Trinidad, on 2017-February-28, 13:37, said:
The reason is simple:
Followers of populists are not looking at the results. They are happy with the fact that what they think is put on the agenda.
I am an engineer. When I see a problem, I will categorize it instantaneously: Is it solvable or is it not solvable? If it isn't, it isn't an interesting problem anymore. You just have to live with it. If it's solvable then it is a question on whether I want to spend my time and resources on actually solving it.
Polulist leaders pick problems that are unsolvable and that the population simply has to live with. The "technocrats" ignore those problems, since there is little one can do about them and they see worrying about them as a waste of time. The populist, however mentions those problems (and it doesn't even matter whether they are real or perceived problems), and the population is happy that finally somebody is bringing this up. Hooray!!
The next step is that the (real or perceived) problems cannot be solved (after all, they were unsolvable). Some would think that the populist leader would return to his voters and say: "Sorry, it was harder than I thought." But no, the populist leader knew up front that the problem couldn't be solved, so everything is still going according to plan. The next step is to blame his opponents for blocking the solution of the problem. The opponents can be political opponents (technocrats, "the elite") or foreign opponents (in Europe that means "Brussels") or others (the media, the judicial system). Whoever they are, they are blocking the solution of the problem.
Blaming others from blocking the solutions is the way to keep the electorate happy: "He is working hard at it, but the ... (fill in) making it impossible to do his job." and they will vote for the populist again.
The "Muslim ban" is an example: Terrorism is a problem. There are no simple solutions. So, the populist starts by placing it on the agenda and making it as big as possible. Then, he comes with a "solution": Banning people from 7 countries. (Of course, this doesn't solve the problem and the populist knows that.) Unfortunately, simply banning people is illegal and the judicial system stops the ban. From now on, terrorism is their fault, even if the next terrorist attack is committed by someone from Faroer (an island group north of Scotland). "He tried to prevent it, but the judges didn't let him."
Rik
I think you are exactly right on this. I would add that populists are always extremely careful not to offer detailed solutions. This is, of course, consistent with your notion that the populist knows that there are no good solutions. So rather than offer anything detailed, there will be token efforts, intended to fail (by provoking opposition including judicial invalidation).
We're going to hear a lot more about this later today, when Trump announces his desire for an increase in military spending of almost 10%. I doubt that there will be any attempt to explain, for example, how a new nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is going to prevent terrorism. However, a lot of ignorant low-income people are going to feel vicariously powerful as a result. Then when the next terrorist event happens, nobody is going to point out that the military buildup was the wrong response.....the argument will be that it didn't go far enough...we need to do more....and more....and more.
The worst will be when he tries to get further restrictions on civil liberties. Customs officials are already acting outrageously, including demanding 'papers' from passengers on a domestic flight. What is horrifying is that every single passenger meekly complied, and that the airline directed them to do so.
He's already laying the groundwork for restrictions on freedom of the press. He's trying to make the free press out to be the enemy of the people....and once that attains credibility, then it is a simple and short step to censorship. Don't think it can't happen. Remember, he gets to appoint hundreds of judges because the republicans blocked Obama appointments throughout the federal judiciary. Does anyone think that Alito or Thomas, for two, would rule temporary constraints on freedom of the press as unconstitutional if this was in response to a major threat or event? Say a war with China, as Bannon predicts is inevitable within the next few years?
This has all the hallmarks of Germany in 1932-3 and Russia in the immediate aftermath of Putin's election as Russian President. Oppoaition figures naively said that the establishment, the bureaucracy would stand up to the autocrat. Almost all knuckled under without protest.
That is how democracies die, and it is naïve to think that the US is any different. Consider how Japanese-americans were put into concentration camps, and consider how almost all media, Hollywood and members of Congress rolled over to Joseph McCarthy. Don't ever say it can't happen here.
Bear in mind that Trump is already calling for a one-party state!
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
Help
