more elite-serving or corporate-serving in its

effects.) -Pete 08:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A campaign can be populist without the measure it is advocating being populist, necessarily. Also, an idea can be popular without being populist.

Populism in Early modern period

I tried to help expanding this section, I've added some information about populism during the reformation. Hope it helps, if needful I'd love to do more work on this section. If you think my information was useful?

Populism as Style or Master Frame

A lot of academics do not call populism an "ideology" but a "style" (history & political science) or "master frame" (sociology).

Canovan, Margaret. 1981. Populism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Kazin, Michael. 1995. The Populist Persuasion: An American History. New York: Basic Books.

Berlet, Chip and Matthew N. Lyons. 2000. Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York: Guilford Press.

Can we talk?--Cberlet 03:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think your view is an acceptable addition, and have attempted a compromise, including both interpretations. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 23:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And I like the results. Thanks. Hope others agree.--Cberlet 00:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See moved text below in new discussion.

Ideology, philosophy, or style?

pop·u·lism Audio pronunciation of "populism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ppy-lzm)

n.

  1.
        1. A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.
        2. The movement organized around this philosophy.
  2. Populism The philosophy of the Populist Party.

From the American Heritage Dictionary. You may personally think that populism is rarely used as anything but a rhetorical style, but the actual term refers to the ideology/philosophy. -Grick(^{talk to me!}) 07:32, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

OK, so you have one short dictionary definition versus six scholarly books, all of which do not call populism an ideology. In fact, the dictionary definition does not call populism an "ideology" but a "political philosophy." The point of an encyclopedia entry is to go beyond simple definition, otherwise ti would be called a dictionary. We have had the conversation before, but let's start it again. What substantial published work can you cite--published on the last 25 years--that considers populism an "ideology?" There are a few, but Canovan and Kazin have done a good job of explaining why they call populism a "style." This is not my personal idiosyncratic idea...it is the overwhelming position of social science scholars today, in the U.S. and Europe.--Cberlet 14:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Political program or movement that champions the common person, usually by favourable contrast with an elite.

Populism usually combines elements of the left and right, opposing large business and financial interests but also frequently being hostile to established socialist and labour parties. In the U.S. the term was applied to the program of the Populist movement of the 1890s. http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9375664&query=populism&ct=

I don't deny that the term has multiple definition; the primary/original meaning of the term, however, refers to more than a manner of speech.

The current edit is fine with me, by the way. -Grick(^{talk to me!}) 21:39, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

---

Maybe this can help...this is from The Dictionary of 20th Century World Politics, Henry Holt and Company: NY, 1993:

Populism - Mass political movements that started in both Europe and the United States toward the end of the 19th century. Populism is known for mobilizing the poor, especially rurual people who have suffered from the dislocation of industrialization and urbanization. In this sense, both 20th century Italian Fascism and German Nazism have their beginnings in populist movements - which, however, came under control of despotic charismatic leaders. But any political movement that has mass support and is generally perceived to be acting in the interests of the people can be called populist.

Kingturtle 22:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

From the above discussion, it is clear that "philosophy" is more accurate than "ideology."--Cberlet 21:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

OK. Sam Spade 22:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It is not an ideology, though in some moments it did try to get to that level, but the politicians and theorists who tried that failed, and as a style populism can actualy be noticed in all politicians and considered a basic element of politics, so there is a basic political philosophy that makes a leader or movement truly populist but the retorical style unites populists and, for instance, socialists with a populist style. Lususromulus (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions

The recent deletions of Schwarzenegger, Dean, and Bush from a list was unexplained. If someone wants to discuss this, here is the place.--Cberlet 19:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Second sentence

I've changed the second sentence—problematized it, so it no longer contradicts the first and third. Sorry if the paragraph represented some delicate balance of consensus, but it just didn't seem coherent to me. Bishonen | talk 15:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not really, and altho I don't prefer your wording, I don't feel strongly enough about it to do anything. At somepoint someone will probably completely rewrite the intro, which could well be for the best. Sam Spade 18:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Elitism

No, Populism cannot coincide with Elitism. They are, interestingly enough, antonyms. See here. --TheGrza 10:03, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think elitists can be populists or at least use populist rhetoric though. --24.72.74.230 04:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone from an elite can be a populist, but not an elitist per se, at least not in his politics or rethoric (he may be in his personal life). Lususromulus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.21.65 (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

populists

are the following people from the list of populists in this article really populist?

Pauline Hanson Jean-Marie Le Pen Carl I. Hagen Newt Gingrich Silvio Berlusconi Alessandra Mussolini Jörg Haider

--Revolución (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Hanson, yes; Le Pen, yes; Hagen, ?; Gingrich, don't think so, maybe just average demagogism of politics; Berlusconi, yes; Mussolini partially, Haider, mainly yes. Lususromulus (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

from article

Individual populists have variously promised to stand up to corporate power and "put people first." Populism incorporates anti-elitism, anti-regime politics (and sometimes nationalism). Many populists appeal to a specific region or a specific social class rather than the broader society.

Populists generally appeal to the Middle Class or farmers. That is called "producerism," not class struggle. If you go to the Class struggle page, you will see the difference.--Cberlet 00:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't just cut out the paragraph, offer an alternative cite.--Cberlet 00:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel a need to cite anything, if you want to cite something, cite whats in the paragraph I removed. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

That's OK. Don't bother to do any research or provide any cites. I added the needed cites. Thanks for your input.--Cberlet 03:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Did you actually cite yourself??? Please keep the rhetoric off the wiki, me failing to cite your claims is no sign of lack in research on my part. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 13:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

If you think the material is contentious, do some research, gather some cites. Don't just yank the text off because you don't like it but are unwilling to extend the effort to actually look into the subject. There are dozens of books and journal articles on populism. Go for it, but you have no standing under Wiki guidelines to just pull off material and then refuse to discuss it.--Cberlet 13:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no need for rebuttel cites, I'm not claiming anything. I am perfectly in the right to remove a contentious passage until the conflict is resolved. I have no idea what you think your doing, but what you placed on the article is not an acceptable cite for your claims. Please review Wikipedia:Citation and/or wikipedia:footnote. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 16:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. You remove the text and refuse to have a discussion based on actual research or cites. In fact, you are not engaging in a discussion at all. You just delete the text, and then claim that is OK. What is contentious? Be specific? Provide evidence.--Cberlet 17:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Populists?

The only truly self proclaimed populists on that list are Mike Harris (common sense revolution) and Preston Manning (Reform Ideology). Ralph Klein is strictly right winged and anti-federalist, though he does support certain populist positions (mainly on social issues) he cannot by any ideological extension be considered populist when one examines his economic positions. Tommy Douglas is just the opposite. While he did foster medicare, which can be included in the realm of populism, he was also staunchly opposed to any sort of nationalism or racism, as seen by his opposition to Japanese Internment Camps and Deportation in WWII. Also his opposition to the war measures act during the october crisis is further evidence of opposition to populist sentiment. I will remove Douglas' name from the list.--68.73.52.21 03:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

To quote directly from the article: populism sometimes incorporates nationalism and racism. Not always. Bearcat 05:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but direct opposition to them is grounds for an opposing label to populism.

But the Mouseland speech is pure "give it back to the people" anti-elitist populism. And opposing nationalism doesn't make one anti or pro-populism (no matter how staunch that oppostition/support is). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lususromulus (talk • contribs) 20:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

populism is fun

NPOV

User:Remington and the Rattlesnakes has been adding political affiliations to Elitism and Populism, specifically Elitism being conservative and Populism being Liberal, usually a single sentence without a citiation and contradicting the entire page that occurs before the comment. If anyone disagrees with this charactertization of these edits, please respond here or Talk:Elitism; otherwise please be on the lookout for these edits and remove them asap.--TheGrza 03:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm a lefty, but the idea that Elitism is inherently conservative and Populism inherently Liberal is just plain wrong. Read the Canovan book on right-wing forms of Populism. Also, many liberals are elitist.--Cberlet 22:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

common pejorative connotations

Isn't populism mostly used in a pejorative way in most media? When beeing used as such it has a different meaning then the historical meaning portrayed here, it should be noted that "when used pejoratively, a populist is someone whose portayed opinions reflect the egoistic tendensies and biases of the dumb masses. A populist proposes simplisic sloganesque solutions for complex sociological problems and prays on the basic fears and hopes of the people to get elected. Populism is said to expose the weakness of the democratic system implyin that the people do not know what is best for them and do not care what is best for the world around them." offcourse this is a biased explanation but the word is is very often used in biased text. i believe someone looking for an explanation of populism when he reads it in an article, should get this meaning as well as the historical one, offcourse, once again, clearly stating that this is the concept of populism in a pejorative sense. Droon 19:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

where's Russia?

Shouldn't there be something about populism in C19th Russia?

Specify, please. José San Martin 00:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There should be a section on the Russian movement, it is discussed in the Canovan book on Populism.--Cberlet 15:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I was shocked to find that there is no section on Russian populism in this article, although the 'narodniki' are mentioned in passing under the 'definitions'. The revolutionary agitators of middle-class and intellectual backgrounds in Russia between 1850-1890 played a crucial part in determining the political landscape of the nation. Alexander Herzen, one of the primary populist theorists, is generally accredited with having fostered the environment in which the Emancipation of the serfs was possible - as recognised by Herzen's article. It was Russian populists who assassinated Tsar Alexander II in 1881, which unsurprisingly had a profound effect on Russian politics.

