Category Archives: Populism

Turning the crowd into "the people"

Populism is a complex and contested political concept. It is nevertheless identifiable by certain characteristics. First, of course, it often involves some form of demagoguery, a rhetorical device that Donald Trump masters perfectly, as rhetoric professor Jennifer Mercieca has shown. "You're stronger, you're smarter. You've got more going than anybody," he told his audience on January 6. He also praised the crowd's pride and supposed patriotism, calling out "a deep and enduring love for America in our hearts [...] an overwhelming pride in this great country." But flattery in itself does not define populism.

As political scientist Jan-Werner Mller has demonstrated, what characterizes populism is above all a very restrictive and exclusive definition of "the people." In his inaugural speech, President Trump contrasted the "forgotten people" with a corrupt elite. When he addressed his supporters on January 6, he said: "You are the real people" which he defined as "the people that built this nation", and contrary to "the people that tore down our nation". Trump's "American people" are also the people who "do not believe the corrupt fake news anymore".

As used by Trump, "the people" is both a rhetorical construction and an embodied metaphor found in phrasing like "the incredible patriots here today" and "the magnitude of the crowd" stretching "all the way to the monument in Washington." For the President, size is a sign of moral virtue: "As this enormous crowd shows," he says, "we have truth and justice on our side."

As many observers have noted, Trump is obsessed with crowd size. One of the very first lies from his spokesperson regarded the size of the 2016 inauguration crowd, how it was bigger than Obama's in 2009, despite clear evidence to the contrary. This was the first of thousands of "alternative facts" that came to define Trump's presidency.

Another characteristic of Trump's "people" is their victim status. They are the victims of a corrupt system and the "fake news media". He also makes a link between "the country that has had enough" and a we who will "not take it any longer" because "that's what this is all about." Trump's people identify with him through this victimisation. Hence the use of the subject pronoun we. "It's incredible what we have to go through" he laments, building a cognitive bias that favors adherence to his numerous falsehoods.

Victimisation is an essential element of the populist discourse. It emphasises the innocence and the purity of the people (and their leader). It makes any future action, even illegal, morally justifiable. "When you catch someone in the act of fraud," said the President, "you're allowed to follow very different rules." In other words, it gives a blank check for illegal actions that will happen next.

This rhetoric of victimisation is also illustrated by the construction of the figure of an enemy who is no longer a foreign outsider but fellow Americans, as I have analysed thoroughly elsewhere.

In Trump's "Save America" speech, this enemy is primarily the news media. They "suppress speech," and even "thought". They are the "enemy of the people" and "the biggest problem we have in this country". The expression "enemy of the people" is not new: it has its origins in the Roman Republic and was used during the French Revolution. But there is a certain irony in Trump using a term made particularly popular by the Soviet Union while comparing the suppression by the media to "what happens in a communist country."

This view of the "enemy press" echoes that of Richard Nixon, as outlined in a recent article by RonNell Andersen Jones and Lisa Grow Sun. But Trump is much more vehement in his public attacks. And the enemies he mentioned are not limited to the press: he also attacked the "big tech" who "rigged the election," the Democrats and the "radical left" that will "destroy our country," the Republicans such as Mitch McConnell, Bill Barr, and Liz Cheney who refused to back his false claims, or the Supreme Court that "hurts our country".

The populist discourse also requires the construction of a permanent crisis. The enumeration of numerous enemies leads to an implacable logic: "Our country has been under siege". This type of war lexicon is all the more effective that the emotional charge is reinforced with the evocation of children:

"They also want to indoctrinate your children at school by teaching them things that aren't so. They want to indoctrinate your children. It's all part of the comprehensive assault on our democracy."

This threat of "indoctrination of children'' validates the policy in favor of private schools put in place by the Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. It may also echo QAnon's conspiracy theories that portray Donald Trump as the hero of a struggle against the "deep state" and a supposed cabal of Democratic politicians and celebrities baselessly accused of abusing children. But, more generally, what is at stake is the very existence of the nation: "If you don't fight like hell," the President warned, "you won't have a country anymore". So now, said the President, "the American people [are] finally standing up and saying, "No".

By standing up and fighting, Trump's "people" can become heroic. It is common for US Presidents to rely on the trope of the hero, a figure whose strength is always kept in check by virtue. Donald Trump presents a very different narrative where heroism is exclusively defined by unchecked strength, to the point that strength is a virtue in and of itself, as I developed previously in my research. "You have to show strength, and you have to be strong," he repeated, and members of Congress who promised to oppose the certification of votes became "warriors".

The claim that "We will not be intimidated into accepting the hoaxes and the lies" is also a way to refuse to be weak. After repeating the term "weak Republicans" several times, Trump clearly showed he enjoyed this expression, insisting he was going to use the term from then on.

This binary view of strength vs weakness echoes a very conservative and gendered narrative that appeals to Donald Trump's base, especially evangelicals: Trump's hypermasculinity is contrasted to the Democrats' enlightened masculinity, portrayed as weak and feminine. An extreme incarnation of this hypermasculinity can be found in the neo-fascist organisation Proud Boys present among his supporters.

At the end of his speech, when Trump encouraged his supporters to take action by going to Capitol Hill, he asked the crowd to "give our Republicans - the weak ones, because the strong ones don't need any of our help [...] - the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country".

