Are populist and libertarian really opposites?

[FerrisBueller86]

I can think of plenty of liberal vs. conservative issues, but I can't think of any populist vs. libertarian issues. 

Brian Schweitzer is considered a populist, but Montana is considered to be a libertarian state.  If populist and libertarian really were opposites, this couldn't possibly happen.

Does gambling qualify as a populist vs. libertarian issue?  I'd expect populists to be against it and libertarians to be for it.  On the other hand, the social problems from gambling would require more social programs, which requires more government spending and taxation.  That doesn't sound like a very libertarian result to me.

[Alcon]

Populism, in its actual definition, is just energised, people-friendly politics.

Populism in this bastardised definition is social authoritarianism mixed with economic liberalism;  libertarianism is social libertarianism mixed with economic conservativism/libertarianism.

There are plenty of issues which cross the social divide, of course.

Besides, Schweitzer doesn't much comment on his issue positions.  He's probably libertarian-minded, but overall he just governs.

[Ebowed]

They are opposites, for the most part.

If you want an issue where they agree, try guns.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That depends what definition you use; the original political etc. use of the word "populist" (as adopted by the then Peoples Party in the late 19th century) essentially means a rural Socialist for example... but the word certainly isn't used in that context much these days. And it's a pretty similer story for a lot of other words (including Liberal, Socialist, Social Democrat, Conservative, Libertarian... and so on...)

[MODU]

As a whole, no, they are not opposites.  They currently share opposing views on some issues, which is to be expected when you compare any party/ideology against another.  However, if society becomes more Libertarian, then Populism will slowly begin to merge with Libertarians to form one group . . . up until there is a shift in society moving it back towards liberalism/conservatism or something else.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Libertarians want more economic and social freedom while populists want the opposite so yes.

[Democratic Hawk]

Libertarians want more economic and social freedom while populists want the opposite so yes.

Extreme libertarians want the economic freedom to exploit, populists want the 'little guy' to be free from such exploitation and, therefore, champion protectionism and regulation in the economy to some degree

Dave

[John Dibble]

Libertarians want more economic and social freedom while populists want the opposite so yes.

Extreme libertarians want the economic freedom to exploit, populists want the 'little guy' to be free from such exploitation and, therefore, champion protectionism and regulation in the economy to some degree

Dave

And you're not at all biased on this subject, are you?

I could easily say this:

"Extreme populists hate anyone who has more money than others and want to use government regulations to bring them down to the lowest common denominator, while libertarians care about the 'little guy' and want to remove beauracratic red tape from the economy that keeps him from going up in the world."

Of course, the truth is probably more like this:

"Libertarians believe that removing government interference in the economy will benefit the little guy and allow him to more easily move up in the world, while populists believe that the government should regulate the economy to prevent what they view as exploitation of the little guy."

It's really all a matter of perception, not one side being bad and the other being good.

[Democratic Hawk]

You're right but then I've always found the mass unemployment of he 1980s generated by neo-liberal reforms somewhat repulsive. Though, I doubt it was ever quite as so simple as that

The British economy was rather like a sick lamb who had to be given bad medicine, before it couldn't even start to get better but they could have been a lot kinder in going about it

You could say I'd sooner see my taxes pay for a public servant than see them pay for unemployment benefits

Dave

[John Dibble]

Wish I could comment, but I really have no clue about British economic history.

[Democratic Hawk]

Wish I could comment, but I really have no clue about British economic history.

I'm no expert but even there I've added my slant to it. I will say things are better in my local community now than they were back then

Dave

[Jake]

I'd define the libertarian movement today as populist, in that it isn't promoted by important and influential people, but more by average joes.

Now, it's pretty clear that communitarians and libertarians are opposite ideologies.

[jokerman]

No, they are not opposite ideologies in my view.  I am not completely unlibertarian.  I have libertarian views on gun control, democratic rights, affirmative action and race related issues, and a few other miscelaneous issues.

If positive liberties are included, then I am more of a libertarian than many "libertarians" of this board. 

[Colin]

Libertarians want more economic and social freedom while populists want the opposite so yes.

Extreme libertarians want the economic freedom to exploit, populists want the 'little guy' to be free from such exploitation and, therefore, champion protectionism and regulation in the economy to some degree

Dave

Yeah and extreme populists are Nazis what's your point? Extremism in anything is usually a vice (sorry Goldwater) since an extreme libertarian is basically an anarchist and an extreme populist is basically a fascist.

In going back to the original word I think we use it in this bastardized form today because authoritarian has a bad ring to it and communitarian is too long.

That depends what definition you use; the original political etc. use of the word "populist" (as adopted by the then Peoples Party in the late 19th century) essentially means a rural Socialist for example... but the word certainly isn't used in that context much these days. And it's a pretty similer story for a lot of other words (including Liberal, Socialist, Social Democrat, Conservative, Libertarian... and so on...)

Absolutely Al. If we go by the actual definition of populist it would mean an agrarian proto-socialist from the late 1800's whose main political ideas included the introduction of the silver standard and the regulation of the railroads along with more support for farmers from the government.

Oh and Al you would like my topic for my US History research paper. It's all about the regional differences in the Socialist Party before World War One. I talk for an entire two and a half pages on Christian socialism and the Great Plains.

[Democratic Hawk]

Yeah and extreme populists are Nazis what's your point? Extremism in anything is usually a vice (sorry Goldwater) since an extreme libertarian is basically an anarchist and an extreme populist is basically a fascist.

Well, I'm no extremist but if push came to shove I'd err on the side of order over chaos. I think the term 'communutarian' has a very noble ring to it

It's only what I saw which predisposes me against neo-liberal economics

1979: "Labour Isn't Working". Conservatives come to power and lo-and-behold we have a classic case of "pot-and-kettle". Neo-liberalism might have been anti-welfare but it sure increased dependency on it. Furthermore, laid off workers were enouraged to sign on sick to make the unemployment figures look good. Many have never worked since and are now approaching retirement. A tragic waste of potential I'd say. Not to mention the stress placed on the family and communities breaking down

I'd like to think Labour could right the wrongs but the culture of welfare dependency is a hard habit to break

Dave