Furthermore, the Russian populists played a profound role on influencing the later revolutionary movement, led primarily by Marxist intellectuals. Lenin in particular is said to have been profoundly influenced by the populist movement. And indeed, the 'populist' movement get their name from the Marxists who wished to define them as one homogenous group, different from the later revolutionaries. --- Anonymous contributor 19:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.27.49 (talk)

Clue anyone?

http://www.strana-smer.sk/ <<--cut OK, I can't read the language, and it was in the wrong section. Any defenders?--Cberlet 15:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Bias

This article is biased. I read in the BBC that Condoleeza Rice accused Chavez of "Populism", and when I looked it up, it was like Condoleeza wrote this article tailored to her comment towards Chavez. I'm not a political science major, so I won't change it, but I would like it if someone with some expertise in this matter would fix it. Pjanini1 16:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is based on social science texts. I am sorry it offends you, but your opinion on this is based on no research.--Cberlet 18:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it right to describe Chavez as far left? He's certainly a socialist, but is it not just US propaganda that portrays him as far left? I don't really have any external evidence to support this, but I thought I wold raise it anyway, as I don't think it is correct. -- David G

If Chavez isn't a populist, the term has no meaning. The "US Propaganda" you are referring to, dear sir, is what is known in circles outside your own as "the proper use of language to name something".

The emphasis on citations, dear wiki masters, is naturally skewing most any contentious matter on your otherwise excellent resource leftward, given that the vast bulk of academics (from which to cite) are along the left end of the spectrum, and they naturally publish treatises sympathetic to that spectrum in order to publish and receive tenure. There is no corrective to this.

Secondly, there are a great many cited quotes that are simply opinions. The difference between the value of an opinion of an academic on the one hand and a learned individual outside of academia who has, say, worked in government on the other, is negligible. Thus, in order to present a coherent and unfiltered picture of reality, based in true democratic participation, dreaded "original research" is an absolute necessity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.32.229 (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Christian Democracy Template?

This template bothers me. Many populist movements are not Christian. I propose we remove the template and just add a link. I do not even think that "Populism" belongs on the template, but that is another issue.--Cberlet 14:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree the template was also added to Localism which doesn't currently mention anything about Christian Democracy. The template gives the impresion that the topics under its "ideas" section orginated or are soley the within the domain of Christian democracy which seems incorrect or at least POV.--JK the unwise 17:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"corrupt" elites

Is the term populism applied only when the perception of oppression is wrong? Or is someone still a populist even if actually opressed? If the latter is true, I think that the quotation marks on "corrupt" affect NPOV, for it implies that the elites are not corrupt.

The expression "promised" also affects NPOV, since it implies that populists tend to be demagogues. No one would say that "individual conservatives have promised to lower taxes".--Ezadarque 12:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The idea that the ruling elites are "corrupt" is central to populism, which seeks to mobilize "The People" against the "corrupt elies." See Canovan, Laclau, Kazin. As for the "promise," it is often not carried out once populists elect or install a new government leader; but the sentence should read: "Leaders of populist movements," so I changed it. For the record, throughout history, many "populists [leaders] tend to be demagogues."--Cberlet 13:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that the idea of "corrupt" elites is central to populism, I just don't think "corrupt" should have quotation marks. It implies that populists are wrong on their judgment. As for the "promise", it may well be true that populists break their promises more often than other politicians, but I don't think that the place to state that is the sentence in question. I think that "Removing corrupt elites, 'putting people first' and standing up to corporate power are variously part of populist agendas" would be more neutral.--Ezadarque 23:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The idea that all elites are actually corrupt is a populist idea. That is, it is an ideology which demagogue preach in order to gain adherents. Life is more complex than populist rhetoric. The quotes are perfectly appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.32.229 (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Too broad a definition?

By this definition, "Populism is a political philosophy or rhetorical style that holds that the common person's interests are oppressed or hindered by the elite in society, and that the instruments of the state need to be grasped from this self-serving elite and used for the benefit and advancement of the people as a whole.", any liberal revolution can be classified as populist. Was not the American Revolution intended to take control of the state in order to end the oppression of the English elite? Or the French Revolution? --Ezadarque 12:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Both involved elements of populism. See Canovan.--Cberlet 13:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that, by this definition, those revolutions did not "involve" elements of populism. They were populist in their very essence. They both holded that the "common person's interests were oppressed..." The definition fits any liberal revolution perfectly.--Ezadarque 23:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This page cites mainstream published works. Your original research POV is perfectly valid, but without a cite is has no place in this entry. Wikipedia is not a blog.--Cberlet 16:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Point taken.--Ezadarque 00:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is a lot of contention over what populism is, so if you find a cite, tuck it right in.  :-) --Cberlet 01:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I do have a cite of William Outhwaite's "Blackwell dictionary of twentieth-century social thought". It is a quite popular dictionary in Brazil, but I don't know about the USA. The "populism" entry states as its main characteristics: "1) the presence of a socially mobilized mass with little or no autonomous class organization, 2) leadership predominantly originated in high or middle-class sectors; and 3) charismatic bond between leaders and followers." I have translated it back to English, this is not the original text. The article is mostly centered in twentieth century Latin America.--Ezadarque 01:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds legitimate. Why not add it?--Cberlet 02:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Does this have any place on wikipedia?

I'm quite new to this, but I'm sure this seems to be pointless trivia:

It is interesting to note that there has been a recent formation of a Populist political movement on the website www.myspace.com in the group community known as the Atheist and Agnostic Group. This group appears to be avid supporters of an individual whose name is James. According to this new Populist movement it will be James who runs for President of the United States of America in the year 2020 with Ben as his running mate. Some of the included policies/political slogans include "Boobies for Peace" and "More Cowbell". His political stances include a "your body, your choice" position regarding abortion and drugs, encouraging businesses to adopt a midday siesta, and isolation of the state of Arizona for Libertarian use. It should also be noted that inspite of the devotion of James' supporters, pages in favor of James as a presidential candidate in 2020 have been systematically deleted almost as quickly as they are put up.[2][3]

Should this be removed? Tozznok 23:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV: Philippines section

"Populist political figures or groups in the Philippines tend to further conflict between the masa (masses) and the so-called "elite". Populist forces take advantage of the fact that most of the country's population is poor, uneducated, and easily charmed by rhetoric. Populist groups further the notion that it is good to be poor, and that the rich are undeserving and should give to the poor, and that is perfectly appropriate to steal from the rich, as when power lines are illegally connected to squatter shanties."

This section should be deleted. Though I'm not familiar with Philippine politics, I doubt there is any group in the Philippines that would officially advocate "stealing" from the rich and "illegally" connecting power lines. Further, it reveals the author's bias to refer to the poor as "easily charmed by rhetoric". This section sounds like somebody has an axe to grind and they purposely did not name the groups they hope the reader will associate with "populist political figures or groups" in order to avoid responsibility for labeling.

Dead People

Pim Fortuyn is dead; should he be listed under CURRENT populists? There may be others on the list that need weeding out.

Lula is not populist

If we look at Lula's voting and Lula's government's achievement, we'll see that those who were economically and socially benefited during his mandate were the ones who voted for him. His economic policy is strictly ortodox, with almost none popular leaning, although, statics show, something has been done for the poor in the last few years. Lula's identification with the people is natural, as he was poor (as most Brazilians) during the longest part of his life and the lives of most Brazilians improved during his government, and not product of manipulation, as in populism. 200.139.179.120 16:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

See also's

I just removed this:

Populism could be used to describe Popular culture and Popular science. Also see Populist Party.

Populist Party of America is already in the See Also section. If populism can really be used for the first few terms, then we should create Populism (disambiguation)... but I'm not so sure about that. -- SCZenz 19:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Er.....

Somebody has written "HI JOSH COUGH!!!" in the middle of one of the first lines of this article.... I'm not a registered user and don't know how to change stuff etc so in any case, any possibility of removing this...??

Done. Garik 11 21:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Intro def'n of populism

My understanding of populism is that it may or may not involve "rising up". Populism is an appeal to the common 'man', supporting the common man as opposed to the elite, but is it a 'rising up'? I am open to discussion here. Thanks.Jance 05:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue here on Wikipedia is what scholars and other reputable sources can be cited to defend a specific text--not your opinion and "understanding." It is a higher standard, which you are welcome to research. if you find a text, then go ahead and edit.--Cberlet 02:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, do you have a source for your change? That would help. At least one could go look at it. Until then, this is only your understanding, as well. I was hoping we could discuss what would be a good source. This article is not sourced. So if we are to maintain any kind of WIkipedia, or reasonably academic paper, we should have valid definitions that are sourced.Jance 08:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope I am just tired tonight, but I thought you sounded a little snippy. I wouldn't write wtihout sources, unless it was to see if others agreed to the text. That was my attempt to do so. Guess I will pass on this article. Have fun.Jance

They are sourced. Please read the cited books.--Cberlet 03:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The first two sentences I was referring to were not sourced. If you meant the same as the reference at the end of the paragraph,then you need to cite it. Please do not be so condescending.Jance 18:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is considered appropriate to cite at the end of a paragraph. As you have requested, I have now placed redundant cites after each sentence. It is not condescending to ask you to read the most significant books on a topic before you claim the material is not properly cited.--Cberlet 20:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe citing at the end of a paragraph is appropriate in Wiki, but it isn't in my profession. I do not claim to be an expert in political philosophies, which was why I said I was open to input. I am not generally open to condescension. Reading "significant books" on the topic has nothing to do with whether or not something is properly cited. However, I am not sufficiently interested in this article to get into a quarrel with you, over something so inane. I will leave it in your "expert" hands.Jance 03:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

<-----------The article now says "remove from leadership" in the intro sentence. I propose the following:

Populism is a political philosophy or rhetorical style that appeals to the common people to unite and change societal structures ruled by an entrenched, self-serving elite.

