Leo, why aren't most politicians in power still not populists in this day an age?

[Hardkill]

No doubt has anti-establishment sentiment been at historic highs for several years for a number reasons:

 

• Public Trust in Government: Trust in the federal government is low, with only 24% of Americans saying they trust the government.
• Approval of Political Leadership: Political leadership has seen a decline in approval ratings, with George W. Bush's ratings dropping from 86% to 24% by the end of his presidency.
• Religion: Religion's influence in American life has seen a decline, with fewer Americans praying or attending religious services.
• Media: News organizations have seen a decline in trust, with many Americans questioning their professionalism and objectivity.
• Political Polarization: Political polarization has increased, with many Americans identifying as independents and expressing frustration with the two-party system.
• Economic Inequality: Economic inequality has increased, with many Americans expressing concerns about the growing wealth gap and the impact of globalization.
• Government Response to Crises: The government's response to crises such as Hurricane Katrina and the COVID-19 pandemic has been criticized, leading to a decline in trust and approval.
• Rise of Alternative Media: The rise of alternative media sources has led to a decline in trust in traditional media outlets and a shift towards more partisan sources.
• Political Scandals: Political scandals such as Watergate and the Iraq War have led to a decline in trust in government and political leadership.
• Growing Frustration: Growing frustration with the political system, economic inequality, and social issues has led to an increase in anti-establishment sentiment.

 

We all know that Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 presidential election was of course partly due to his ability to tap into this anti-establishment sentiment that was prevalent among many American voters. In fact, anti-establishment sentiment in America has grown even more ever since Trump left office and Biden, who is a more pro-establishment politician, became president in 2021.

Yet, most politicians in power throughout the entire US government are still not particularly populists. There are actually less Democratic populists in power than Republican populists in America, even though Democratic progressive populists have been gaining significant influence and momentum within the party, particularly among progressive activists and younger voters. Even when we account for the fact that Progressives, including democratic socialists and populists, have been gaining very significant ground within the Democratic Party, currently make up about half of the House Democrats in Congress, and have comprised of a growing number of prominent US Senators in Congress, the more moderate/establishment Democrats have still been the dominant faction of their party.

In fact, if I am not mistaken, despite the fact that the right-wing populism of Trump and MAGA has taken over the whole Republican party, the majority of Republicans in both chambers of Congress are not really populists either. Neither are the majority of GOP state governors throughout the country really populists either.

Then again, most people in the USA have gotten sick and tired of constantly feeling let down by pro-establishment traditional career politicians who haven't done enough to change the status quo in order to fix so many pressing issues that desperately need to be addressed in our country.

Just to be clear, I am not necessarily advocating for the idea of having all progressive populists be in charge of the entire government. I would just like to understand from a nuanced perspective as to why most politicians in power in America still aren't populists.

Edited May 11 by Hardkill

[Leo Gura]

Fundamentally, power is an elitist thing, it is not for the plebs. You have to be power hungry to get power, and most normies are not power hungry. Power is hierarchical. It's difficult to flatten it.

Edited May 11 by Leo Gura

[puporing]

The "Overton window" in America has not shifted enough for that but maybe soon. In Canada it's starting to shift more and more to the left such that even the so called conservative party is somewhat "progressive".

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Fundamentally, power is an elitist thing, it is not for the plebs. You have to be power hungry to get power, and most normies are not power hungry. Power is a hierarchical. It's difficult to flatten it.

Yeah, but how come Trump ran for president successfully as right-wing populist and why does he still have such an unusually strong grip over so much of the GOP establishment? Yet, why didn't Bernie Sanders strong anti-establishment message ever work in either of his 2016 or 2020 presidential campaigns like it did with Trump from the right, especially when the American people became visibly angry with the establishment during each of those elections, particularly during 2016? 

Also, how does one still reconcile with what you're saying along with the fact that most people across the political spectrum in the USA have gotten sick and tired of the status quo and the establishment?

 

Edited May 11 by Hardkill

[puporing]

It can be tricky being a politician, if you're too far left or too far right than the general population you risk your life in danger. It's not uncommon for them to get violent threats I hear..