As the speech reached its crescendo, Trump emphasised his supporters' strong emotional bond with him, and his with them. "We're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you", he promised, as if they would be protected by a Christ-like presence that did not even have to materialise - and it didn't. Instead, as what was now a mob moved toward the Capitol, Trump was driven back to the White House, where he watched the assault unfold on live television.

The tragic events of January 6 and their aftermath are now well known. Five people died, including police officer Brian Sicknick, who was beaten to death by the pro-Trump mob. Despite the violent attack, Congress was able to reconvene and formally recognize the victory of President-elect Joe Biden and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris. But the risk was grave and the wounds deep.

All of this was made possible by Donald Trump's ability and willingness to heighten and take advantage of his supporters' sense of exclusion (economic, social or otherwise), fear of cultural and identity dispossession, and distrust toward US institutions. Trump's populist narrative and coded language gave them a feeling of empowerment and encouraged them to imagine that a violent attack on Congress would be a patriotic, heroic act.

This is partly why, despite what happened on Capitol Hill, his approval rating remains at 40 percent. If his popularity among his voters may have slightly declined, it is still close to 80 percent, and about one in five Republicans (22 percent according to Reuters-Ipsos, or nearly 15 million Americans) claims to support the rioters' actions. Most importantly, a large majority of them continue to believe what the President has been saying for months: that the election was "rigged", and that Joe Biden is therefore illegitimately President-elect.

With the beginning of another impeachment procedure against Donald Trump and the threat of further attacks by his supporters on American institutions and elected officials in Washington and across the nation, and a pandemic, the next few days, weeks, and even months could prove crucial for American democracy.

Jrme Viala-Gaudefroy is an assistant lecturer at CY Cergy Paris Universit.

The Conversation

Here is the original post:

Opinion: How Donald Trump's populist narrative led directly to the assault on the US Capitol - Newshub

Democracy was in a coma even before the election of Donald Trump, and power will once again be for the people and for the people only under new political structures, explains political scientist Hlne Landemore, professor at the University of Yale.

She defends assemblies of non-politicians chosen by lot, such as the one that decided on changes to the Icelandic Constitution and the one that formulates environmental policy in France.

We must also change the private sphere, said Landemore, 45, who launched the Work Manifesto last year, along with eight other researchers. Instead of spreading the idea that managers should be at the forefront of politics, she says, the key is to bring politics to business. Businesses are too important to be in the hands of business people, he says.

The professor, who defines herself as a radical democrat, believes it is time to change the way decisions are made: There has been almost a coup dtat in the United States. How far will we have to- get us off before trying something more drastic?

For her, the invasion of the United States Congress failed only because the American president did not stimulate his supporters to the extreme, and the message that will be left to other populist leaders around the world will be that he There is no need to be afraid to explicitly encourage violence. .

?

Is Trumps defeat any relief for anyone who has seen American democracy in jeopardy? I do not believe. Even though Trump is arrested, there is a new form of populism, with new followers and people like [o senador republicano] Ted Cruz ready to follow this path, perhaps in a more dangerous way, however planned.

Why would this be a new populism? In the United States, there was no such thing for decades. But, in fact, there is nothing new about demagogues using populist troops. Some of my colleagues, like [o professor de filosofia de Yale] Jason Stanley, called it fascism from the start, under criticism from those who saw Trump as a mere clown wanting to increase his visibility.

Is it too much to see fascism in Trump? I dont think he had a fascist project at the start. But he thirsts for blood, hes a tyrant [assediador, quem vive a intimidar os que considera vulnerveis]. Without meeting any resistance, especially among the republicans, fascism grew in him. He realized that it would give him more power. Why would he stop? His bossy, chauvinistic, and sexist personality thrived in a Republican environment he thought he could control, but he was not.

How and when do you realize the line has been crossed? With stalkers, its never too early to react. We let Trump continue because we were complacent. High alert should have gone up in election debates with Hillary Clinton already, when he said he would not accept defeat in the election. He made it clear that he had no intention of following the rules.

Trump is admired by other leaders, like Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. What message do you get from the invasion of Congress and its reaction? Do they discourage coup attempts? No. What leaders like Bolsonaro will learn is that Trump was not bold enough. As an opportunist, he made a calculation to keep open the possibility of returning in 2024. He incited the coup, but it was not until the end.

The lesson for Bolsonaro is that there is no need to be afraid of explicitly encouraging violence. If Bolsonaro decides the only strategy is to be bold and burn all bridges, as Machiavelli might recommend pick one goal and go with everything Brazil will be in trouble, because it is very easy to reclaim power. See how few police officers were on Capitol Hill. How people came together to invade you. The speed with which people were ready to support the coup, which narrowly failed.

Doesnt the failure of the coup show that the institutions worked? I am very pessimistic. For me, the rebels didnt go to extremes because Trump didnt explicitly order it. But, if he had reached the limit, what would have happened? Its counterfactual, hard to imagine, but disturbing. And what can happen in countries where desperation or tolerance for violence is greatest?

Some politicians speak in dialogue with the other party to heal the polarization. Is it viable in this environment of hate towards the other on both sides of the table? This will not happen through classic political structures. Party leaders set gasoline on fire because polarization benefits them.

I would start with a sort of citizens assembly with the power to enforce its decisions, for example on immigration policies or on how to get out of the Covid-19 crisis.

I just dont see how to overcome 40 years of polarization, which almost perfectly accompanies rising inequalities. Reducing inequalities is a prerequisite, because it generates a lot of resentment and it inflames populism.