This (after modification) may better represent the differing sources on the subject, since not all imply leadership change, but there is an element of opressed banding together in all of them. Also, the accusation of corruption seemed a bit too specific; they can just be selfish (which is somewhat different). -Grick(^{talk to me!}) 20:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. OK, how about:

Populism is a political philosophy or rhetorical style that appeals to the common people to unite and change societal structures ruled by what is seen as an entrenched, self-serving, selfish, or corrupt elite.

Seems to cover all bases.--Cberlet 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe Grick's sentence is simpler.Jance 03:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Grick's sentence is simpler, but also way oversimplistic and reductionist. Most scholars who see populism as a rhetorical style argue it is a constructed frame in which the perception is created that there is an entrenched, selfish, or corrupt elite. This distracts public attention away from systemic, institutional, and structural inequality in a society. Sometimes populist movements are mobilized around fantasy elites--such as the bigoted claims about Jews spread by the Nazis. The introduction needs to have a more complicated and nuanced set of information representing a broader set of scholars and their research--as does the article.--Cberlet 16:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Grick's sentence is not reductionist. It is not oversimplistic. It is not that different. However, it is not redundant, as yours is. But do what you want. The last thing I want is to get involved in another article where there is one editor who WP:OWN. I don't have time. Jance 19:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I might be stepping into something here, so I'll be conservative with my edits. First, the discussion on this talk page seems to expose a valuable distinction - that "populism" may be used to refer to either a political philosophy or to a rhetorical style. Rather than pursue a unified description of the term, then, I think the main page should contain a paragraph (not a single sentence) distinguishing the meanings, and giving some historical context to both. Then, separate sections for each. I suggest this above all as a service to readers, not as a compromise between editors...though in this case, I think those goals align nicely.

On another note...the "footnotes" should be listed as separate items. It's difficult to read multiple sources within a single note, and doesn't match the style of any WP page I've seen. Multiple notes at the end of a sentence or paragraphs is fine, and is common...multiple citations within a reference, not so good.

Lastly, I want to thank you guys for genuinely expanding my understanding of what populism is. The distinction between philosophy and rhetoric is a good one, and regardless of the outcome on this page, you guys have provided me with a nice little epiphany. -Pete 08:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I took a first stab at integrating the varying perspectives represented here into the introductory section. I think listing eight references in the opening paragraph is excessive, and reflects the heated debate carried out here on the talk page more than it serves to educate the reader. Spreading those citations out throughout the text, in places where they may be more relevant,would be ideal; I am not familiar with these works, so I lack the ability to do that. -Pete 01:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Populism in Latin America

The paragraphs referring to Latin America were completely partial: saying things like -the US have done nothing wrong- and -Populism has had a negative impact in Latin America-. I think nobody can deny that those affirmations are far form being impartial. It also insulted my faith as a Christian Catholic, saying our Holy Church was responsible for the power pyramid in our countries; I do not intend to deny the responsibility of certain hierarchical fractions within it in the conservation of the unfair economical system we suffer, but accusing a faith -the one that outnumbers all the rest in the Western world, and which is also the main religion in countries so underdeveloped as Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Ireland- of a negatively perceived socio-economical structure is completely insulting, partial and has no sources to sustain it. The general tone or the paragraphs I corrected depicted before a deep contempt for our culture and our people. We cannot tolerate discrimination, racial and religious hatred in this collective work. I have made some corrections, trying to avoid giving personal opinions, profoundly sourced and based in a variety of books of every political tendency. If someone considers the new version to be too partial I would be glad to read his/her reasons.

-User:Freivolk

Freivolk is right. Take a look at this excerpt from the section on Populists in Latin America, which is unsourced and ridiculously simplistic. "Poor people in Latin American countries have a low educational level, therefore they are easily cum by populists: but they are not real populists, since they only cheat common people." This article is in desperate need of revision. db 02:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

---

"Leaders of populist movements have variously pooped to stand up to..."

Have they really?

Irelandmc 14:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hitler

The last statement sounds like an opinion, particularly because of the italics:

Adolf Hitler, leader of Nazi Germany, was installed in the exceptional office of Führer. However, Hitler's policies were not populist.

I do not know if they should be considered populist or not on the page, but personally I think that they clearly had a populist tone. He did not do support his policies merely for the sake of his personal interests, but for his twisted vision which he felt was right for his country.

--67.68.31.175 21:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hitler is the classic populist and demagogue. He had his enemy "elites" (in and out of the country) and his policies were attempts to target those elites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.32.229 (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Massive deletion and substitution

Please do not delete a major portion of the page and replace it with one-sided POV text. Feel free to add material, and dicuss changes in the lead. Please follow Wiki guidelines and work constructively and collaboratively--Cberlet 01:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC).

Becoming more familiar with wiki format (though not footnoting protocols -- so I bracketed the proposed footnotes) I've sought to greatly shorten my entry, and place it in tension with the other two main proposed populist definitions -- populism as rhetorical stance or as ideology about "the homogenous people pitted against elites." I want to propose in the strongest possible terms that there is now an extensive body of scholarship that focuses on populism as about developing civic agency -- involving a strong popular education dimension -- and this creates a very different understanding of politics and cultural identity. This understanding of populism has a strong historical precedent in the three movements I cite (19th century farmers, 1930s/40s movements to defend democray against fascism, and black freedom struggle) and contemporary expressions in at least the broad based citizen organizations descended from Alinsky -- whose roots were in the 1930s movement, and who called himself a populist, which he distinguished from "ideological" politics of any kind. Populisms that focus on popular agency are not about leaders advocating on behalf of people, but people developing collective power and standing on their own terms.

Let's have discussion and debate on this emphasis. Boyte 17:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyte (talk • contribs) 17:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a predominant view of populism in the international academic literature. Populist parties such as the Lega Nord in Italy, the FPO in Austria, Ross Perot's movement in the US, the Pim Fortuyn list in Holland are/were all based around the central figure of a charismatic leader. To say that it is about "people developing collective power and standing on their own terms" is to either be naive or not understand populism. The definition by Albertazzi and McDonnell in the first paragraph is in tune with well-regarded understandings of populism as a political category by scholars such as Margaret Canovan and Cas Mudde. I do not see why this definition should be deleted or paraphrased and the first paragraph turned into the Harry Boyte show (Giggsy72 18:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

Please learn editing procedures

We now have two editors, one who is damaging the page through inexperience with editing procedures, and one who is inserting uncited opinion. Folks, please, stop doing this. There is already too much uncited material on this page. Boyte, you are mangling the page in real time. Test how to edit and footnote and use preview mode until you can add a footnote without wrecking the entry. Learning is easier in the Sandbox mode.--Cberlet 18:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will do, boyte —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyte (talk • contribs) 19:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Populism and popular power

I have read the descriptions of how to make major changes to articles -- they make sense to me (a strong believer in deliberative processes). I think I understand how to do footnotes as well, but let's discuss this in the talk section.

This is the line of argument I believe it very important to make, to incorporate a dimension of populism -- as a politics of popular empowerment, not simply the championing of "interests by leaders." There is an extensive literature on this, a little of which I give below and much more of which I discuss in my two Dewey lectures, among other citations:

This is something like I propose:

Populism is a political philosophy that aims to advance popular interests and values in the face of perceived threats by entrenched, self-serving or corrupt elites. There has often been dispute over definitions of populism, with some arguing that the term is too vague to be useful and others arguing that populism represents an ideology that sees a homogenous and virtuous people pitted against elites and dangerous others. In contrast, Harry Boyte and a group of other scholars have argued that there is a set of core components having to do with the development of popular agency or power, distinguishing democratic populist movements with a broadly open culture and alliance building strategies from reactive and parochial and ideological movements. Those populist movements which focus on developing the collective power or civic agency of “the common people” include extensive popular education dimensions.

These populist movements with a strong focus on developing popular power are linked directly in terms of history, figures, and philosophy to more recent forms of “broad based organizing” that educate people in a philosophically democratic but nonideological politics which negotiates across lines of differences of race, culture, party, income, geography and other distinctions to address common problems. For instance, Ella Baker, Bayard Rustin, A. Phillip Randolph and Stanley Levison, schooled in the Harlem wing of the populist movement of the Great Depression, were key architects of the black freedom movement, and their writings are often cited in broad based citizen organizing. Saul Alinsky, generally seen as the “father” of community organizing and all four of the major broad based networks, called himself a populist, and criticized what he called ideological politics.