Edited May 11 by puporing

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Yeah, but how come Trump ran for president successfully as right-wing populist and why does he still have such an unusually strong grip over so much of the GOP establishment?

Trump is demagogue -- that is a power hungry elitist who dupes the least intelligent plebs into thinking he will help them.

10 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Yet, why didn't Bernie Sanders strong anti-establishment message ever work in either of his 2016 or 2020 presidential campaigns like it did with Trump from the right

Because there is an asymmetry between left and right. Being right-wing requires zero intelligence or education. Being left-wing requires intellectual and moral work.

Most plebs lean conservative because they are not thinking, they are conforming to their culture.

10 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Also, how does one still reconcile with what you're saying along with the fact that most people across the political spectrum in the USA have gotten sick and tired of the status quo and the establishment?

The powerful are like vampires who feed off the uneducated plebs. Of course eventually the plebs get fed up with it, but it's hard for them to change anything because they have no power. Nothing new here. This is human civilization in a nutshell.

[Hardkill]

58 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Trump is demagogue -- that is a power hungry elitist who dupes the least intelligent plebs into thinking he will help them.

Because there is an asymmetry between left and right. Being right-wing requires zero intelligence or education. Being left-wing requires intellectual and moral work.

Most plebs lean conservative because they are not thinking, they are conforming to their culture.

The powerful are like vampires who feed off the uneducated plebs. Of course eventually the plebs get fed up with it, but it's hard for them to change anything because they have no power. Nothing new here. This is human civilization in a nutshell.

Hmm...Okay, I see what you're saying.

But then how do you explain the fact that there have been many instances in world history where true anti-establishment revolutionists have successfully overthrown the powerful elites and fundamentally changed their country's entire system such as Trotsky and Lenin with their Bolshevik revolution, the leaders of the French Revolution (1789-1799), the Oliver Cromwell and the British Civil War (1642-1651), the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution, Frederick Douglass and other leaders of their abolitionist movement Lincoln and the American Civil War, the union leaders of the most intense labor strikes in the U.S. history (the late 1800s and early 1900), leaders of the early 1900s Progressive movement, FDR and his New Deal agenda, MLK and Malcolm X and their Civil Rights movement, the leaders of the counterculture movement of the 1960s and 1970s, Gandhi and his Indian Independence Movement (1857-1947) etc.? 

I mean those historic events no doubt were accompanied by great violence, horrific bloodshed, and significant human suffering. Yet, how or why were enough of the plebs in each of those movements inspired by their leaders to truly revolt like hell against the establishment?

Isn't that what Bernie Sanders was trying to say when the country needed such a revolution?

Edited May 12 by Hardkill

[bebotalk]

Populism is often a reaction to a given grievance. It pops up in midst of perceived or actual crises. 

[Leo Gura]

49 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

But then how do you explain the fact that there have been many instances in world history where true anti-establishment revolutionists have successfully overthrown the powerful elites and fundamentally changed their country's entire system

1) When the plebs are exploited badly enough, they can revolt. Which is why the job of the elites is to exploit plebs but just shy of infuriating them.

2) Nearly all those revolutions follow with a conservative backlash and in any case elites regain power, but in a slightly different form. All the power-hungry revolutionaries themselves become the new vampiric elites.

Edited May 12 by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

1) When the plebs are exploited badly enough, they can revolt. Which is why the job of the elites is to exploit plebs but just shy of infuriating them.

2) Nearly all those revolutions follow with a conservative backlash and in any case elites regain power, but maybe in a slightly different form. All the power hungry revolutionaries themselves become the new vampiric elites.

1. Oh I see! you know, I kinda thought that. So, that's why those in power, including the government officials and corporate interests, often must make concessions to the demands of the people to maintain social stability and avoid widespread unrest. This is a fundamental aspect of democratic governance and the balance of power in society. Correct?

2. Oh yeah, that's true. Yet, many of them lead to permanent positive fundamental changes for their societies and their people.

3. So, despite the notable rise in people's frustration and disillusionment with our country's institutions and the government, most Americans still have not been exploited badly enough to the point of wanting a revolt in the US?