What do the figures from the US Congress tell us? That it is controlled by the richest 10% for the richest 10%, especially for the 1%. The ideology of the ruling class was to pretend that it remains democracy, when it is a plutocracy, an elitocracy disguised as democracy.

People start to think, if its democracy, Im not interested; I prefer an authoritarian leader who fights corruption and reduces the chasm .

What is mrs. said is that democracy was already in a coma? Its a step beyond warnings that she might die from the poison inside, as she contends. [o professor de Harvard Steven] Levitsky? Levitsky and [Daniel] Ziblatt [autores de Como as Democracias Morrem] have a minimal definition of what democracy is. It comes down to the rule of law and constitutional rules. It is not about the power exercised by the people for the people. They like it to be exercised in the name of the majority and benefit the people.

Perhaps the acceptable obstacle has gone too far. Deregulation and deindustrialisation have been too rapid and brutal. Democracy, in addition to not being for the people, has ceased to be for the people. And the left was an accomplice. They have also become a party for the 10 percent Caviar Democrats. The workers preferred Trump, who speaks at least their language.

Like Mrs. is it politically situated? As a social democrat. Perhaps it is hardly more correct to speak of a radical proceduralist, or a radical democrat, because I no longer focus on public policies and I think that elections are not enough; we have to change the way we decide.

The people we empower will never dare to exceed certain limits. There is no good that comes from a Congress in which 82% of the membership is the richest 10%. I defend citizens assemblies with decision-making power, whose decisions are implemented by the government. Its not a perfect solution, but its worth a try.

We are at a time when there was almost a coup dtat in the United States. How far will we have to go down before we try something more drastic?

Mrs. he is part of a group which has just launched a manifesto for the democratization of work. Is this another more radical attempt? One of the strongest phrases in [senador republicano] Mitt Romney, when he ran against Barack Obama in the 2012 election, said, Im a manager, a businessman. Thats why I have to take control of the government . Trump also used this argument: I know how to run a business, I will know how to run the country. Neoliberalism has produced businessmen who think they are better able to govern than politicians.

You have to turn around. Companies are too important to be in the hands of businessmen, especially with the impact they have on the public sphere. We need companies to be guided by people who understand the democratic conditions of political life, who oblige companies to assume their responsibilities.

Instead of putting managers in politics, we need to put politicians in business. Democratize the economy. Political democracy is impossible if there are no democratic enterprises in which workers have power, or democratic families in which their members have power.

The criticism will be that you have to be profitable, economically viable. Yes, but society can create the conditions. Laws, regulations, financial mechanisms can support. Our next step will be to work with companies willing to try new forms of governance. There are executives who understand that democracy will only be secure if the corporate world also changes.

You describe yourself as a group of researchers. Does gender make a difference? It wasnt intentional, but its a really collaborative group, not ego driven. Some of us have a certain visibility, but from the beginning it was a collective project. Gender matters, at the end of the day, because women end up, by necessity, being more collaborative.

But would a male member be rejected? I think were going to keep the group of nine women because its working well, but weve already worked with men. We didnt come to theorize about that, but basically we didnt want to become hostage to the traditional actors in this field, who are men, and have a man who represents the group. We want no one to represent us. We just want to be a group.

Hlne Landemore, 45,

she has been professor of political science at Yale University since 2009. Franco-American, holds a masters degree in political science from Sciences-Po (Paris) and in philosophy from the Sorbonne-Paris 1, and a doctorate in political science from Harvard University. Research democratic theory, the philosophy of economics, and democracy in the workplace, among other topics.

She is the author of Open Democracy (Princeton University Press 2020, without translation in Brazil), in which she defends new forms of democratic representation based on a drawing, and co-founder of the Democratizing Work movement.

Read more from the original source:

Companies are too big to be in the hands of businessmen, says researcher 1/18/2021 Worldwide - KSU | The Sentinel Newspaper

There are people who believe that the coronavirus is an instrument of world domination created by the enemies of their country.

They are the same who believe that when their candidates fail, there has been fraud or that everything the leader says is simply a translation of the wishes of the people.

These are the people who support Donald Trump in his attempted coup whose pathetic, fleeting, and atrocious end was the assault on Capitol Hill.

In short, we are witnessing a new version of unreality in the long web of historical conspiracy. Or, to put it another way: there is a new configuration of anti-vaccines and anti-democrats in a post-fascist key.

Like fascisms, new populisms mix, distort, and deny science through conspiratorial fantasies.

In the United States, which today has the largest number of vaccine doses available, incumbent President Trump has yet to be vaccinated, despite the advice and frustration of some of his staff.

In fact, the large number of Americans who do not consider getting vaccinated are widely distinguished by their Trumpism at the political level.

Thus, illusions and lies used in political circles abound.

For example, Trumpist ideologues, often posted or reposted by their defeated leader, argue that vaccines are a form of state social and demographic control or a weapon deliberately used by China.

Thus, the national and global vaccination campaign is portrayed by fanatical Christian evangelists and QAnon conspiracy theorists who believe Trump has been confronted and is facing a conspiracy of satanic cannibal pedophiles who dominate the Democratic Party, Hollywood and global finance.

According to this illusion, this conspiracy is responsible for all the problems in the world, and that would also include vaccines.

In this context, reality is falsified by denial of science, disease and election results.