These are a few of the relevant references to discuss: on the understanding of populism as about popular agency, see "Populism and the Left," Spring, 1981; Harry C. Boyte and Frank Riessman, Eds., The New Populism: The Politics of Empowerment, Temple University Press, 1986; Boyte, CommonWealth: A Return to Citizen Politics, Free Press, 1989; Everyday Politics: Reconnecting Citizens and Public Life, University of Pennsylvania Press 2004. Two Dewey lectures at the University of Michigan http://www.umich.edu/~mserve/faculty/lectures.html 2002, 2007 develop these arguments in terms of the nonideological and philosophically democratic politics that is the characteristic of broad populist movements, whose activities extend far beyond simply parties or electoral politics. In these works I argue that democratic and popular education components were extensive features of the three broad democratic movements often described and self-described as "populist" or "people's movements" in American history -- the farmers Alliance cooperatives and the People's Party of the 19th century; the "Popular Front" struggle for democracy against fascism in the 1930s and 1940s; and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, with counterparts elsewhere. In the first, populist lecture circuits, encampments, and the Alliance press were among the forms of popular education (see for instance Lawrence Goodwyn, The Populist Moment, Oxford, 1979; in the 1930s, a great wealth of adult education and labor education schools, course, study circles and other popular education efforts accompanied the populist movement of the New Deal (see for instance Michael Denning, The Cultural Front, Verso, 1997; Eric Foner, Story of American Freedom, Norton, 1998); and for the black freedom struggle the citizenship schools and freedom schools, as well as what Payne calls, in general, the submerged “organizing tradition” (see Charles Payne, I've Got the Light of Freedom, University of California Berkeley, 1995, 2007; Barbara Ransby, Ella Baker and the Black Freedom Struggle, UNC Press, 2003). Nicholas Longo’s, Why Community Matters, State University of New York Press, 2007, treats connections of popular education efforts between the three periods, showing ties to Scandinavian folk schools.

For today’s broad based organizations" that practice nonideological but philosophically democratic politics in networks of the Industrial Areas Foundation, the Gamaliel Foundation, the PICO network and DART see http://www.gamaliel.org/default.htm http://www.industrialareasfoundation.org and http://www.piconetwork.org http://www.thedartcenter.org/about_dart.html ; and for recent scholarship on such organizing, that describes its populist qualities, see for instance William Greider, Who Will Tell the People, Touchstone, 1992, Mark R. Warren, Dry Bones Rattling, Princeton University, 2001; Richard Wood, Faith in Action, University of Chicago, 1992, Marion Orr, Ed., Transforming the City, University of Kansas, 2007.

For a discussion of the difference between Aristotelean understandings of politics as an egalitarian and horizontal process of negotiating differences for the sake of common ends that such groups revive in contrast to party and ideological politics, see Bernard Crick In Defense of Politics, Continuum, 1962, Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, University of Chicago, 1958, Sheldon Wolin, The Presence of the Past, John Hopkins Press, 1989, and Arlene Saxonhouse, Fear of Diversity: THe Birth of Political Science in Ancient Greek Thought, University of Chicago, 1992. For the ties between such politics and populism, see Boyte, “Civic Populism,” Perspectives on Politics Vol. 1, Number 4, pp. 734-742; and Rom Coles, “Of Tensions and Tricksters, Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 4, Number 3 (Spring, 2006), pp. 527-46. For a discussion of the crystallization of ideological and party politics, see voter based , see Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan, Party Systems and Voter Alignments, Free Press, 1967]. Such a philosophical democratic politics meant that electoral expressions were only one element of broader movements, involving many not voting for the political parties. Boyte 00:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC) (boyte)

Hi, I understand that you are an expert on this topic, but you need to do a few more things. There is no "I" in an encyclopedia entry. Each paragraph you wrote will need a citation. Try to summarize some of these citations, and stick to the key points. Read WP:OR and WP:NPOV, especially the section WP:UNDUE. Just enclose all references at the end of the sentence or paragraph between these funky symbols: <ref>Citation Here</ref>.

Hope this helps.--Cberlet 01:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This material seems more appropriate for a personal blog. It is an essay by Harry Boyte, showcasing Harry Boyte. And, in the process, deleting other useful academic references and points (Giggsy72 18:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

learning curve

Yes, many thanks. On a steep learning curve in the wiki world. Boyte

American social history of populism deleted?

Please explain the delection of the bibliography of social histories of populist movements in the United States (I only added a sampling of authors published by established presses such as Bruce Palmer, Lawrence Goodwyn, Carl Boggs, and as an intellectual complement, Christopher Lasch -- a fuller list would be much longer). In the general category, Rom COles' 2006 review essay about recent democratic organizing, which he calls "transformational populism," in Perspectives on Politics, the leading public journal of the American Political Science Association, should also count. I'm confused about the criteria used here for deletion!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyte (talk • contribs) 23:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Realization -- I see now that Cberlet has returned to the version before Giggsy's edits earlier today.

I'll put in a thicker bibliography later on American social history.

On Giggsy's comment above about "international scholarship" showing that populism is electoral parties built around charismatic figures -- this is simply not accurate.

There is a clear difference to be noted between current commentators in Europe on "populism" and the extensive social histories that treat the American democratic movements with a populist character and often populist self-description -- Canovan is clearly not treating the AMerican case nor familiar with the American social historical literature in her argument that most populists shun the label. Populism has more generally been a positive designation in the US, although certainly not only associated with broad democratic populist movements. See my above argument for the distinguishing characteristic as the existence or nonexistence of extensive democratic adult education elements.

Giggsy needs to read American social histories of populist movements. Any passing familiarity with this extensive literature would correct any one-sided focus on formal electoral expressions. There is also a rich literature -- including some current scholarship , such as Marie Strom's forthcoming study of the Scandinavian folk school culture to be published by the highly regarded Institute for Democracy in South Africa -- which shows the breadth of earlier European populist style movements, far beyond political parties. Pomata's piece in our "New Populism" collection makes the point well; Pomata is one of the leading European social historians, in the view of at least some recognized authories. Boyte

With all due respect Harry, I have more than a passing familiarity with the literature. I think that if you look at university level courses around the world on populism, you will find that the key texts over the last thirty years are those by Gellner and Ionescu, Canovan, Herbert Kitschelt, Paul Taggart, Ernesto Laclau, Pierre Taguieff, Michael Kazin and Yves Meny. It seems to me that you are coming to the argument from a niche perspective. In all seriousness, do you think that university students studying populism look at Scandinavian folk school culture rather than Laclau or Canovan? It also appears to me that you are, like many journalists and scholars, using populism to mean "popular" or "grassroots" movements rather than a clearly-defined and usable political category. It may well be that you are approaching this from a quite specific American perspective. But, unless I am mistaken, Wikipedia is for a global audience and its entries should reflect that. What I have tried to do in the opening paragraph I added is to be fair: I have instantly told the reader that there are indeed different understandings of populism. I point out why the term is troublesome. I have used Albertazzi and McDonnell's definition because it is very recent and because it draws on and develops the earlier work of the key scholars I mention above. It reflects what is, whether this tallies with your views or not, the main vein of international scholarly thinking on populism. My new first paragraph leaves the door open for alternative understandings. Perhaps it is because I come from a European perspective, but I prefer dialogue and the recognition of different views. I hope you will agree on the merits of this. If I might finish with a question/observation: is it the case that you view "populism" as synonyous with ideas of "civic engagement", "citizen politics" and "social movements"? If this is the case, then I'm afraid that this seems far too wide an understanding of the term populism and is out of step, as I have said before, with the key political scholarly work on populism. (Giggsy72 09:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

Giggsy, I agree that your introductory paragraph does seek balance, although Albertazzi and McDonnell's definition seems extremely narrow from any vantage that takes into account social histories of populist movements. They are full of diverse currents and contending views about who "the people" include. I think you're also right generally about what "university courses on populism" tend to emphasize as texts, though again this is partly a national question, not a "niche" one -- the pattern is clearly different in the United States than in Europe. But your reference to universities also raises another question -- a great strength of Wikipedia is that it recognizes that public and authoritative expertise is not enclosed in research universities but has many institutional and intellectual foundations.

At least in the United States, the public intellectual and scholarly culture crosses many institutional and disciplinary boundaries on questions of populism, and includes reflective practitioners in citizen organizing efforts of many kinds. In the real world of citizen organizing, your final question is moot, since democratic organizing networks generally see themselves as "populist." The public discussion on these questions also includes many other institutions besides universities -- libraries, historical societies, journalism including the blogosphere, etc.

Academia cannot be taken as uniquely authoritative. IN fact there is an extensive epistemological discussion on its problems of insularity, including many leaders in academic disciplines. This is generating calls for "public history," "a perestroika in political science," "public sociology," "public geography," etc. A good window into these debates is the volume, Academic Cultures in Transformation, edited by Carl Schorske and Thomas Bender, with essays by leading scholars in political science, economics, English, and philosophy -- the thrust of all the essays is that disciplines have become impoverished by their detachment from broader public currents and conversations. Craig Calhoun, head of the Social Science Research Council is similarly a fierce critic of self-referential and detached scholarship. This conversation also overlaps in some important ways with the discussion of populism.

The larger public culture in the US on populism tends to be familiar with the last generation of social history which has richly shown the links between democratic movements and populist politics. Goodwyn's book, for instance, is widely known and cited. There is also a growing recognition of a broader view of "politics" than party politics or ideological politics, with scholars such as Arendt, Crick, Wolin, David Mathews, Carmen Sirianni, Archon Fung, Jane Mansbridge, and the research of the Kettering Foundation and others widely known. This is certainly beginning to affect the discussion in higher education as well -- a forthcoming statement by a group of leaders in political science calls for recognizing an emerging indisciplinary field of theory and practice designated as "civic politics," with awareness of its strong groundings in democratic social movement history of populism.

On European views of populism -- it seems to me clear that social histories need to inform contemporary academic discussions of populism much more robustly. One purpose of Wikipedia's intellectual project is to bring authoritative knowledge to bear on intellectual cultures that are too insular and and too much defined by a single discipline. There is, for instance, a rich social historical literature on Russian populism and Scandinavian populist style movements of the 19th century that needs to be integrated into today's discussion of populism. The popular fronts of the 1930s are also directly relevant, with all their contradictions and ironies.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyte (talk • contribs) 10:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I am not at all advocating that the only source of intellectual commentary is in accademia. However, it IS the case that in many areas, including accademia, populism has been used in contrasting ways. What I have tried to do, without imposing it as dogma or "the only account", is to synthesise what is the current most high profile political science thinking on populism. It may well be that US social history scholarship has useful things to say on populism, but it is the case that, in my experience, this really is a margin field internationally. And Wikipedia, in my view, must cater for an international audience. Rather than being insular, I am seeking to be global, but without disregarding other views. Albertazzi and McDonnell's definition reflects the work of Laclau and Taguieff in that it argues that populism should not be seen in terms of specific social bases or economic programmes, but beyond them. It also fits with the work of Canovan, Mudde and others in pointing to the juxtaposition in populist discourse of, on one side, a virtuous and homogenously potrayed "people" and a set of elites and dangerous "others" on the other side. It points to the fact that populists seek to occupy the position of restoring sovereignty to the people. Moreover, it is not a judgemental definition. It does not take a stance on whether populism is inherently good or bad for democracy. I continue to be convinced, therefore, that this introductory paragraph is a good and balanced way to present the topic. I respect the fact that you have your own views on the matter and, as you say yourself, seek to promote them. However, they are not consistent with the dominant paradigm within the literature. I know you disagree, but when people think of a "populist", they think of Berlusconi, Perot, Buchanan, Haider, Le Pen, Fortuyn and others. They do not think first and foremost of social movements or worthy citizen action groups. It is true that many "borrow" from populism in their campaigning strategies, but I think that if we are to include all of those, then the term becomes too wide and creates confusion rather than clear understanding. (Giggsy72 11:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

A "systems approach" to politics and democratic movements

Giggsy -- curious to know your identity -- I appreciate your very thoughtful and deliberative approach. OUr main disagreement is about whether ideological and electoral expressions of "populism," often from Marxist (and therefore implicitly anti-traditionalist stances) represent a move "beyond" their social bases and expressions or whether this view of "politics" itself embodies certain blinders, embodying anti-populist and anti-democratic trends in the contemporary world.

I encourage other colleagues who have richer research on the systemic and interactive connections weigh in here. Boyte —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyte (talk • contribs) 23:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue here really is that we obviously have two very different definitions of populism as our starting points. Like the definitions of Cas Mudde and Albertazzi/McDonnell, I view it, first and foremost, as a discourse which juxtaposes a (supposedly) homogeneous and virtuous people with a set of elites and dangerous "others". You seem to view it as denoting grassroots/civil society movements, citizen action groups etc. As I've said earlier, it seems that you are using "popular" and "populist" as synonymous. However, I note the comments at the top of this page saying that this page is not for discussion of the subject itself, but rather about the wikipedia entry on it, so I won't dwell on these points. I think the key thing at the moment for the page is for someone to take on the role of threading the various paragraphs together, sorting out the notes etc. If I had time, I would do it myself, but unfortunately I don't. (Giggsy72 09:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

Jonah Golberg?!

The inclusion of this rabid shill for corporatism as a reference is the authors code for showing utter contempt for the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdblackwell (talk • contribs) 17:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Rabid shill for corporatism? He's neither rabid, a shill, nor necessarily corporatist. The fact that one does not de facto consider a corporation an evil entity, does not make him or her a "corporatist", whatever that means. It makes him sane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.32.229 (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Forget that Jdblachwe, any one knows where the hell did he express that idea? We need that citation and others with the same interpretation of average person as a useless concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.21.65 (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Populism vs Progressivism, pertinent essay by law professor Jack Balkin

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/articles/popprog1.htm

...
I want to talk about constitutional theory's relationship to popular attitudes and popular culture in terms of two opposed positions -- one I shall call populist and the other progressivist.(23) The distinction between populism and progressivism is orthogonal to the more familiar distinction between "left" and "right." An opposition between progressivism and populism exists wholly within left-liberal discourse, just as one exists within the discourse of conservatives; we might say that the two sets of oppositions form a box of four.(24) However, for purposes of this essay I want to focus primarily on the discourse of left-liberals, because it is the ideological community in which both Sunstein and I (and a great many other legal academics) are located.(25)

...

Lots of good stuff in there.99.237.107.128 02:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

lack of verifiable/quality refrence

"Populism and Fascism

Mass based right–wing populist movements are a precursor for and building blocks of fascist movements. Both often share elements of anti-elitist conspiracism and ethno-centric scapegoating.[22][23][24] Conspiracist scapegoating employed by various right wing populist movements can create “a seedbed for fascism.”[25] One way this can happen is in protest movements against globalization on behalf of corporate interests.[26]"

the last sentence "One way this can happen is in protest movements against globalization on behalf of corporate interests.[26]"

I am not a professor in the field but it schemes highly unlikely that an anti globalization protesters would turn to fascism under any circumstances. The reference is mark rupert I assume it is a typo and they mean Mary Rupert like the quote above it.

What makes Mary Rupert a master in the field? Or to even have a clue about the anti globalization movement. Most people I have met at the protests are there because they feel that the globalization represents a global facist government "new world order". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raysputin (talk • contribs) 11:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Mary Rupert and Mark Rupert are two different authors. The issue is not your view of reality, but that both these authors have their views published in reputable scholarly publications.--Cberlet (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are left-wing movements any less capable of turning fascist than right wing movement? The Nazis were socialists. (Sorry to belabor this point.)

Mike Huckabee?

Does Gov. Mike Huckabee qualify as a "contemporary populist"? I am skeptical of claims to that effect; many of those in the GOP who are calling Huckabee a "populist" have a knee-jerk reaction of that type to anyone who criticizes corporatism or appeals to voters base don a shared lower-middle-class up-bringing. 68.217.165.240 (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

populism as a positive term, and a critique of critics

Headline text

Since I wrote last fall, several notable developments in the scholarship and discussion of populism have occurred. The South African intellectual and scholar Xolela Mangcu has entered the global discussion, building on a highly visible lecture he gave in Cape Town for the Wolpe Trust last June 18, "Jacob Zuma on the Politics of Grievance" (http://www.wolpetrust.org.za/dialogue2007/mangcupaper.pdf ). In this lecture Mangcu takes issue with what he sees as the discussions of "populism" that caricature its meanings and history as simply a rhetorical stance or politics of popular grievance against elites. He developed this argument in his weekly column in Business Day December 7, 2007, drawing on Gianna Pomata's scholarship on the history of populism in Europe -- and her treatment of populist critics as part of an intellectual tradition of "Enlightenment rationalism" and growing separation of of popular and elite intellectual cultures. He also makes a number of parallels with South African journalists and scholars whom he believes treat populism in very superficial ways. . Mangcu also develops these arguments in his forthcoming book, To the Brink (Universityof Kwa Xulu Natal, 2008), sure to create a major discussion in African academic and intellectual circles since he is widely described as the main intellectual heir to Steve Biko, the founder of the Black Consciousness Movement. FOr an excerpt of his forthcoming book see http://book.co.za/bookchat/topic.php?id=2079

As far as Mike Huckabee's "populism" is concerned, the piece by David Kirkpatrick in the New York Times January 13, 2008 ("Young Evangelicals Embrace Huckabee") has a detailed discussion of why many Catholics and evangelicals see him as populist. The article, among many in the American election season, is shows the strikingly difference valence of populism in the US and Europe. In the US the term, on balance, clearly has positive associations -- otherwise major candidates like Edwards and Huckabee would not use it in self-description. This is a product, most likely, of the much greater public awareness of the history of democratic movements like the 19th century farmers' cooperatives, New Deal reform, and the black freedom strucggle as broadly populist. Boyte 13 January —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.64.40 (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because journalists and politicians may use the term "populist" in vague and contradictory ways does not mean that we have to follow them and accept those uses. There is a confusion between "populist" on the one side and "popular" and "grassroots" on the other. These are NOT synonymous. Just as the terms "liberal", "socialist", "fascist" are regularly misused and abused, so too is the case for "populism". We need to be more rigorous.

As regards your changes to the text - you made massive changes to both the introduction and the academic definitions section. Since you have been offline for the last few months, there has been a long process of careful refining of those parts and most people seemed to have come to a consensus. I do not think you can disrupt that now. Also, I do not think it correct to put journalistic definitions and uses of the term into the section "academic definitions". This only creates confusion and undoes much of the good editing work done by people over many months. If you are insistent in wanting to include these bits within a discussion on populism, it would be better to put them in a section below. But make clear that this is YOUR view. And, to be honest, it does not tally with that most commonly found in academic and journalist works of high quality.Giggsy72 (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to bring in other voices; I agree this needs to be discussed. But there are several points to make.

It seems to me indisputable that there are contextual differences here. How can Margaret Canovan's claim that "unlike labels such as ‘socialist’ or ‘conservative’, the meanings of which have been ‘chiefly dictated by their adherents’" and "contemporary populists rarely call themselves ‘populists’ and usually reject the term when it is applied to them by others" apply to the US case, where populism clearly has positive valences. This is true broadly for academic as well as journalistic writings - there is a very rich scholarship on populism in the US. Canovan's argument must be balanced by the US case, and it is also noteworthy that the main intellectual currents of teh Black Consciousness Movement in South Africa are beginning to describe their tradition as populist.

