Why is "populism" a dirty word in American political rhetoric...

Why is "populism" a dirty word in American political rhetoric, especially considering that the original Populist Party was extremely progressive for its time?

Pic related.

"The Revolt of Elites and the Betray of Democracy" deals with this exact subject.

Christopher Lasch's take is that 'populism' as it was in America was based in classic Republican values of self-reliance, local community and land ownership. It was analogous to "Syndicalism" in Europe of independent producers, farmers & craftsmen, working together and securing their independent existence, as opposed to 'progressive' values of collective bargaining of dependent wage slaves submitting to the large-scale capitalist system and only working to secure incremental improvements within that system.

Not just in America.
Populism refers to something appealing to the masses, that has drawback that the masses aren't aware of.
Like promising to double the wages. Or just saying you'll fix everything the previous government did wrong.
It may be unrealistic promises, something very economically inefficient (think of the costs required to give everyone "full" healthcare), or controversial from a perspective of human rights (muslim witchhunt, tho i personally dislike them)

Why is leftist populism more acceptable than rightist?

Because leftist populism is about stealing, while rightist populism is about killing

Populism has always been used by the Left

Except healthcare has been proven to pay for itself, consuming, working idiots are more useful to an economy than dead men, and the system of america (private until you go into A and E) is stupid, it takes the efficency out of the market and the high delivery rates out of the public option.

>he thinks public healthcare is efficient
o am i laffin

Healthcare should be treated as a public good like transportation infrastructure.

Public healthcare is actually very efficient as a system. Sure, it has the drawback of being a government organization, with all the corruption and incompetence it implies, but the scale and objectives (a prevention focused system is both cheaper and better than a cure focused one, but it's not doable in a private setting) are such that a countrywide system is always gonna outcompete the private sector, like for the other publically managed sectors.

I honestly don't see how americans can keep ignoring this fact. They spend insane amounts on their healthcare system yet their performance is merely 1st world average.

>Public healthcare is actually very efficient as a system
By efficient you mean months of waiting times?

>(a prevention focused system is both cheaper and better than a cure focused one, but it's not doable in a private setting)
Your entire premise is based on a fallacy.

>their performance is merely 1st world average
For whom? The average white american is getting better or comparable care to the average European, just as the case is with homicides and crime rates, there are specific segments of the population that are vastly over-represented and decrease the overall average.

Lastly, I shouldn't be forced to pay for your healthcare, not to mention everything from abortions to drug addicts, faggot.


t. european country with public healthcare

populism is lynch mobs.

also the democrats/neoliberals are against it because "they know whats best for us" or something and think that a bunch of unemployed or under-employed service-sector employees with a few hi-tech workers is a world worth living in.

>For whom? The average white american is getting better or comparable care to the average European, just as the case is with homicides and crime rates, there are specific segments of the population that are vastly over-represented and decrease the overall average.
Whilst spending significantly more in terms of govt expenditure in terms of overall gdp.

>populism is lynch mobs.

Not an argument.

>By efficient you mean months of waiting times?

no efficient in the sense that it serves a greater amount of people for a lower cost, occassionally at the expense of longer waiting times for certain proceedures due to there simply being more people using healthcare services due to not being jewed out of it by premiums and shit.

not an argument

Because every retard and their mother can vote and if they vote to take your shit and you're someone with property, there's not really a whole lot you can do. It's why using populist rhetoric is regarded as dangerous. You are making promises to take other peoples things and redistribute it, which is basically stealing, so you can get reelected.

>Whilst spending significantly more in terms of govt expenditure in terms of overall gdp.
BECAUSE instead there's millions of people on government support. Private expenditure in the US is comparable to European countries with public healthcare, that's without adjusting the cost to the living standards. Secondly, much of the R&D is done in the US, 5 out of the top 10 pharmaceutical companies in the world are American, they spend billions of dollars. Much of the equipment in use was not developed by the public sector that uses it.

Lastly you still didn't explain why I should be forced to pay for your shit if I do not want to.

>months of waiting times
You can also OPT to pay more and go to conventioned private practitioners who have waiting times in line with american healthcare while costing a fuckload less because they're, you know, conventioned.
I mean I get why american healthcare is so unbelievably expensive, really I do. Intellectually at least. The actual data still boggles me when I see it.

>Lastly you still didn't explain why I should be forced to pay for your shit if I do not want to.
Same reason why you have to pay for roads, police, education, etc even if you don't want to: the majority wants to have efficient services and your backward ass is not gonna hold them back out of spite and short sighted avarice.

Here's an additional expense I've never seen factored in: the fact that Americans can't travel freely without losing their health insurance.

I've had to turn down job search opportunities, because moving would mean I'm no longer covered by health insurance, so I can't do that.

Alternatively, I might move and waste a bunch of work days, and gas, driving from Texas to New York just to get health care.