As the Washington Post points out, many who profess the obvious lie of a vaccine plot to control peoples bodies are the same who believe the big lie of a Trump victory in the presidential election.

In particular, it should come as no surprise that people who deny reality in general also deny it in the special sense of vaccines.

What we are now seeing globally is a new political alliance of the ignorant, the gullible and the liars.

Before Trump, anti-taxxers had no political movement to channel their paranoia. This is now possible for many of them, as American populist historian Richard J. Hofstadter warned, conspiracy theory and blind suspicion were at the heart of the xenophobic populist style in the United States.

But if at Trump this situation is presented in an ambiguous way, in the sense that he too, in a contradictory way, wants to present himself as the main supporter of the vaccine, in this sense the Republican plays two roles: pro-vaccine for the public independent and anti-vaccine for your followers.

In Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro has taken a clearly obscurantist position. He looks back on a Brazilian experience spanning more than a century as a leader in mass vaccination campaigns.

If Brazil has been an example for Latin America and the world, it is today the opposite, a country ruled by an extreme paranoid who praises the farce.

Bolsonaro said he is not planning to be vaccinated and even argued that the vaccine could grow beards in women and men to become crocodiles or start talking in effeminate ways.

As in the United States, the Pfizer vaccine is the main victim of this campaign of falsification of reality which contains homophobic, xenophobic and nationalist elements.

None of this is new, because, as Hofstadter said, the paranoid style existed long before and was in fact the main mark of reactionaries, and after fascists and anti-Semites: This style has existed for a long time before the extreme right. find out, and their targets ranged from the international bank to the Freemasons, including the Jesuits and the arms manufacturers.

This has not always been the case in the history of classical populism. It was precisely the first populist regimes to come to power after 1945 that left these illusions behind. When necessary, populism turned to science.

And indeed, historically, in classic times of populist rule, science has not been attacked and scientific and medical development has generally not been ignored.

Besides the folklore of spiritualism so well portrayed by the writer Toms Eloy Martnez in La soap opera de Pern, on the occult and the magic of Peronism of Triple A with Jos Lpez Rega and Isabel Pern as leaders, Peronism as populism in general, was not reactionary in its relation to science.

Support for the science extends to the health of the leaders themselves, who in many cases have promised to be vaccinated first. The situation is very different for the new far-right populisms. For them, the vaccine conspiracy is real, and the reality is simply disposable.

http://www.latinoamerica21.com, a pluralist medium engaged in the diffusion of critical and true information on Latin America.

Translation by Maria Isabel Santos Lima

Continued here:

The New Version of Unreality in the Long Web of Conspiracy 19/01/2021 World - KSU | The Sentinel Newspaper

For Europes populists, the electoral defeat of US President Donald Trump, who has been a symbol of success and a strong supporter, was bad enough.

But his refusal to accept defeat and the violence that followed appears to have damaged the prospects of similarly minded leaders across the continent.

What happened in the Capitol following the defeat of Donald Trump is a bad omen for the populists, said Dominique Mosi, a senior analyst at the Paris-based Institut Montaigne. It says two things: If you elect them, they dont leave power easily, and if you elect them, look at what they can do in calling for popular anger.

The long day of rioting, violence and death as Mr Trumps supporters stormed the Capitol last week has presented a clear warning to countries such as France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland about underestimating the force of populist anger and the prevalence of conspiracy theories aimed at democratic governments.

Heather Grabbe, director of the Open Society European Policy Institute in Brussels, said the unrest showed how the populist playbook was founded on us versus them and leads to violence.

But its very important to show where populism leads and how it plays with fire, she added.

When youve aroused your supporters with political arguments about us versus them, they are not opponents but enemies who must be fought with all means, and it both leads to violence and makes conceding power impossible.

Just how threatening Europes populists found the events in the United States could be seen in their reaction: One by one, they distanced themselves from the rioting or fell silent.

Marine Le Pen delivers a speech in Paris, France, 26 May 2019

EPA

In France, Marine Le Pen, head of the far-right National Rally, is expected to mount another significant challenge to President Emmanuel Macron in the 2022 election. She was firm in supporting Mr Trump, praised his election and Brexit as precursors to populist success in France and echoed his insistence that the US election was rigged and fraudulent.

But after the violence, which she said left her very shocked, Ms Le Pen pulled back, condemning any violent act that aims to disrupt the democratic process.

Like Ms Le Pen, Matteo Salvini, populist leader of the Italian anti-immigrant League party, said, Violence is never the solution.

In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, a prominent right-wing party leader, criticised the attack on the US legislature. With elections in his country in March, Mr Wilders wrote on Twitter, The outcome of democratic elections should always be respected, whether you win or lose.

Far-right and populist Dutch politician Geert Wilders

EPA

Thierry Baudet, another high-profile Dutch populist, has aligned himself with Mr Trump and the anti-vaccination movement, and in the past has called the independence of the judiciary and a phony parliament into question.

But already in difficulty over reported anti-Semitic remarks and rifts in his party, Forum for Democracy, Mr Baudet, too, has had little to say so far.

Still, Forum for Democracy and Mr Wilders Party for Freedom together are likely to get about 20 per cent of the vote in the Dutch elections, said Rem Korteweg, an analyst at the Clingendael Institute in the Netherlands.