I certain take issue with the caricature of these as simply "journalists." Gianna Pomata and Xolela Mangcu are both highly regarded scholars; Mangcu's major research interests concern the philosphical and social dynamics of the Black Consciousness Movement. Both make the point about the roots of intellectual and left wing criticism of populism, grounded in European Enlightenment traditions as I do, as well, in my Dewey lectures and my book for Free Press, COmmonWealth, 1989.

This view warrants inclusion, as do others that dispute this position, if Wiki is to adhere to balance.

Mangcu is director of the Platform on PUblic Deliberation at the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa. Pomata until recently has been professor of history at the University of Bologna; I believe she is now at John Hopkins.

In the view of those who associate populism with identifiable democratic movements, your distinction between "popular" and populist" has merit, but makes an opposite case. "Popular" or popularistic politicians, using demagagic appeals to champion "the people," are to be distinuished from those in the tradition of the populist movements. The key difference is whether policies, strategies and approaches further people's empowerment. Boyte, January 14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hboyte (talk • contribs) 14:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I do, of course, want to work within the context of the developing discussion, in nondisruptive ways -- but also to do justice to context and the full range of established authorities on the topic. My list of American scholars, inside the academy and outside, that describe and document of populism as a politics of empowerment barely scratches the surface.

I redid the changes in the article with Giggsy's comments in m ind. Boyte

With all due respect, neither Mangcu or Pomata are scholars on populism. To my knowledge, neither has written precisely on "populism". They may have written about other matters, but they are not in the same league. There is a canon here. You may not agree with it, but there is. The major studies on populism over the last 10 years in the political science world are by Canovan, Laclau, Taguieff, Mudde, Kazin, Meny and Surel, Taggart, Lukacs, Albertazzi and McDonnell, Panizza, Arditi. You will find them all referenced in works on populism. Tell you what: Let's try a little test, put "populism" into Amazon and see what comes out on the first pages. My guess is that it will be the authors I have named above and neither Mangcu or Pomata. I realise that because you work on South Africa, you have a special attention for people writing there. But wikipedia is supposed to provide entries appealing to all, as such it has to deal with the biggest names in a section like "academic definitions", does it not?Giggsy72 (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a compromise suggestion: the section on "African populism" is tiny and needs expansion. Why not put this material on South Africa and these views in that section? Although, I think you will have to balance it with the more orthodox understanding of populism by also referring to politial populism in terms of its many exponents on that continent. Giggsy72 (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The best studies on populism from a "movement" perspective are definitely not found in political science but rather in some combination of social history and political and social theory (Goodwyn, Payne, Countryman, Coles, Wolin, Levine etc.)

I think your point on African populism makes sense -- will work on it soon. I think it is necessary to note the different valences of the term in the main section on academic definitions, and also to delete the sentence on current American definitions as cultural conservativism and fiscal liberalism -- this is not at all an adequate sense of how populism is now used in mainstream discussion. Boyte —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hboyte (talk • contribs) 11:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean however by "how populism is used in mainstream discussion"? I have to say that I remain dubious about whether, as you seem to claim, "populism" is an entirely positive label in US use (certainly it is not here in Europe - it has solely pejorative meanings, other than when it is mis-used occasionally by journalists to denote "popular" or "catch-all"). However, in the case of the US, do those labelled as populists embrace that term? For example, I believe (and I may well be wrong) that Huckabee prefers the term "conservative" rather than "populist". If that is the case, does it not then imply a negativity to the term "populist" also in US public discourse? Also, reputable journalists appear to use the term in regard to him in a negative way, for example see the following article in The Economist http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10179986

Likewise, see the use by CNN's senior political analyst Bill Schneider of populism with regard to Huckabee: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/huckabee.foreign.policy/

The point here, of course, is not Huckabee, but the use of the term "populism" in mainstream discourse - I should add that I would not normally base an argument around the use of journalistic sources, but I am trying to find some common "sample" between us, given that you refer in your additions to the article and here in the discussion about "generally positive" uses of the term in the US.

A final point, when responding to my argument that you seem to be confusing "popular" or "grassroots" with "populism", you replied "The key difference is whether policies, strategies and approaches further people's empowerment". But this is entirely subjective is it not? How do you measure this objectively? It seems exceedingly loose scientifically and open to abuse. Exponents of almost all ideologies claim to further people's empowerment, do they not? Giggsy72 (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Civic agency and political culture

I've been off line for several weeks. Populism, as the entry now conveys well, in my view, has various meanings, but in its democratic "movement building" sense it is about building democratic power, through many activities not simply elections. It is this meaning that continues to have wide resonance in the US (from my direct encounters with leaders of the Swedish folk schools, it also has some resonance among them, who see the "populist" qualities of their origins, understood in these terms). Thus, while Huckabee -- who has had little organizing experience -- may prefer "conservative" (though some supporters use "populist"), Edwards and Obama have embraced it, as have many of their supporters. All this goes to show that the term certainly has some positive valences, even if they are not unambiguous.

I agree, Giggsy, that "empowerment" is loose -- the more rigorous term is civic agency, people's consciousness of being agents and architects of their lives, able shape their environments, capable of working cooperatively across differences with others on common challenges. There is, in fact, an emergent but growing body of scientifically grounded and sophisticated scholarship beginning on the theme of agency. A sampling: Mustafa Emibayer and Ann Mishe, “What is Agency?” American Journal of Sociology (Vol. 103:4, 1998, pp. 962-1023); Archon Fung, Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy (Princeton University Press, 2004); Michael Edwards, Civil Society (Polity, 2004); Bobby Milstein, Hygeia’s Constellation: Navigating Health Futures in a Dynamic and Democratic World (Centers for Disease Control, 2008); Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge University Press, 1990/2007); Vijayendra Rao and Michael Walton, Eds., Culture and Public Action (World Bank/Stanford University Press, 2004), Matthew Leighninger, The Next Form of Democracy -- How Expert Rule is Giving Way to Shared Governance (Vanderbilt, 2007); Peter Levine, The Future of Democracy (Tufts, 2007). Note that some of these authors, like Milstein (chair of the Behavioral and Social Science Working Group of the Centers for Disease Control), Ostrom, chair of the Political Theory and Public Policy Workshop at Indiana University, and former president of the American Political Science Association, and Edwards, director of the Ford Foundation's global governance and civil society program, are extremely prominent and authoritative. Edwards -- British -- doesn't like the designation of populist, but he does has a strong emphasis on collective agency, what he calls the creation of publics that cross civil society and other lines. The Rao and Walton book, out of World Bank and UN development experiences, calls for "a shift from equality of opportunity to equality of agency." It also includes many leading schlars of development, such as Amartya Sen and Arjun Appadurai.

I describe this body of scholarship on civic agency and its implications for higher educaiton in a piece forcoming in Change, the main general magazine of higher education in the US, "Against the Current -- Developing Civic Agency in Students," in the May/June issue.

If one understands populism in its movement sense as a "politics of civic or popular agency," then a remarkable pattern is clarified: it is the old populist states of the Midwest and South and the Northwestern populist states like Nebraska and Washington, whose populist cultural dimensions were enriched by the movements of the New Deal and -- in the South, the civil rights movement -- where Obama's appeal has proven to be enormous as soon as his "message" gains sufficient visibility to resonate widely. Minnesota, with strong populist traditions, is a case in point. The Humphrey Institute-Minnesota Public Radio poll, directed by Lawrence Jacobs, found Hillary Clinton up by 7 points, in the period from January 20-27. On Super Tuesday, February 5th, Obama won 67-32 in the caucuses -- a phenomenal change. Jacobs agrees "political culture" may well be the best explanation. When Obama's message gained sufficient amplitude in the state in the last week, it resonated rapidly through the political culture. I think the implication is clear -- and a sign of the importance of political cultures to this discussion: Obama's central theme is agency ("I'm not asking you to believe in my power to make change, but in yours," is the lead on his web site, backed up by "Yes we can," his campaign slogan, and "We are the ones we've been waiting for," an old song from the black freedom movement).

I might note that the emergent scholarship of agency necessitates a reworking of many Wikipedia entries in the constellation of themes related to democracy and citizenship. Hboyte (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Hboyte (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Harry, I appreciate your intervention, but you do have to be careful. I.e. it is a little bit like coming into a party in which we have agreed after a long period of consultation to listen to Miles Davis, and you insist on coming in with your Iron Maiden records. You have not responded to my questions above re. your understanding of populism and its relationship to mainstream populism scholarship. Nor have I been convinced as to the differences between your understanding of populism and "grass roots" movements. Please let it be clear: I value this debate. But let us debate it here rather than having an editing war on the page. Giggsy72 (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Giggsy -- I thought I was responding to your query, but perhaps not clearly enough -- if one understands civic agency to be a more rigorous (theorized and documented in scholarship) term than "empowerment," than it helps to explain the resonance of populism as a tradition in the American case, since there are rich social movement histories, often calling themselves populist. One can use Minnesota as a case, for instance, where leading politicians with a "civic agency" bent on both sides of partisan divides have identified themselves and continue to identify themselves as "populist" -- Hubert Humphrey and Paul Wellstone on the Democratic side, Al Quie, former Republican governor, on the Republican side. I would agree that "grassroots movements" come in many forms and flavors, but civic agency movements are distinctive (and "grassroots" is not the right descriptor): the scholarship I cite on agency makes the case. In the case of scholarship, I am arguing that we need a wider and more interdisplinary range than the political science canon, which is consistently myopic about local and regional political cultures as as explanatory variable, with some exceptions like Putnam's work on Italian regions. Putnam and other communitarians, however, are not focused on agency, politics, and power, but rather on community ties. As we have discussed before, the rich literature from social history, and related literature from other disciplines that address agency (it is burgeoning across fields), make the point.

