Posted on 07/31/2009 9:23:39 AM PDT by AJKauf
Thanks for your response. But I still don’t see why representing the people is not being a populist. What we have now is politicians who serve themselves rather than the people. Why isn’t a populist someone who serves the people?
Palin stepped down in Alaska because the politicians working with a handful of Alaskans combined to make sure she could no longer get anything done for the people.
So she stepped down. To serve the people in another way.
It sounds like populist is now being defined as demagogue, someone who exploits the people for him or herself.
A populist is precisely a demagogue.
To get philosophical on you, its the difference between Rousseau (”the will of the people”) versus John Locke (limited government).
Populism treats “the people” as an amorphous whole, whereas John Locke classic liberalism (American conservatism) holds that government exists to protect individual citizens.
Both talk about liberty, but in the one case (Rousseu) in an effort to get what the people want when they want it, freedom is secondary and can be dispensed with as need be. In the second case (Locke), people may have to defer a desire, or manage it themselves at their own expense, or create home-grown institutions or businesses to manage problems, because there are limits to the power you allow government to have.
Populist government never achieves what it promises, because it can’t, but it will always centralize power on the pretext of satisfying the will of the people. Limited government is always a tougher sell, because it doesn’t promise any grand project, just to preserve the people’s freedom to muddle through. Populism is always sexier than freedom. Freedom is a long hard grind your whole life long with no promises except to stay out of your way. Its not, apparently, for everyone.
I would say that Rousseau and the populists have won the argument in most of the world, and among half of Americans, maybe more, and that Locke barely hangs on among a remnant of us. We and the Sarah Palins of the world are fighting a rear-guard action against the populists, who want what they want and they want it now and they’ll use all the power of government to get it.
Obama is a populist. He will use the power of government to serve “the people”, keeping in mind that in this view “the people” is a single entity. The rights of individuals is a needless barrier to a populist. To a populist, you should never let the concerns of individuals get in the way of “the people”. And what if “the people” don’t correctly understand what their true will is? Then you have to lead them to their true will whether they like it or not. Classic Rousseau. Populism is government by crowd control. Its group politics, as opposed to individual citizenship.
Its just the meaning of the word.
Mitt Romney supported the RINO Chris Christie over Tru-Con Steve Lonegon in the Jersey primary. That must mean Christie is a conservative like Romney.
Mitt Romney played NO role in the NJ Gov.primary election.
Mitt Romney played NO role in the NJ Gov.primary election.
Next you’ll be saying he secretly supported Zero!
Didn’t you hear the news? Palin isn’t going to speak at the Ronald Reagan Library. How strange. What is going on?
Then why the title “Palin Fans Feel Betrayed”. I do not believe this is a Palin surge — a surge is not permanent; Palin fans are permanent. I only care about the fear of the left because they are trying to destroy Gov. Palin and her family. The left fears truth.
I do not understand your response to me. But then I love my God and have my guns, so I am not able to understand very much.
Master of the obvious?
But why the stupid title?
That idea might have flown a little better if not for this being imbedded in the article:
"Granted, Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan"OK, nobody is Ronald Reagan; he's gone. - But Sarah Palin has accomplished greater tasks than Reagan ever did, and done it without help. Who else has ever brought down the sitting governor of their own party, and done it from the lowly mayor's office of one of the smallest towns in America?
And for the most part, the attacks are not coming from the right, but from the squishy RINO middle - the neo-cons, and other pretenders.
Well Nan, after years of sensible comments, this time you have marginalized yourself badly!
Romney is Republicrat mush, and Sarah is Christian America revived.
I believe nmh is Mormon from previous conversations here at FR.
That's right, she is not a homosexual, nor a radical feminist!
LOL! LOL, BIG TIME!
I have never been nor ever will be a Mormon.
I don't see Mormonism as Christian.
You are very confused ... to say the least.
I'd rather have a Mormon in there than someone like Obama any day.
You are entitled to your opinion.
“Romney is Republicrat mush, and Sarah is Christian America revived.”
Mitt is a Mormon no doubt about that. As for Sarah being a “Christian” well ... she doesn't adhere to her responsibilities as a Mother in the Christian context. Mitt's wife does a better job at that. His boys haven't gotten anyone pregnant. It appears that Sarah's hubby didn't work out so well as Mr. Mom as she selfishly pursued her political aspirations.
If Sarah's kids were grown that would be a different story. Bristol represents a growing problem ... .
There are plenty of Mormons here that do not support Mitt.
Yes there are some.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.