good pic



...wherever you go, there you are...

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
the sun will come out tomorrow.
good pic
Populism makes me nervous. I'm a nervous guy anyway, an ex-risk manager (a psyche one never manages to overcome, at least, not me, not yet), a conservative person with paranoid tendencies. Populism is, on one level, about the masses feeling discord with the system, and with the "elite" that succeed in that system.
In very recent times, there has been ever-increasing dissatisfaction with the system (in the US, at least). As an adjunct, two populist movements have sprung up, the Tea Party and OWS (Occupy Wall Street). Although these two groups come from different parts of the political spectrum, they have considerable similarity. The Tea Party thinks that the DC elite has corrupted the system and too greatly diluted the US Consitution and Bill of Rights. Even non-Republicans know that DC is corrupt, that money runs the system, that there is something wrong. The OWS group thinks that the Financial elite has corrupted the system and, through tricky machinations, has stolen a chunk of their wealth. They don't know HOW exactly, but they know it was done, cause they feel the pain. Even non-Dems feel the economic pain. Right now, the different leaders of these two groups are relatively unsophisticated and naive at using the popular emotion these groups symbolize. So far.
Arab Spring has some similarity with these concepts, and the various leaders of the successful movements, now that they have "won" power, are a little lost. This creates a power vacuum, and who knows exactly what future gets sucked into that void. The same has happened with the Tea Party and with OWS. Their leaders are not strong enough, not clever enough, to coalesce into a civil movement of change. If they can't do it, then the masses can easily transition to what the masses do best/worst, become a group of angry mobs. Perhaps OWS is a little behind the Tea Party in this rut, but they are catching on quickly, I see that Rev. Sharpton (and various labor unions) have been visiting some with the OWS....ugh. If when these movements, here in the US (and/or in the Arab Spring) are "taken over" by more powerful, charismatic leaders, we better hope those leaders are not as nefarious as they could be. If not, we could (in a bad scenario) end up with far less freedom, both political and economic, than we currently delude ourselves into thinking we have.
Populism is majoritarian. I am a very visible individual in an historically persecuted minority. The idea of mobs forming, then showing up outside my door banging loudly, makes me nervous. Do you think I should be anxious about this?

  • 1
Huge difference between them, however, as the teaparty was created and financed by the billionaire Koch brothers, and the Occupiers are NOT. IOW, only one is authentically grass roots.

okay...the tea party has a lot of amorphous goals, it touches the minds of many with its "return to the original principles of the consitution" rhetoric, but would you say it already has its "nefarious" leaders in place?
I agree that a movement formed from the top (like the TP) rather than formed from the bottom (like OWS) will have plenty of different aspects from each other. Yet, even though the origin might be different, the TP is certainly now a populist movement within those starting limits, and the emotions and impact created now goes beyond anything the Koch brothers can marionette themselves, don't you think?
I appreciate your reply, even though it is increasing my apprehension on this topic. Thanks!

Well, I do spend a fair amount of time with the local Occupation, as it is quite close to where we live, and many of their marches go through my street, and end up in another of our area's parks.

However, I do not spend any time with teapartiers, nor would I be welcome there for many, many, many reasons. Which is another huge difference.

a bullet probably dodged.

In one specific sense, i am somewhat pleased that you would not be welcomed by the tea people ,(presumably, to name one factor, a few of your "social" beliefs probably would clash too strongly, ...just a guess?) Good, then. My strong(est) worry on this front is that someone very charismatic could manage to "use" the two groups simultaneously. That would be bad on too many levels.
The less likely that occurrence, the less worried i will be. Let the two groups work out their results separately, some positives might come from some of it. Put them together somehow and it turns into a potential mob machine.

thanks a lot for your reply, hope you are well.

as a postscript, I'll comment that, to me, both groups have racist implications in their gut. I hope that bile all stays there and doesnt vomit up. One of the good parts of the last 50 years has been the increasing demographic diversity in the US political, economic and social struces end up anti-diversity. hope that doesnt happen.

One more huge difference that's impossible not to see: the primary media and the cops treat the teabaggers very differently than they treat the Occupiers. Nor did the primary media demand the teabaggers come up right this minute with a detailed plan and fix it all right the minute after.

yes. and that is reprehensible, at best.
but as you point out, the tea people started from above, so it was more probable that reactions would play out that way.
but let me point out a silver lining. the US has a long history of the acceptability of non-violent (and some violent) civil protest and disobedience. the people wont allow it to get too far, hopefully. after all, people STILL remember the Kent State shootings, and that was a turning point that made the youth movement much more appreciated.
As long as the mighty HS doesnt accumulate too much power...

I'm not very confident that this is accurate in either direction.

  • 1

Log in