| Moren said: Hmh. I think that you can make a distinction between "progressive", "optimist", and "populist". I think Warren can easily fit into the first two categories, while not being a populist. Maybe I can call her a progressive technocrat? Think of Katie Porter versus Rashida Tlaib. That's the general vibe I got from Warren versus Sanders. |
I agree that at least some of those distinctions exist. I mean, after all, thinking of who the president is for two seconds makes it obvious that not all populists are left wing populists by any means. Also, a progressive is somebody who believes that it is the role of society and technology to actively improve human living standards in a continuous way. Progressives in this sense can range from Marxists (who are very political and anxious to whip up the anger of the workers, generally speaking) to futurists (who are more aristocratic and believe in top-down types of social change that are led by technological inventions, not social movements). So obviously not all progressives are populists or vice versa.
At the same time, when you're drawing large crowds and boasting about the small average campaign donation size you're receiving, retweeting videos and images of Wall Street brokers and executives freaking out and crying about the prospect of you getting elected, and the main goal of your campaign is the downward redistribution of wealth, I'm just not seeing how all of that put together fails to meet the criteria of 'populist'. As in you're energizing, mobilizing the masses against the corrupt powers that be and all that.