>Secondly, much of the R&D is done in the US, 5 out of the top 10 pharmaceutical companies in the world are American, they spend billions of dollars. Much of the equipment in use was not developed by the public sector that uses it.
This is true. It's also pointless, unless you're trying to argue that we should keep the US as the world's guinea pig, to suffer and be experimented on while the rest of the first world reaps the results. I mean I can get onboard with that sure.
However, if that's not what you're trying to argue here, you need to be aware that on average the american private sector develops cures, while the world's academia (US included) discovered decades ago that the most efficient healthcare focuses on prevention.
America is broken window fallacy: the country. Only the broken window is actually people.

>You can also OPT to pay more
Great, now I can pay for a free loader and pay extra to get actual treatment, you cockmongler.

>hold them back
No one is holding people back from paying their own insurance and taking care of themselves. The only backwards ass is people who still try to nationalize the healthcare system and take my money away, this is in spite its inefficiency, corruption and inside dealings and give it to those who do not take care of themselves. Fuck you.

Also, go fuck yourself with your "prevention" gimmick because it doesn't work because people don't give a fuck and this is why you still have an HIV/AIDS epidemic in the gay community. But I guess fuck the recent AIDS/HIV cures developed by private companies, just tell people to wear condoms durr.

Dumb fucking faggot.

>now I can pay for a free loader and pay extra to get actual treatment
And still save money compared to american medical insurance! Don't you just love the old continent?

I'm not saving money, I'm paying extra, you dumb shithead.

And its not even true because Americans earn a lot more income. Guess that doesn't matter to you though, since you're a leftist poorfag that wants free handouts.

>he thinks public healthcare is efficient

By all metrics it is. It's far more efficent than shitty "market based solutions" and has proven to be time and time again around the world.
American market fetishism is honestly fucking bizarre.

>By efficient you mean months of waiting times?
>literally the same shit in private sector
Are Americans this cucked?

>its not even true because Americans earn a lot more income
I thought it was leftists that believed it was fair for richer people to pay more? Did you just out yourself as a handout beggar?

Populism is literally the scummest political system known to man, making use of demagoguery, maniqueism and exploiting popular ignorance to catapult incompetent leaders into power.
Name 1 (one) good populist leader

It's basically closet communism

Hitlerp

>American political rhetoric.
Lelno.

Try being in the third world where every scum wins via populist election.

Last time I was in the emergency room, I had a 9 hour wait. In America.

By the time they were able to treat me, the problem had already resolved itself. But because there was no specialist on staff to release me, I had to stay overnight in a hospital, otherwise my insurance wouldn't cover me. So I occupied a hospital bed, took hospital staff hours, and ate their food, when there was no medical necessity, just so I could avoid getting hit with a hospital bill.

>market fetishism
That's just an excuse. They just refuse to accept that paying for Tyrone and Paco ends up being cheaper for everyone, because have to pay for Tyrone and Paco.
I mean I don't like it either, but I prefer gaining for myself than damaging others.

I know this feeling too well. Still can't believe yankees fell for that

>By all metrics it is
Except it's not

>retards really believe its somehow more efficient to pay for more people than it is to pay for yourself
Great, next time you go off to lunch, pay it for a couple more homeless people, maybe you even get a discount! It's far more efficient and cheaper that way...

>retards really believe
Any chief of medicine would confirm to you that having a $10m budget every year for ten years is far better than having $110m in revenue over a decade. And that's essentially what happens when you have public healthcare rather competing hospitals.
A stream of constant revenue means planification, planification means better deals, better deals mean lower costs. It's not hard user.

>retards really believe its somehow more efficient to pay for more people than it is to pay for yourself
what is the economy of scale

also why do all the retards come out of the closet everytime socialised medicine gets even a cursory mention?

I actually do that. It's called a potluck. What do you know, I DO eat cheaper!

It's just a slur reinvented from an existing but rarely used term.

>You must be 18 to post at this site.

you realize that preventative measures were taken and that's the main reason why HIV hasn't exploded? you're an idiot

Because most of the media groups (TV news and pundits, newspapers, journalists, etc.) that control information flow are left or at least cosmopolitan liberalism/soft-leftism aligns with their goals more than rightism.

Issue was reversed earlier in the 19th century where people were pretty openly pro-fascist and guys like Mussolini were treated like heroes in the United States prior to World War II and FDR took a lot of influence from Italian corporatist fascism in the New Deal.

UHC will work only if we set the system up to work. By that I mean kicking out illegals and other groups that vacuum up gibs. So long as people are willing to work, go to school, not laze around and collect welfare then the system works great.

But look at Scandinavia where their vaunted public entitlements are facing massive strain because of the massive importation of third worlders who do nothing but collect welfare leading to pensions having to be raided to pay for them. A system like that will collapse if implemented. As long as there's shitloads of people on welfare and unwilling to work UHC will never be feasible.

