The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Is populism any better than elitism? > Comments

Is populism any better than elitism? : Comments

By Max Atkinson, published 1/5/2017

'Populism' is widely understood to mean support for the concerns of ordinary people, which is hard to argue with.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Hey Doog who do you mean "Two faced person", Billie Shorten? The man who famously negotiated a lower rate for some of his Union members from one employer so the employer could go under any opposition quote. Is that the one you are talking about?
Posted by JBowyer, Monday, 1 May 2017 7:16:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Doog, who are you talking about? There are too many 'two faced' politicians (probably 99.9% of them) for us to guess who you mean.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 1 May 2017 9:10:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There seems to be some confusion here about terms. 'Populism' doesn't necessary mean 'for the people', but more likely 'popular' but unachievable, and the politician involved knows it.

Hence, for example, Trump is a populist: he promises what people may want to hear, bringing jobs back, building a wall, stopping immigration, sticking it to China, etc., but when it comes down to it, any half-intelligent politician would know that these 'popular' ideas won't fly.

I'm not suggesting that Trump is half-intelligent, that's too much of a compliment, but simply that he blows in the winds of popular aspirations, whichever way they blow. Most populist presidents would have the sense to slowly turn popular demands around towards reality, what can be really achieved, and sweet-talk his constituency over.

Of course, Trump's mind seems to work differently, even uniquely: if he thinks something is a good idea, it's already half- or even fully-achieved. He can move on. It probably comes as a surprise to him that the Wall hasn't already been completed, since, after all, he thought about it so hard. Perhaps his next book could be titled, "From Thought Bubble to Reality in One Easy Step".

So maybe he's a pseudo-populist - he actually believes his own bullsh!t ?

Grotesque, but constantly intriguing. Like the most ghastly reality TV show.

Which it is, of course .......

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 12:04:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Joe. I see some of your thinking is still controlled by a hang over of youthful socialist dreams.

As for the article, could anything be more obvious than Max is an elite legal academic who most definitely believes he knows best what is good for us peasants. Here he is trying desperately to avoid admitting it to his readers & thus alienate them.

I am almost, but not quite yet ashamed to admit to my BSc. I would be highly unlikely to admit to a law or economics degree, if I had one.

Trump, Brexit, & even the French election are combining to give even the great waffler, Turnbull the guts to start to cut a few percent of the fat from academia. Looks like the brethren are getting worried.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 2:04:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Hasbeen,

Possibly - thanks for the compliment of still being 'youthful'. Curse these striking good looks.

But all of this is not just a matter of either/or: i.e. that everybody is either one or the other, a populist or an elitist. Neither improves conditions for genuine democracy. Neither Trump nor Clinton would have led the US to a shining future.

I've railed against elitism in Indigenous affairs often enough. My obsession with MASS higher education is predicated on an assumption that mass education cripples elitism: it's one thing to control a handful of aspiring students, often relations, to groom them for elite positions (Ralph Turner wrote a brilliant article about this back in 1960:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2089982?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

but it's quite another to try to co-opt and 'induct' thousands at a time.

Currently, close to three thousand Indigenous people are graduating each year, but what does the elite keep doing, so it seems ? Focus on those students enrolled in higher degrees, often relations, a group which is much smaller (not for much longer) and therefore easier to suck into elite control systems. But with around 42,000 graduates already, the elites really are like the little boy with his finger stuck in the dyke wall, and, I suspect, still blissfully unaware that it could burst at any moment.

As it happens, even the elites in Indigenous education downcry Indigenous success in higher education: a Review in 2012 used only data up to 2005. Total graduate numbers have more than doubled since 2005, from 19,000 to 42,000, with a much higher proportion in straight, mainstream degree-level courses.

Of course, populism and elitism are not necessarily opposites: the Indigenous elites reach over the working population to pander to the more 'cultural' 'communities' - in other words, they try to be populist AND elitist simultaneously. I don't recall many in the Indigenous elites supporting Bill Leak in his wonderful, courageous cartoon criticising 'community' life and its devastating effects on young people.

So a pox on both populism AND elitism, Hasbeen :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 2:40:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good point Emperor Julian. Citizens’ Initiated referenda could play a useful role in Australia, and I have supported this idea in past articles.

They are needed to achieve reforms which are in the public interest but opposed by both major parties. An example of a much-needed reform is the refusal of major parties to put limits on political donations.

Another is the need to take the power to declare war from the Prime Minister and give it to the representatives of the people in Parliament. It would have been a big help on many important issues of principle in recent years, including same-sex marriage, the Apology and the Iraq War.

But these are all exceptional cases. If a government had to hold plebiscites for every major policy it proposes nobody would have time for anything else.

Max Atkinson
Posted by maxat, Wednesday, 3 May 2017 4:09:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy