I can't speak for others, but U.S. domestic policy often directly impacts Canadian day to day life.
She is absolutely dumb and could only get elected in a radical left-wing district she's in just like the two radical Muslims Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in MN. She won her district by basically attacking her Democratic opponent for being white and old. He was next in line to be the head of the Dem's in Congress and her minority filled liberal district picked an almost 30 year old Latina which is somehow young over the old white guy.
I have questions.
Just look at how Tlaib and Omar both being Muslim have came out swinging against Israel/Jews/American supporters. Omar has been the loudest and most annoying but Tlaib is no different...
I'm not sure how Tlaib being on that panel with someone she likely has disagreements with proves she's an extremist. And if we start the guilt by association game, a lot of people are going to get indicted. I mean, Steve King still happily sits in Congress despite his lengthy history of association with racist organizations and public performances of racism.
LoL @ Rashida Tlaib likely having disagreements...
@Kneeblock I think it's worth noting that Bernie has been saying those things for years. AOC seems very much like she's just repeating what she reads on social media memes. To be honest it reminds me a lot of almost a Bizzaro Trump.They’re definitely symptoms of the same disease
Bernie is old and reminds people of their crazy uncle who smoked too much dope in the 60s. Easy to roll your eyes at and dismiss.
I think both of you hit the nail on the head. The media has basically been casting her in that role and she is more or less playing it. The reason media both left and right is cramming her down everyone's throat is to put her into an antithetical relationship with Trump. They've both meant to be avatars of antiestablishment challenges to their respective parties and we're all falling for it. The other thing they share is they're probably the most personally adept at using social media of any politicians we've ever seen in the US. Notice that a great deal of coverage is devoted to what either of them say on Twitter (or often IG in AOC's case). These interactions are frequently spun off into whole news stories and both of them know the value of maintaining high visibility. Both do have actual institutions or movements of their own that they represent, but these are often obscured behind the cult of personality that's being manufactured on their behalf allowing them to appear to be iconoclasts. It's the left and right hand of populism and based on how things are going around the world (see what's happening right now in Ukraine, The Philippines, Brazil, Italy, etc), this brand of politics may be here to stay.
I apologize that this is a but of a non-sequitur but one concept I've been grappling with recently is; why in a democracy is populism being painted in such a negative light?
This has to do with misunderstandings of the definition. In simple terms, it means "doing what's popular among the people." But popularity is complicated. Also, the natural question arises "which people?" While one part of democracy is about the will of a majority, arguably the more salient part is about plurality and being accountable to and acting on behalf of everyone. Populism is about choosing and in some cases creating a group you represent. You define "the people" as a very specific group and everyone else is "the other," often "the enemy." Antagonizing the enemy to stoke joy among one's followers is a major feature of populism. Populism is probably an unavoidable part of democracy because of the way democratic systems are structured, but after the lessons of World War 2, we supposedly learned why it can be dangerous.
Here's the thing, Brexit is often trotted out as an example of populism. Brexit was a referendum, and the results are democracy in its purist form. Now they have politicians circumventing the will of the people because, you know "Populism bad".
Brexit in and of itself isn't populist as any referendum is, as you say, simply an instrument of direct democracy. The reason it's sometimes called populist is because of the way UKIP ran the campaign to engineer the referendum. It largely focused on insider/outsider logic, Euroskepticism and anti-migrant rhetoric. You can see from the catastrophe it's become one feature of populism as it's typically only a viable political strategy for short term initiatives. It's rarely useful for building lasting coalitions that can sustain an institutional influence in democracies. In authoritarian regimes, this matters less because the centralization of political power is absolute and no coalition building is necessary.
oh ya baby
There's a pretty obvious reason why that is. We're seeing it in the U.K. right now. The Patricians don't want the Plebes to have ultimate say in the direction of the country.
Agreed. But at the same time it's often patricians who invoke populism. Farage, Trump, Teddy Roosevelt, Berlusconi, for example.
Again these are instances of "political elites" quelling the general populace. As you say, the people most oppose to the people having hold of their power are the same ones imploring them to do "the responsible thing".