Even if populist leaders seem shaken by the events in Washington and nervous about further violence at the inauguration on 20 January, there remains considerable anxiety among mainstream politicians about anti-elitist, anti-government political movements in Europe, especially amid the confusion and anxiety produced by the coronavirus pandemic.

Janis A. Emmanouilidis, director of studies at the European Policy Center in Brussels, said that there was no uniform European populism.

The various movements have different characteristics in different countries, and outside events are only one factor in their varying popularity, he noted.

Now the most pressing issue is COVID-19, but its not at all clear how politics will play out postpandemic, he said. But, he added, the fear of the worst helps to avoid the worst.

The amazing polarisation of society and the violence in Washington creates a lot of deterrence in other societies, Mr Emmanouilidis said. We see where it leads, we want to avoid it, but we are aware that we too could get to that point, that things could escalate.

Enrico Letta, a former prime minister of Italy who is now dean of the Paris School of International Affairs at Sciences Po, said that Mr Trump gave credibility to the disruptive attitudes and approaches of populist leaders in Europe, so having him out is a big problem for them.

Then came the riot, he said, which I think changed the map completely.

Now, like Ms Le Pen, Italian populist leaders have felt obliged to cut their ties to some forms of extremism, Mr Letta said.

They have lost this ability to preserve this ambiguity about their ties to extremists on the margins, he added.

He said that Mr Trumps defeat and the violent responses to it were considerable blows to European populism.

The coronavirus disaster alone, he added, represented the revenge of competence and the scientific method against the obscurantism and anti-elitism of populism, noting that the troubles surrounding Brexit have also been a blow.

We even start to think that Brexit has been something positive for the rest of Europe, allowing a relaunch, Mr Letta said. Nobody followed Britain out, and now theres the collapse of Trump.

But Mr Mosi, the Institut Montaigne analyst, struck a darker note. Having written about the emotions of geopolitics, he sees a dangerous analogy in what happened at the Capitol, noting that it could go down as a heroic event among many of Mr Trumps supporters.

The rioting reminded him, he said, of the failed Beer Hall Putsch by Adolf Hitler and the early Nazi Party in Munich in 1923.

That effort to overthrow the Bavarian government also had elements of farce and was widely ridiculed, but it became the foundational myth of the Nazi regime, Mr Mosi said.

Hitler spent the prison term he was handed after the violence writing Mein Kampf.

Go here to see the original:

Europe's populists looked to Donald Trump. But after the Capitol violence, they're now looking away - SBS News

A resurgence in political instability and rise in populism being seen in the United States and other countries around the world should serve as as a chance for all levels of government to get ahead of similar situations in Canada, two Brock University experts say.

Colin Rose, assistant professor with the department of history, and Ibrahim Berrada, instructor in the Centre for Canadian Studies, pointed to a defence report, released last week, which warns that the spread of misinformation and a prolonged pandemic threatens Canadian security.

The report written in October by Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) identified three trends: intensified distrust in government,resurgence of populist support, and the manifestation of violent extremist organizations.

According to Rose, the rising levels of extremism in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic fits into a longer history, dating back to antiquity, of increasing social and political unrest during and in the aftermath of natural disasters.

"We give up certain rights and freedoms to our governments, and in exchange, they protect us from the unpredictable, respond to our needs and help us achieve our wants," Rose said.

"In the midst of a global pandemic, it becomes clearer that the state is unable to meet all these needs and provide these protections."

On Jan. 6, extremists who support outgoing President Donald Trump staged a riot at the U.S. Capitolas lawmakers were inside voting to certify Joe Biden's victory.

There are widespread concerns in the U.S. about the prospect of further violence by groups who reject the results of the Nov. 3 election.

The FBI, according to several media outlets, has warned local law enforcement to prepare for armed protests that may be attended by far-right extremists.

Rose said while achieving social trust at the federal, provincial and local levels of government is not impossible, it won't come easily, especially in light of the ongoing pandemic.

"The big problem that the federal and provincial governments face is that they come out of this with people saying they did a bad job, we didn't know what they were doing and they didn't make it clear why they were doing anything," Rose told CBC News.

"I think the biggest tools that governments and institutions have at their disposal right now is transparency and accountability,"Rose said."It would go a long way if everyone who took a vacation in the Caribbean didn't just have to resign their cabinet position, but in fact found himself out of a job."

Leaders need to be seen to be acting in the best interest of ordinary Canadians and not creating a second set of rules for the elite, Rose said.

Meanwhile, Berrada said the proliferation of misinformation on social media platforms poses a disturbing threat to Canadian peace and security.

"Radicalized right-wing populist movements are driven by misinformation, permitting the spread of ethnonationalism, xenophobia, racism, bigotry, misogyny and extremism," he said.

"Moreover, misinformation cultivates a level of distrust in our elected officials problematizing pandemic efforts."

Berrada said politicians must ensure the dissemination of reliable information, reinforce pandemic measures prioritizing the health of Canadians, and maintain the economy.

He added that a prolonged pandemic, coupled with lockdown measures and restrictions, further exacerbates an already demoralized and COVID-fatigued population.

"Ambiguity breeds speculation and speculation, then breeds misinformation in the long run. It's about clarity and [treating] Canadians like adults. Treat Canadians with the respect that they deserve and give them that information that they need," he told CBC News.

"If you have unclear regulation, if you have a mismanagement of protocols, if you have quickly changing directives and you have a different set of rules that elitein society are operating by then you will see a rise of distrust in government.

"The very fact that some people can skirt the rules without these consequences is problematic, and that is effectively what drives populism," Berrada said.

He said conspiracy theories encourage distrust in the government and promote a higher risk of violent, seditious, and anarchist behaviour.

The circulation of misinformation requires immediate attention from government officials, defence intelligence, social media giants and public health officials, he said.

Read the original post:

Misinformation, prolonged pandemic pose security threat in Canada: Brock experts - CBC.ca

This also recalls Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk keeping the border closed to virus-free NSW while allowing Melbourne-based AFL bigwigs in for the AFL grand final during Victorias second wave.

Some players have complained on social media of being unaware of the hard quarantine requirement if passengers tested positive, and say they would have never boarded the flight under those conditions. With eight-time Australian Open champion Novak Djokovic pushing for better food, less isolation time, and for quarantine to be shifted to private houses with tennis courts, the players have been accused of acting like pampered prima donnas.

Border populism and propping up zombie jobs impede dynamism and the efficient reallocation of the nation's productive human capital.

Rather than seeking special treatment, the issue is about practice and performance after a two-week lay-off confined to quarters, and the unfair advantage gained by competitors able to train for five hours a day within a semi-quarantine bubble.

The hard quarantine imposed on potentially exposed players, most of whom sat rows away and had little or no close contact with an infected person, is an ultra-cautious safeguard. But it also means that the Australian Open going ahead next month is unlikely to pose a clear and present health danger that would justify cancellation at this point.

The real issue that has once again been highlighted by the Australian Open controversy is the inconsistencies of Australias open-closed state border chaos. As NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian says, it makes no sense for Victorian counterpart Daniel Andrews to allow in tennis travellers from virus-ravaged Europe and the US while maintaining the unnecessary ban on returning Victorians and visitors from hotspot-free Greater Sydney.

Mr Andrews yesterday belatedly relaxed the ban to just 10 local government areas in western Sydney. But with all of Australia now declared hotspot-free by federal health authorities, all remaining internal border barriers should now be lifted, consistent with the national cabinet decision that parochial state premiers have consistently ignored.

As we report on Tuesday, border populism is now coming back to bite Western Australia, with the block on the entry of skilled labour set to cause costly delays on Perths multibillion-dollar Metronet railway project. This comes as labour force data reveals a jobs boom in some parts of the economy, with workers who lost their jobs in pandemic-hit sectors transitioning to new jobs in other industries.

Border populism and propping up zombie jobs with JobKeeper impede this kind of dynamism. As with ending JobKeeper, lifting border bans will prompt the efficient reallocation of the nation's productive human capital, which is now needed to keep Australias safe COVID-19 recovery going.

Go here to see the original:

Go ahead with Australian Open and open all borders too - The Australian Financial Review

For the last several years, debate over the proper role of antitrust has not been limited to academics, economists, lawyers, and judges, but routinely includes politicians, journalists, and increasingly the general public. Critics of modern antitrust enforcement are raising concerns about increasing concentrations of economic power, especially in high-profile sectors such as internet search, social networking, and e-commerce. Some refer to these critics as antitrust populists, and label a growing group of such critics the New Brandeis School.

Many antitrust populists question whether the consumer welfare standard, with its focus on prices, output, and product quality, is capable of addressing harmful concentrations of economic power in the modern economy. Others argue that antitrust has a broader role to play in U.S. society; rather than focusing, as it now does, on anticompetitive conduct, these populists argue that antitrust should address a broad range of social ills, including wealth and income inequality, the influence of money in American politics, the erosion of privacy, and systemic threats posed by firms that are too big to fail. Some proposals would address these social ills by having antitrust enforcement agencies and courts directly consider them when reviewing conduct. But most proposals would use antitrust enforcement to attack these problems indirectly, through policies that their proponents argue would more aggressively promote open markets and competition.

Originally published in Antitrust Law Journal - December 2020.

Please see full Article below for more information.

Read the rest here:

Antitrust Populism and the Consumer Welfare Standard: What Are We Actually Debating? - JD Supra

WASHINGTON, Dec. 28, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --As Donald Trump's erratic behavior intensifies evidenced by a deluge of anti-democratic, authoritarian, dystopian, malicious actions and statements many observers struggle to grasp his objectives. Some are perplexed by his affinity for self-defeating and humiliating conduct. Others seek a rational or strategic purpose. Many resort to generalized explanations, such as his mental instability, his inability to accept that he lost the election, or his self-created alternate reality based on alternative facts (a.k.a., lies).

Yet, there are more specific explanations, rooted in Trump's psychological impairments. As Bradford Kane wrote in Pitchfork Populism: Ten Political Forces That Shaped an Election and Continue to Change America, Trump "inundates every American with insight into his character, motivations, objectives, needs, and temperament. He chose to rip away the veneer and expose his impulses. Rather than hide his psychological fabric, he has placed it in the public record." As the author details on pages 99-100 of the book, the five principal drivers of Trump's behavior are (summarily stated):

Trump's motives are among the many aspects of his and his administration's conduct that Kane exposed in Pitchfork Populism. The author's analysis and answers written when others were perplexed, confused or confounded have gained broad acceptance. Kane assessed a vast array of Trump's domestic and foreign policies, legislative efforts, executive orders, and public statements, identifying the forces that spawned Trump's pattern of malevolence, ignorance, incompetence, corruption, and cruelty. In the waning days of the Trump administration, rather than abating, these flaws are multiplying.