Your new lead to the overall piece doesn't work -- "dangerous others" is far too extreme to capture civic movements with an agency focus. I agree there shouldn't be massive changes, and don't mean to make them.

On the point that the positive valences of the term have to do with actual political memories, not linguistic confusions: I give many examples of the self-identification as populist of democratic movement leaders in my forthcoming book, The Citizen Solution, Minnesota Historical Society Press 2008 -- including Martin Luther King, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hboyte (talk • contribs) 08:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

ps I love Miles Davis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hboyte (talk • contribs) 08:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Harry. But I am still certain that your understanding of populism is not that which is most commonly adopted. As I said before, put "populism" into amazon.com and see what comes out. My guess is that it will mostly be authors whose understanding of populism matches those I have mentioned many times before (Panizza, Mudde, Canovan, Albertazzi and McDonnell, Kazin, Taggart etc), not the scholars you are citing. Giggsy72 (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Google is probably the better search method, though one needs to separate wheat (scholarly pieces) from chaff. For one good collection of scholarly thought connected to current discussions of agency and civic involvement, see Peter Levine's blog (Levine is the director of CIRCLE, the leading civic research center for youth involvement and patterns in the US): http://www.peterlevine.ws/mt/archives/2007/01/populism-1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hboyte (talk • contribs) 19:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to Hboyte: Your repeated failure to properly sign your comments and the continuous insertion of your idiosyncratic views in improperly cited forms on the entry page make it appear like an abuse of editing protocols here on Wikipedia. If you are not willing to do your homework and follow policy, you might consider either spending more time learning how to properly edit here, or taking a break. No one doubts that you are an expert on this topic, the question is whether or not you are willing to follow the community standards for editing here.--Cberlet (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Harry, but, as you say yourself in your post above, you are talking about "agency and civic involvement", not "populism". I maintain that, in general, this is a vastly different phenomenon from grassroots movements, associations etc. Populism tends to juxtapose a negatively-conceived set of "elites" with a virtuous and homogenously depicted "people", whose rights, values, sovereignty, propserity are characterised as being under threat by those elites and others, i.e. those "not of the people" (immigrants, for example). Populism also inevitably tends to focus on a charimstic, saviour-type leader, e.g. Berlusconi, Le Pen, Haider, Ross Perot, Pauline Hanson, etc. A second point, this time to Chip Berlet: you too are an expert on the topic. As, incidentally, am I. I don't think any of us need to tip our hat to the other (-: Giggsy72 (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert back to properly cited version

Note to anonymous editor. Please stop inserting your opinion into sentences that are cited to published scholars. I have reverted the article back to the last version that did not have cited sentences wrecked by POV text insertions.--Cberlet (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about my failure to sign some places and signing on the entry page. I'm still in a learning mode, but I think I've figured out this protocol, with these little waves, and that they should not be used in the entry page itself but rather on the discussion thread. Hboyte (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

On the valence of populism in the US public culture

In case more evidence is needed, I want to note the fact that journalists -- and campaigns often themselves -- in this US presidential election are describing both Obama and Clinton's campaigns as "populist," in ways that suggest the generally positive valence of the term in the US context. See for instance, the Los Angeles Journal today (February 19, 2008), Nicholas Riccardi and Tom Hamburger, "Clinton and Obama travel a populist route" http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-populist19feb19,1,6828746.story and also the front page New York Times piece, "Democrats make populist appeals before contest," by John Broder and Jeff Zeleny http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us/politics/19dems.html?th&emc=th . In these usages, populism means politicians championing common people and workers against predatory economic interests, but both candidates also are conveying subthemes having to do with power. "Mrs. Clinton pushed her people versus the powerful message in Wisconsin over the weekend," write Broder and Zeleny. Themes of power and agency are much more present in Obama's speeches -- Obama was shaped by his experiences as a community organizer in the Gamaliel Foundation network, descending from the self-described populist Saul Alinsky, who meant populism as organizing people to gain power, as well as to develop agency in a somewhat broader sense. Obama's invocation of the famous civil rights movement song about citizens' agency, "We are the ones we've been waiting for," written by Dorothy Cotton, director of the Citizenship Education Program during the freedom movement of the 1960s in the Deep South, is a direct reference to earlier movements with a populist character. Hboyte (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Connecting civic agency and populism

For an earlier essay, with many scholarly references, on the connections between agency and populism (in the US context), see Civic Populism, a guest essay on Peter Levine's blog, http://www.peterlevine.ws/mt/archives/000855.html . Levine directs the CIRCLE research center at the University of Maryland (soon to relocate to Tufts University), the leading center for research on young people's civic practices and patterns. Hboyte (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There are advanced democracies in the world other than the USA where populism is not at all positive. You seem to ignore this fact. 86.42.133.233 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Explicit connections of US elections with populist history

In the current US election -- the above comment is accurate and is reflected in the entry itself, that the valence of populism varies immensely across different societies -- a range of commentators are beginning to draw lessons between "populist language" and earlier movements and efforts that were explicitly populist. An especially good example is E.J. Dionne's syndicated column today, "Little guy populism spoken here" (see http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/15890987.html ). Dionne, a syndicated Washington Post columnist who is perhaps most attentive to questions of civic agency among the major national syndicated columnists in the US, shows how both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama "are taking on loan from the late Senator Paul Wellstone, the affable populist killed in a pane crash shortly before the 2002." Wellstone was a self-proclaimed populist, with roots in both the civil rights movement and also the Alinsky tradition of community organizing. As noted above, he was also a major figure in Minnesota politics Hboyte (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As a previous contributor said above, there are more countries in the world than the US. And, in most of the world, the terms "populism" and "populist" have tended to be used about figures like Berlusconi, Haider, Peron, Vargas etc. Just because certain figures in the US (one country) may define themselves as "populist" does not mean that the term is universally used in a positive way Giggsy72 (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreement on context

You are certainly right, Giggsy, as I note above. For a good discussion of these different social contexts, noting the useful exchanges on this topic in the discussion thread of wikipedia, see the Peter Levine blog on "the word populism," February 25, 2008.

http://www.peterlevine.ws/mt/

Hboyte (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Opposite of Libertarianism

This change was reverted twice:

[Populism] is usually seen as an opposition to libertarianism as it typically embodies social conservatism and economic progressivism.

Source: Fritz, Marshall. 1987. Beyond Left/Right. [1]

The Nolan chart is used by many respectable political scientists, so I don't see how it's breaking a NPOV by saying "it's usually seen as." --LightSpectra (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it is original research which is not allowed here on Wikipedia. Sorry. See WP:OR and WP:RS.--Cberlet (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it original research if many political scientists define populism as such? --LightSpectra (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What political scientist states "Populism is the Opposite of Libertarianism." Find the quote. Cite it, post it on the page. Otherwise you are wasting all out time by not bothering to learn the rules of posting text on Wikipedia.--Cberlet (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The following political scientists endorse the Nolan chart (and therefore, the definitions it uses): W. Phillips Shively, Cynthia Carter, Michael G. Roskin, Dr. Pat Jones, Bryan Brophy-Baermann, Joel D. Bloom, Sinan Toprak.[2] The definition used by Marshall Fritz is not original research. --LightSpectra (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you cannot find a quote, it is your original research. Not valid here. Sorry. Please find a quote before making the change.--Cberlet (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Populists favor central decision-making in both civil and economic matters. They believe the needs of the individual are subordinate to the needs of society. They want government to 'correct wrongs.' While they strongly differ on particular programs, both prefer equality in economic and personal matters." - Marshal Fritz, above citation --LightSpectra (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is patently wrong. Populism can not be reduced to a number of specific civil/economic issues on which all populists supposedly agree. Populism is a discourse which juxtaposes 'the people' (however conceived) with a set of elites and, often, a series of 'others' (i.e. those not of the people). There is no common core of socio-economic stances. Populism (to some extent like nationalism) can be either of the left or of the right, it can appeal to various economic bases and encompass aspects of different ideologies. We can find populists which advocate entirely different roles for the market, the state, economic programmes etc. Hence the claim that populists favour "central decision-making" is absurd (in fact the quote from Fritz seems more applicable to Fascism). What then about regionalist/federalist populists such as the Lega Nord (Northern League) in Italy which campaigns for devolution of decision-making to individual regions? I think the confusion here is coming from a misplaced idea that all forms of populism can be located together at the same point on a left-right, market-state axis. This is simply not the case Giggsy72 (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Fritz is wrong, too. But that is not the issue. We can add the quote and attribute it to Fritz as one opinion, but to claim that "Populism is the Opposite of Libertarianism" is both wrong and not what Fritz wrote. That is why "Populism is the Opposite of Libertarianism" remains an original research claim and not valid. Also, to extrapolate from one view to a universal claim is not appropriate.--Cberlet (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Right-Wing Populism and Fascism section.