Ignore Tea Partiers. When they say taxation is theft they're dead serious. They truly believe that leaving everything up to benevolent private individuals will make for a better wold overall.

Hospitals will do everything in their power to put you out on the street if you can't pay. And it's not like you're going to be able to pay for a lawyer if you have to rely on those post Edmund Fitzgerald laws to get ER admittance in the first place.

It's absolutely fucked.

Currently we're leaving everything to the benevolent government and the benevolent corporations who own them. Alternatively, we could support neojacobinist deathcults like communism and be ruled by benevolent genocidal maniacs instead. Sounds great, right?

While the average tea partier seems to be very uninformed, as a non burger I still empathise with the average american redneck much more than with your "liberals", whatever the fuck that word even means to you people.

It's not an "American thing".

Populism or demagoguery was defined by Aristotle as the corrupted form of Democracy.

In a democracy, citizens vote for leaders who rule in their stead, but their power is limited by strong institutions and proper checks and balances, there are boundaries that leaders cannot overstep, and individual rights are protected. The leader rules with foresight, priorizing the common good of the country over what is popular or easy.

Under a populist regime or demagoguery, the citizens vote for a leader, but this proper system of checks and balances does not exist, power is unchecked, and individual rights of minorities (like those of the opposition who voted for the other guy) are not properly protected. The leader is able to manipulate the frustrated masses by appealing to the lowest common denominator and doing what is popular and easy but may damage the country in the long run. Thus a populist regime always degenerates into a full blown tyranny (Nazi Germany, Venezuela under Maduro), or where there are still elections into a tyranny-by-majority. (Venezuela under Chavez)

Okay, why are you on Veeky Forums then?

liberals ruin everything

In the same way that trade unions used to be the biggest anti-immigration advocates. Now they are a joke with leadership who actively undermines the wages and employment of rank-and-file members with their support for anti-labor neoliberal and immigration policies.

>literally a monthly riot burning down a city, mass looting and beating white people every time a criminal gets shot by police
Your ideology, and this is your ideology because I can just look at the way you typed that and see how much of a faggot you are, is about killing anyone who's inconvenient to the Democrat leadership.

>implying the Democrat leadership aren't a bunch of globalist neocons

The last true "populist" Democrat was William Jennings Bryan.

Because liberal historians are afraid of true populism so they decided to write a predominant narrative that demonizes Populists and their supporters (see Richard Hofstadter's take on populism in The Age of Reform).

>it's another Left/Right dichotomy thread

It shouldn't be, elites of any political orientation hate populist movements.

>elites of any political orientation hate populist movements.
lol no they don't. Populism is the perfect tool to manipulate the retarded masses into voting for elites playing pretend that they care about them them.

Donald Drumpf isn't a populist. Just because a politician uses "populist" rhetoric doesn't mean they are one.

But i'm center right.

"Populism is ultimately sustained by the frustrated exasperation of ordinary people, by the cry "I don't know what's going on, but I've just had enough of it! It cannot go on! It must stop!""-Slavoj Zizek

But that's almost exactly what he is. He had no way to deliver on his promises, he just promised them and ride the wave of reactionary anger.

>By efficient you mean months of waiting times?
That an't efficiency, just a system left to rot to justify the existence of private sanity and the privatization of whetheter public part left
>Your entire premise is based on a fallacy.
why? if you prevent accidents you can keep the worker at work, but if you have to heal him/her, He/she will have to be out of his/her working place for a time and that costs you money, and that's against any kind of proficiency
>For whom? The average white american is getting better or comparable care to the average European, just as the case is with homicides and crime rates, there are specific segments of the population that are vastly over-represented and decrease the overall average
Trust me, public one at USA is shit, because if you have to use it, it means that you aren't rich, and there resources for the poor vary from bad to shittiest.
>Lastly, I shouldn't be forced to pay for your healthcare, not to mention everything from abortions to drug addicts, faggot.
Then your system will have one less person which produces, so you will earn less. You won't notice if it's just one person, but when many people (like in strikes and marchs) stops working, it means a big disruption of economycal system

Att: A Spanish Student, whom has lived througt the golden age of Spanish heath system and throught it's destruction and current state of forsakeness, noticing all of its changes

>the original Populist Party was extremely progressive for its time?
Gee, I wonder why a hostile occupier would want to suppress the fair rule of free people, and discredit thoughts of self-rule and self-identity as a ridiculous anomaly. I wonder why a world elite wouldn't like that.

Something something nazi germany
>Inb4 national SOCIALISM

>Gee, I wonder why a hostile occupier would want to suppress the fair rule of free people, and discredit thoughts of self-rule and self-identity as a ridiculous anomaly.

What are you referring to here?

Because "Populism" doesn't suit the economic elite agenda so they, who control the media, introduce hatred in the head of wagies and the poor that somehow those evil populist are going to take away their freedom.

Powerful post.