Fortunately, however, the political forces discussed in Pitchfork Populism that enabled the degradation of our political climate over the past four years can be harnessed to catalyze constructive, unifying progress. Under President-elect Joe Biden's leadership, these forces can be leveraged for a return to policy and actions based on long-held, widely-cherished American values, Constitutional principles, and norms of democracy that serve both parties' interests. The Biden-Harris administration's focus on unity, empathy, justice, and equity will elevate the prospect of bipartisan collaboration to aid, support, and benefit all Americans. The incoming administration's rational, stable, and fair approach to governing will reassert the best of our national character, and reclaim our global stature and leadership. While the outcome of Georgia's senate races will impact the extent of bipartisanship, most Republicans will value Biden's approach, recognizing it as an opportunity for meaningful, responsible progress on many issues.

Bradford Kane presents acute insights into the forces that led to the present situation, and assesses the path forward in the coming years for the country and world.

To schedule an interview with Brad Kane, or request a hardcover or eBook review copy, please contact:Mike Dougherty, Dougherty and Associates828-622-3285; [emailprotected]

SOURCE Bradford Kane

Read the original post:

Bradford Kane's Book, Pitchfork Populism, Identifies the Roots of Trump's Turmoil - PRNewswire

Britain faces an uncertain future as it finally pulls clear of the EUs orbit, continental commentators have predicted, its reputation for pragmatism and probity shredded by a Brexit process most see as profoundly populist and dangerously dishonest.

For us, the UK has always been seen as like-minded: economically progressive, politically stable, respect for the rule of law a beacon of western liberal democracy, said Rem Korteweg, of the Clingendael Institute thinktank in the Netherlands.

Im afraid thats been seriously hit by the past four years. The Dutch have seen a country in a deep identity crisis; its been like watching a close friend go through a really, really difficult time. Brexit is an exercise in emotion, not rationality; in choosing your own facts. And its not clear how it will end.

Britains long-polished pragmatic image had been seriously tarnished, agreed Nicolai von Ondarza, of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. But trust in the UK, too, had taken a heavy battering on the Brexit rollercoaster.

Thats particularly been the case over the past year, Von Ondarza said. Boris Johnson has always been seen as a bit of a gambler, displaying a certain flexibility with the truth. But observing him him as prime minister has only made that worse.

Germans tended to view international politics very much through the prism of international law, Von Ondarza said, so Johnsons willingness to ignore it in the form, particularly, of the internal market bill was deeply shocking.

The idea that youd willingly violate an international treaty that youd negotiated and signed barely eight months previously Thats just not something you do among allies, he said. That whole episode really damaged Britains credibility.

Others were more brutal still. In Der Spiegel, Nikolaus Blome said there was absolutely nothing good about Brexit which would never have happened had Conservative politicians not, to a quite unprecedented degree, deceived and lied to their people.

Much of the British media, Blome said, were complicit, constantly trampling on fairness and facts, leaving Britain captured by gambling liars, frivolous clowns and their paid cheerleaders. They have destroyed my Europe, to which the UK belonged as much as France or Germany.

But Johnsons lies were the biggest of all, he said: Take back control, Johnson lied to his citizens. But all the British government will finally have achieved is to have taken back control of a little shovel and a little sand castle.

The sovereignty in whose name Brexit was done remained, essentially, a myth, said Jean-Dominique Giuliani, of the Robert Schuman Foundation in France. It is history, geography, culture, language and traditions that make up the identity of a people, Giuliani said, not their political organisation.

It is wrong to believe peoples and states can permanently free themselves from each other, or take decisions without considering the consequences for their citizens and partners. Take back control is a nationalist, populist slogan that ignores the reality of an interdependent world Our maritime neighbour will be much weakened.

The German historian Helene von Bismarck doubted Brexit would end what she described as a very British brand of populism. British populism is a political method, not an ideology, and it does not become redundant with Brexit, she said.

Von Bismarck identified two key elements in this method: an emotionalisation and over-simplification of highly complex issues, such as Brexit, the Covid pandemic or migration, and a reliance on bogeymen or enemies at home and abroad.

Populists depend on enemies, real or imagined, to legitimise their actions and deflect from their own shortcomings, she said. If the EU has been the enemy abroad since 2016, it will steadily be replaced by enemies within: MPs, civil servants, judges, lawyers, experts, the BBC.

Individuals and institutions who dare to limit the power of the executive, even if it is just by asking questions, are at constant risk of being denounced as activists by the Johnson government, Von Bismarck said. Everyone has political motives except for the government, which seeks to define neutrality.

Brexit itself is being framed as the grand departure, the moment the UK is finally free and sovereign, when all problems can be solved with common sense and optimism justifying a more pragmatic approach to rules, constitutional conventions and institutions that actually amounts to a worrying disregard for the rule of law.

British populism would continue, she said, especially when the real, hard consequences of the pandemic and Brexit started to bite.

It is naive to expect a political style which ridicules complexity, presents people with bogeymen to despise, and prides itself on doing what it necessary even if elites and institutions get in the way, to lose its appeal in times of hardship, she said.

Elvire Fabry, of Frances Institut Jacques Delors, said the past four years had shown Europeans and Britons just how little we really knew each other. They had also revealed, she said, the fragility of a parliamentary system seen by many on the continent as a point of reference.

