Masiakasaurus wrote on Dec 6
th, 2016 at 11:55pm:
Populism, at least how I'm using it, is a sort of classism in which the populace feel as though the political class do not represent them. Not so much class struggle between the haves and the have-nots, but friction between out-of-touch elected officials and the interests of the average American.
I've not run across that definition. The meaning I've inferred from context is as a perjorative and an implication that it is something that is popular but uncouth. Something along the lines "reality TV", we all know it sucks but we also all know that "the people" like it. Webster's agrees with your definition, but Merriam Webster has a softer definition where populism is the belief in the wisdom of the common people without the class struggle.
If we use your definition though, that recognizes a distinction between a ruling class and subjects. And that, I've come to believe, is a distinctly unamerican view of the world.
It's funny I've been listening to "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" and the revulsion and hostility the American harbors for the aristocracy is fascinating. I think Twain hit the nail on the head there it's part of our national character to reject being ruled by "our betters". The American ideal was certainly to send our best to represent us- but we rejected the idea that being "the best" was a matter of breeding and formal education.
I also recently read "swiss watching" which is a fascinating book written by a Brit who lives in Switzerland and his observations of this other culture. It was eye opening to see his distaste of the Swiss Republic's politics. He didn't like the Canton that voted in public, literally standing for your vote. He didn't like the referendums where the people passed legislation through direct vote. He didn't like the referendums where the people rejected the Legislature's laws. He didn't like the system of Federalism where popular vote AND canton approval had to go hand in hand. So while he claimed to love "democracy" he didn't. He didn't even approve of republicanism- what he believed in (and I don't think it's conscious for him) was in letting his betters decide what was best, and agreeing with it. I was surprised by the strength of my reaction to that. It legitimately made me angry and it was reading Twain after that that made me realize "it's because you're an American". I think that has been diluted (I doubt the Kennedy family would have pulled off in the 1860s what they did in the 1960s) but it's still there. We don't think that our elected officials ought be a distinct group, we think they ought to be indistinguishable from us.
Masiakasaurus wrote on Dec 6
th, 2016 at 11:55pm:
There's clearly a voting bloc in the GOP that rejects the mainstream candidates for being too disconnected and also rejects conventional GOP market deregulation/trade policies. I'm choosing to call them Alt-right because that's how Breitbart News self-identifies these days
Admittedly I don't go to Breitbart so you could be right that protectionist economics and anger at the "establishment" is the group that self-identifies as "alt-right". But really I'm hard pressed to find conservatives that don't think that the "establishment" is a problem. And to be fair to both sides the left feels just as betrayed. The Dems are always theoretically protectionist, but more free trade stuff seems to get passed no matter which side is in office. The GOp is theoretically for smaller government but, again, government expands under both parties. I think that's why so many people (left and right) agree with Morphy and Bill and are willing to back darkhorses.