If A Politician Is Accused Of Being Populist, Why Is That A Bad Thing?

[dave50]

Surely if they are advocating policies that are popular, what's the problem?

[sandyRoe]

Paedos should be strung up, sink the boats aiming to carrying foreigners to our precious shores. There are two policies which would be popular. Would you like them?

[Atheist]

It's a bad thing because it's all based on the would-be president, PM, king or whatever being determined to gain and retain power without any regard for honesty, decency, morals, law, truth, justice, fairness, humanity... so long as he/she gains power.

[Untitled]

"populist" politicians typically say things that are popular even when they are untrue or nasty... the stereotypical example would be whipping up hatred like Trump... it might be popular to hate immigrants or refugees but that doesn't mean it is right

[douglas9401]

I think it might be related to 'right wing nut job' by the great and the good along with their adherents, therefore a 'bad thing'.

[ToraToraTora]

Because populist does not mean what you are portraying it as meaning in this context.

[Untitled]

populist politicians are also very often authoritarian... Hitler and Mussolini both presented themselves as mouthpieces of "common sense" and as rulers who made elections unnecessary because of their great understanding of the common man... they both liked referendums and not elections... they were very keen on the idea of "the will of the people" as an almost mystical force that was embodied in them

so populism is actually anti-democratic because it seeks to bypass the democratic process

[douglas9401]

You see? :-)

[ToraToraTora]

Untitled is correct though it also applies to left wing extremists too. Essentially most people are thick as pig sheet and selfish so if you promise them things that sound great to them they'll give you their vote. So for example If I promise that all Rich B'stards will have all their things confiscated and have their heads chopped off that will be a very populist policy and will get a fair amount of support.

[youngmafbog]

Well it would by a couple of the commies above TTT!

[New Judge]

//…so populism is actually anti-democratic because it seeks to bypass the democratic process.//

I think it depends. Switzerland holds around four referendums every year. Would you say that bypasses the democratic process?

Almost certainly the best example of “populism” in the UK in recent years is the EU referendum issue and the debacle that followed the result. There was clearly a widespread disquiet among the UK electorate with the UK’s EU membership. We can argue until the cows come home as to why this was. But whether it was sovereignty, immigration, or simply being told what to do by unelected foreigners, the disquiet was there. But those unhappy with the country’s membership had nobody to vote for. It is fairly obvious that only the two main parties are likely to form a government but neither had any intention of investigating why there was this disquiet and certainly no plans to cure it.

We all know the history of what happened and why the referendum was held (even though we may disagree over whether it should have been held and how the outcome was dealt with). But it was clear from the 17m answers to a straightforward question that was a huge swell of support to leave. Even though Mr Cameron had pledged that “the government will implement what you decide”, that decision had to be ratified by Parliament and they did so by 5:1. It was certainly a wave of “populism” that created the atmosphere for the referendum, so what was undemocratic about it? What would have been undemocratic would be to have continued with this groundswell of disquiet, probably increasing when there was nobody to turn to for remedy.