Its been difficult for us to anticipate, at times even to interpret, whats happened in the UK, Fabry said. The direction Johnson has taken the Conservative party in we didnt see that coming. The course hes setting for the country. The polarisation. And the way MPs have been bypassed since he became prime minister .

Most striking of all, she said, was how the politics prevailing in Britain had become detached from geopolitical reality from the way the world is developing. Its a political vision turned towards yesterdays world. Ideological. The way the trade deal focused on goods at the expense of services Its not the way the worlds going.

Painful as the Brexit process may have been for Europeans, however, it had at least demonstrated the reality and value of the single market, its rules and norms, and of the EUs basis in law, Fabry said. Those are at the heart of the European identity and defending them has given the union a new political maturity.

It had also, concluded Korteweg, served as a warning. I think its taught us all just how vulnerable our political processes are, he said. Just eight years ago, leaving the EU was a seriously fringe proposition in British politics, and now look where you are. So weve seen how fragile it all is, what weve built and how worth defending.

See the original post:

View from the EU: Britain 'taken over by gamblers, liars, clowns and their cheerleaders' - The Guardian

Now that Donald Trump has signed the COVID-19 relief bill, resolving the crisis he instigated by denouncing it as a "disgrace" and insisting it be expanded to include much larger payouts to individuals, it's possible to assess just how the battle lines of partisan combat in Washington have shifted since the waning days of the Obama administration.

The answer is: hardly at all.

Ever since Trump defied expectations in 2016 by winning his party's nomination with a highly unorthodox message, a wide range of prognosticators, along with some of the party's elected officials, have suggested that the Republican future involves transforming the GOP into a "workers party." Such a party would mix standard Republican positions on taxes, judges, and abortion with defenses of key aspects of the welfare state that benefit the working class, including increased access to affordable medical care.

In sum: The entrepreneurial party of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, which sought to "reform entitlements" (read: gut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid), would be replaced by a party that actively seeks to offer a helping hand to struggling American workers.

Trump's instincts do seem to point in precisely this direction. But he has proven to be such an atrocious negotiator, so incurious about the details of public policy, and so incapable of learning how to use the levers of power in Washington (beyond tweet-based rabblerousing) that he's accomplished less than nothing during the four years of his presidency. Instead of dragging his party to embrace an agenda less skewed toward the rich, he has ended up revealing that those who favor a more worker-friendly approach are vastly outnumbered and incredibly weak in the GOP.

That's unfortunate for Republicans and for the country as a whole.

America's two major parties are locked in a struggle over which of them will come to be seen as the party of the working class. In this battle, Democrats have a number of advantages rooted in their history going back nearly a century to the New Deal. But over the past decade or so, the party has drifted away from that legacy, doing better and better among those who live in economically flourishing cities and inner-ring suburbs, and shifting sharply to the left on cultural issues (race, gender, crime, and immigration).

These trends have alienated voters in exurban and rural areas (especially in the post-industrial Midwest). That has created an opening for Republicans to make inroads with an economically populist and culturally conservative message. That, in a nutshell, is Trumpism and it is potentially very potent at the ballot box. If Trump had taken a strong stand over the summer that the next COVID relief bill needed to include $2,000 checks for every American, and if he had repeated that line through the fall and combined it with his attacks on crime, urban unrest, and the threat of "socialism," he likely would have prevailed in the election.

Instead, the president said very little about the economy (beyond bragging about its pre-pandemic greatness) and next to nothing about the relief bill wending its way through Congress. That allowed Joe Biden to portray himself and his party as defenders of working people. When that familiar Democratic stance was combined with the Biden campaign's deft refusal to be baited into offering defenses of the culturally toxic behavior of rioters or endorsements for politically asinine slogans ("Defund the Police"), the result was a winning message.

Trump's last-minute acting out about the relief bill confirmed that his political instincts remain sound, even as he continues to be incapable of acting on them in a politically productive way. That's not only because of Trump's personal ineptitude. It's also a function of the ideological alignment of the parties, which hasn't changed much at all in the past four years. It was Nancy Pelosi, the head of the Democratic Party in the House, who jumped at the prospect of increasing the size of relief checks from $600 to $2,000 and Republicans in the same chamber who rejected it. Which is exactly what would have happened in 2014, 2004, 1994, or 1984.

Four years after Trump seized control of the GOP, Republicans are happy to playact cultural populism, lashing out against the "woke left" in order to burnish the party's working-class bona fides. But economic populism remains a bridge too far.

Which means, once again, that Washington's battle lines have moved very little over the past four years.

From here on out, the most sensible path forward for both parties is clear. Democrats will continue to portray themselves as a party of working people on economic issues and keep trying to placate the cultural left while also working to steer clear of its most extreme excesses. Republicans, meanwhile, will keep attacking the cultural left and using that red meat to portray themselves as aligned with ordinary Americans while also favoring economic policies that primarily benefit the wealthy and often leave working-class communities in ruins.

The details may have shifted somewhat through the decades, but the general shape of things has changed very little since the Obama administration and even since the Reagan administration. Trumpism pointed, haltingly, at another possibility. But as its namesake prepares to leave office in a spasm of election-fraud conspiracism and impotent acting out against his own party's plutocratic priorities, the much-discussed re-alignment of the parties appears to be stillborn, with the entrenched positions of both parties as fixed as ever.

More here:

Trump fails to redraw politics' battle lines - The Week