Edited May 12 by Hardkill

[Leo Gura]

28 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

3. So, despite the notable rise in people's frustration and disillusionment with our country's institutions and the government, most Americans still have not been exploited badly enough to the point of wanting a revolt in the US?

It takes a lot to generate an actual revolt.

American society is advanced enough that most people don't want to revolt.

Although we literally had a mini revolt by those MAGA. They have brainwashed themselves with right-wing media.

Edited May 12 by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It takes a lot to generate an actual revolt.

American society is advanced enough that most people don't want to revolt.

Although we literally had a mini revolt my those MAGA.

So, despite the fact that the anti-establishment sentiment in our country has become so palpable these days we are still not even close to having any revolt for the foreseeable future?

Is it because American society has already made such significant progress in many areas, providing a relatively high standard of living, social stability, and political freedom? Plus, the fact that America still has a strong tradition of democratic institutions, civil society organizations, and political processes that have allowed for peaceful expression of dissent and gradual reform?

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

They have brainwashed themselves with right-wing media.

That's true. They indeed have been brainwashed by that and Trump. 

Conversely, Democratic voters haven't been brainwashed by anyone as toxic as Trump or by anything as toxic as the right-wing media. The left-wing media ecosystem hasn't ever promoted misinformation, conspiracy theories, and extremist ideologies anywhere near to extent that the right-wing media has. Also, even progressives like Bernie Sanders, who can be toxic at times, still have been much more civil and intellectually honesty by far than "right-wing populists" leaders like Trump.

Edited May 12 by Hardkill

[puporing]

People with money (which is also equivalent with power) are generally very organized and basically collude with each other to keep the system in their favor, who can put on an act infront of cameras but really "stealing" from people. Your Jeff Bezos of the world are still worshipped by the masses. How likely are they to change when things have been going so well?? (Eg, that they both get away with exploitation and being exalted as some legitimate leader).

Poor people have little resources to organize and are also bad at it often due to lack of communication and cooperation skills, and that by definition if you're "poor" you're literally in survival mode and have little time to spare to organize. They are also prone to anger as a result of these things which allows for some narcissist who knows how to manipulate this anger to their advantage. 

Edited May 12 by puporing

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, puporing said:

Poor people have little resources to organize and are also bad at it often due to lack of communication and cooperation skills,

Great point.

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, Hardkill said:

Is it because American society has already made such significant progress in many areas, providing a relatively high standard of living, social stability, and political freedom?

Yes.

Life in America is about as good as life gets.

[Sincerity]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Life in America is about as good as life gets.

Wait until you hear about Europe 

[Hardkill]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes.

Life in America is about as good as life gets.

That's kind of true.

Although, some experts have still warned that the current economic system, characterized by income inequality, wealth concentration, and declining social mobility, could lead to such very unwanted consequences for everyone including widespread rioting, economic collapse, Breakdown of social cohesion, sharp decline of public health, major breakdown of our natural environment, and so on. I remember you even mentioning that all of that before on your video on "Inside the Mind of Trump" about that and how that will occur before our country enters into stage Green.

Do you think that's still likely to happen?

[Karmadhi]

16 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Life in America is about as good as life gets.

I have read that in the past in the US you could easily sustain a family as a working man, working a normal factory job. Housing was also way cheaper (relative to the wages).

These days you need both the man and the wife to work and even then it is a struggle.

One of the main reasons why people are having less kids.

Has the purchasing power decreased?

[Leo Gura]

29 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

I have read that in the past in the US you could easily sustain a family as a working man, working a normal factory job. Housing was also way cheaper (relative to the wages).

These days you need both the man and the wife to work and even then it is a struggle.

One of the main reasons why people are having less kids.

There is some truth in that, but also, during that time black people were mistreated and women couldn't have credit cards.

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

There is some truth in that, but also, during that time black people were mistreated and women couldn't have credit cards.

Will black people eventually riot against corporations, the rich, and the right-wing politicians as soon our country truly reaches the nadir of late stage capitalism?

Edited May 13 by Hardkill