fighter said:
sc94597 said:
fighter said:
sc94597 said:
fighter said:
Not when the elites are in charge of Change, duh
Obvious answer is obvious.
|
Except even then it is a plead for change, in which there exists no pandering to an elite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populist
- A supporter of Populism, a political philosophy urging social and political system change that favors "the people" over "the elites", or favors the common people over the rich and wealthy business owners.
It is quite "obivious" that populism is a reactionary philosophy to elitism. Of course, it could make a spectrum of its own, possibly.
|
you seem unable to grasp the concept - allow me to illustrate with a little example : Europe
So - the European Union is making changes, wether it's the Commissions, the Parliament, the European Council, or the Council of Europe, it is consider the centralized elite that promotes change. Not a populist one. Nor a conservative. But a progressist change.
All populisms in Europe are opposed to the European Union at the moment, wther left wing or right wing.
Again and for the last time, where did you get that crap ?
|
Yet populism doesn't exist without change. There's no such thing as a "traditional populist." This is not to say that all change is populist, just as not all individualism is anarchism. Look at the graph closely. Populism is right where it belongs. It has tendencies for change from elite-rule to common-rule and it's collectivist in nature. I got it from here, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=559440050785797&set=a.136475973082209.25390.100001594221961&type=1&theater .
|
yet, when the Republican party tells their voters to not overthrow the elites in washington and not believe the media is that not populism ?
Ron Paul himself says he is champion of the constitution [traditionalism], to change all current elites in place starting by all those useless secretary of state and institutions for freedom of the people [populism] - is his programme not [change] ?
|
That's certainly populism, yes, but the Republican party isn't 100% conservative. A political party, at least historically, never represents solely one political philosophy. Furthermore, ideology is a matter of primacy. A libertarian can use populist messages, for example, but that doesn't make their ideology populism. Most people aren't 100% one thing. Ron Paul can be a champion of the constitution (a traditionalist in that regard) and still demand change in another (such as say the education system.) I never made the logical statement populism = change, I said that demand for change is a necessary condition for populism because it's defined as such. As far as sources go, most people still believe in the right-left paradigm, so I don't think political taxonomy is a topic well developed by anybody, not a person on Facebook nor a person educated at Harvard.