From the section "Right-Wing Populism and Fascism":

"Right-wing populist movements can be a precursor for, and building blocks of fascist movements.[27][28][29] Conspiracist scapegoating employed by various populist movements can create “a seedbed for fascism.”[30] One way this can happen is in far-left isolationist movements that view globalization as a threat to American interests.[31]"

This statement, though cited, doesn't make much sense to me. It's talking about right-wing populism, but giving a hypothetical left-wing example. Are the "far left isolationist movements" meant here to be the victims of right-wing fascist scapegoating, or its perpetrators? If it is the former I think that needs to be made clear and explained in better detail (how have anti-globalizationists been scapegoats?). If it is the latter, perhapse a better example could be used. The discussion in this section is, afterall, right-wing populism and fascism, not left-wing populist movements. It would be nice if the original author of this section would clean this up, considering 5 different sources that are being referenced here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.202.115 (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The quotes in this section are posted as if they are factual, when they are, in reality, just opinions, albeit cited ones. They are also misleading. To single out right wing populist movements and not left wing ones as precursors to fascism... and then to move on to cite Nazism as the notorious example of right wing populism gone bad, is to essentially equate socialism with the right wing, which is nonsense. Socialism, a populist left wing movement, can lead to fascism, vide Hayek, vide Hitler. Is someone implicitly making a case that National Socialists were not Socialists? This would be a rather Orwellian effort. Even for a 20 year old college student. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.32.229 (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

COI examples

Giggsy72 requested evidence of Cberlet using this article to promote his own commercial output and point of view. Here are two examples: [3][4] --Terrawatt (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

All Berlett has done is to put his own (important) work on populism in a footnote. I hardly think this constitutes promoting his work. He has not quoted from his book or sought to present it as the definitive word on the subject. It appears from your other edits that you may be in some kind of conflict with Berlett on other pages. If this is the case, I do not think it makes you an honest broker here. In fact, given that although most of the editors on this page were well aware of who Berlett is, none of us ever chose to remove the links to his work. Why? Because we recognise that, like it or not, he is an important voice in the debate on populism. Just put him into Amazon and you can clearly see that. Giggsy72 (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether his "voice" is "important" is a matter of opinion. I think the reader of the article should be informed that one of the editors of the article is also one of the featured "voices" in the article. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In your edit summary, you say that "Your edits are part of a conflict with him that is irrelevant here." You are right about it being irrelevant. Wikipedia policy is to address edits on their own merits, and not to make pronouncements about your theories about the hidden motivations of the relevant editors. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Terrawatt, please cease Wikistalking me and seeking to promote confrontations. Please stop the personal attacks. There is no COI here. I have been careful not to overcite my outside of Wiki published material. If you disagree, take it to Arbcom.--Cberlet (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the importance of Berlet's work on populism can be easily seen if, as I suggested earlier, you put him into Amazon or some similar search engine. Like it or not, he is a voice in the debate on the topic. As such, it is entirely legitimate for him to appear in the footnotes. This is attested to by the fact that, as I have highlighted, none of the editors on this page have ever deemed there to be a conflict of interests here. If anything, it appears to me that you are trying to bring a conflict which you have with Berlet (of which I know nothing and do not wish to know anything) onto this page. You have never edited it before and then suddenly appear, making accusations which, quite frankly, do not stand up. If Berlet had said "this is a key text" or something similar, then it would be different. But he has not. Please, have a look at the literature on populism, above and beyond your more general dispute with Berlet, and you will see that it is entirely valid for his work to be included in a footnote. Giggsy72 (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Right-wing populism appears to me to be a POV fork, and a shoddy article to boot. I propose that it be pared down to the essentials and merged with Populism. --Terrawatt (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What specific cites to published sources are you challenging?--Cberlet (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a merge proposal. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it appears to be another case of wikistalking by pro-LaRouche editors seeking to demean my work outside of Wikipedia as Chip Berlet. But since the concept of right-wing populism was developed by Canovan and studied by Betz, and is a scholarly area of research that deserves its own page, I ask again, What specific cites to published sources are you challenging?--Cberlet (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As a scholarly area of research, it deserves to be included in Populism. I don't think you have a firm understanding of the concept of a POV fork.

I also don't think you have a firm understanding of the policy against personal attacks. Every time I have disagreed with you, you immediately attempt to discredit my views by linking them to LaRouche -- see WP:NPA#Personal attacks. It's a bogus tactic. --Terrawatt (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack to point out that you have been Wikistalking me for many months, and that you and a tiny handful of other editors spend much of your time editing pages related to LaRouche on which you systematically remove critical information and add laudatory information. Other editors can check this by looking at your edits from January through March of this year. This is not the first page where you have sought to challenge my scholarly and journalistic work outside of Wikipedia. If you disagree with this assessment, please feel free to take this entire matter to arbcom. It is my position that arbcom is not enforcing its current policy on pro-LaRouche editing, and that WIkipedia in general has failed to deal with the issue of Wikistalking-both on and off this project. I have taken this matter through multiple dispute resolution processes, and yet here we are again. Your turn to file the paperwork.--Cberlet (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is any of this supposed to be an argument against merging the articles? --Terrawatt (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The proposal is tendentious and disruptive as it is part of a longstanding Wikistalking campaign by pro-LaRouche editors seeking to discredit my work outside of and inside of Wikipedia. The pages should not be moved. There is plenty of scholarly material on right-wing populism to justify a page on the subject. --Cberlet (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You consider the article Right-wing populism to be "your work"? You need to read WP:OWN. --Leatherstocking (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

<---I do not. Never claimed that. And another regular Wikistalker makes an appearance.--Cberlet (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Is regular populism "left wing populism"? Why the use of a pejorative term? Sage Sophia (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there any actual objections to the merge? It seems to me that populism, like many ideological currents, could include a broad spectrum of other views, but it is unnecessary to make a whole array of special sub-articles. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I am going to begin moving some well-sourced parts of Right-wing populism into Populism, which has a giant section that is entirely unsourced. --Terrawatt (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. "Right-wing populism" appears to be a noteworthy topic, with plenty of good sources. Better to keep the material there and improve it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I've undone the "merger" that was performed without consensus. However it doesn't appear to have been an actual merger, more like a delete and redirect. I can only find one short passage that was moved from the other article.[5]. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I was planning to move more as soon as I had time. Both articles are a mess. --Terrawatt (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Let's improve the articles. "Right-wing populism" appears sufficiently notable and sourced to be an independent article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Both articles are relatively small, and it indeed seems like Right-wing populism is a POV fork. Its sourced content could be easily incorporated into this article and if need arises (in case this article becomes too big) topics can be separated once again. -- Vision Thing -- 20:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that if the unsourced or poorly sourced material is removed from both articles, you will have enough left for one small article. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The articles appear adequately sourced. What sources are the problem? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The majority of the sources cited for Right-wing populism don't refer specifically to "right-wing" populism -- they refer simply to populism. This is a case of Wikipedia:Content forking, which is supposed to be undesirable. --Terrawatt (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you determine that it's a content fork. Getting back to the question, can you point to some specific sources that are problematic? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a content fork because the sources used refer specifically to populism, not "right-wing populism." Therefore it is appropriate for this material to be included in this article, and inappropriate for a separate article to be created for a topic that is not actually separate. --Terrawatt (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that, for example, these sources don't refer to "right-wing populism":

• Betz, Hans-Georg (1994). Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe. Palgrave Macmillan
• Berlet, Chip and Matthew N. Lyons. 2000. Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort.

I have to say that, based on their titles, they do appear to refer to "right-wing populism" specifically. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's two out of fourteen cited authors. That's not enough to justify a fork. --Terrawatt (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A POV fork is when an article covers the same topic as another article, but with a different POV. Unless you're asserting that all populism is really rgiht-wing populism then this isn't a fork. I asked you before which sources are a problem and you still haven't replied. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

actually, pov forks do not have to be an exact duplicate of the original article - read the third paragraph of wp:POVFORK#What_forking_is. and in fact, common sense should be what rules here. if there was some credible reason to separate right-wing populism from populism (e.g., the populism article was too large, the section on RW populism was too large to fit as a section, RWP was generally treated as a distinct subject, RWP was a contrasting theory to populism) then it should be a separate article. I don't even see that this topic meets the WP:notability requirements, much less any of those other points. --Ludwigs2 02:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support the merge - from what I can see in these articles, 'right-wing populism' is explicitly a form of populism, and while there are authors who use the term, it does not seem to have evolved into a significantly different field or concept which would require separate treatment. Plus, honestly, I think the concept of right wing populism will be clearer when placed in context with populism proper. having it as a separate article does strike me as a POV-fork. on a separate note: Chip, I'm concerned by the way you use the phrase "my work outside of and inside of Wikipedia"... I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that your real-world academic work is wp:PRIMARY research - work in which you are trying to argue for a new conception of these kinds of issues. However, Wikipedia holds pretty close to the 'third hand, secondary research' ideal, and I'm not certain you can be sufficiently objective about your own work. can you reassure me that you are not using wikipedia as a venue for promoting you own primary research? --Ludwigs2 23:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Cberlet is on wikibreak. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • hunh. doesn't that just sound like a fine idea. Might have to get me one of those... --Ludwigs2 00:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Right-wing populism Populism aiming towards left right or center cannot alter the fact that besides the direction it remains populism. I support the motion that it should be pared down to the essentials and merged with Populism. Polemos (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Why is there no criticism section?

This political doctrine, like ALL modes of political thought has its detractors and opponents who have issues with populism. I think it would be appropriate to write a bit about criticisms of populism, such as its penchant for promising the people what they want in opposition of sound public policy (large spending projects that have little national benefit, but increase publicly held debt, just as an example). Regardless of what we think about populism, and believe in its virtues or not, there is a significant backlash against populism in political circles.

Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.233.3 (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to integrate this into the article, rather than make a special section. Special sections of this sort are usually done in biographical articles, and I think they are frowned upon even there. --Terrawatt (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)