What is your political ideology?

[RINO Tom]

In terms of political history and what I believe those terms to "eternally" mean, I think I'm pretty much a "conservative."  I certainly buy into the ideal that individual achievement (specifically financially) and personal talent should be rewarded at the expense of populist goals, which I think is the linking philosophy between the Federalists, Whigs and Republicans.  However, in modern American politics given the hard shift right the GOP has taken, I think centrist is most accurate.

[pho]

I am basically centrist on both social and economic issues, but very hawkish and right-wing about foreign policy and national security.

I would probably identify as a Rockefellar Republican if there were still such a thing. Voted centrist.

Only way for there to *be* such a thing if for more moderates and non-crazies to be Republicans, adding their voices to the party.

There is little evidence that moderate voices are welcome in the GOP of today, and I for one am not interested in screaming at a brick wall. Especially when the ultra-liberalism of the Democratic Party is highly exaggerated.

Either way political parties are represent collections of special interests more than ideologies. Since neither party is currently pandering to my special interests, I am content to remain an independent swing voter and nitpick about my pet issues.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

In terms of political history and what I believe those terms to "eternally" mean, I think I'm pretty much a "conservative."  I certainly buy into the ideal that individual achievement (specifically financially) and personal talent should be rewarded at the expense of populist goals, which I think is the linking philosophy between the Federalists, Whigs and Republicans.  However, in modern American politics given the hard shift right the GOP has taken, I think centrist is most accurate.

In the early 1800's, the rise of "meritocracy" as opposed to "aristocracy" was hardly a conservative phenomenon. [Some] French revolutionaries, both before and during the Napoleonic era, defined their goals as a hierarchy based on merit (meaning: service to the Republic/Empire), replacing the existence of hereditary nobility. While American conservatism, if one bases things on Hamilton and, to a lesser extent, Adams, was based much more on merit, conservatism as a whole does not share that history.

[King]

I try not to

[Supersonic]

Conservative is the only one on that list I would self identify as.

[parochial boy]

It's completely pointless to pigeonhole yourself into an ideology, all it really means is tribalism and constructing an identity for yourself.

And in any case, ideologies are nearly impossible to define; socialism could be as broad or as narrow as you want it to be.

[Mr. Illini]

A proud liberal. Largely anti-populist in message.

Many reject the liberal label because of what the right has turned it into, but I don't abandon my label just because a group of loons don't like it.

I do reject the progressive label because of what it has come to mean to me.

[pho]

A proud liberal. Largely anti-populist in message.

Many reject the liberal label because of what the right has turned it into, but I don't abandon my label just because a group of loons don't like it.

I do reject the progressive label because of what it has come to mean to me.

What exactly does 'progressive' mean to you? IIRC, 'progressive' (in the modern context) is a euphemism Democrats thought up in the 2000s because 'liberal' was too politically poisonous.

[RFayette]

Conservative, though I'm sure many here would probably label my views as theocratic

[Rockefeller GOP]

A proud liberal. Largely anti-populist in message.

Many reject the liberal label because of what the right has turned it into, but I don't abandon my label just because a group of loons don't like it.

I do reject the progressive label because of what it has come to mean to me.

If White liberals didn't think so highly of themselves, this would be an oxymoron.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Moderate Hero, so Centrist.

A proud liberal. Largely anti-populist in message.

Many reject the liberal label because of what the right has turned it into, but I don't abandon my label just because a group of loons don't like it.

I do reject the progressive label because of what it has come to mean to me.

If White liberals didn't think so highly of themselves, this would be an oxymoron.

.....? Wtf are you going on about

Populism is a style, sure, but the backbone of the Democratic Party is a populist-sounding economic message.  How someone can be a proud Democrat and be largely "anti-populist" seems silly to me.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Describing yourself as an idealogical centrist is almost as bad as calling yourself a populist tbh.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Describing yourself as an idealogical centrist is almost as bad as calling yourself a populist tbh.

What can anyone call themselves?  You're checking off most of the, err, known definitions with rapid speed.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Moderate Hero, so Centrist.

A proud liberal. Largely anti-populist in message.

Many reject the liberal label because of what the right has turned it into, but I don't abandon my label just because a group of loons don't like it.

I do reject the progressive label because of what it has come to mean to me.

If White liberals didn't think so highly of themselves, this would be an oxymoron.

.....? Wtf are you going on about

Populism is a style, sure, but the backbone of the Democratic Party is a populist-sounding economic message.  How someone can be a proud Democrat and be largely "anti-populist" seems silly to me.

Social liberalism is not populism. Outside the rantings of Bernie Sanders and his brave army of privileged white college kids, the Democratic Party is not advocating burning the system down. They accept capitalism but want strong safety nets funded by progressive taxation. They are nowhere even close to SYRIZA, PODEMOS, or other left-wing populists. Obama's raising of the top income brackets from 33% to 36% and 35% to 39.6% and a small surcharge on capital gains to expand private health insurace is not earth-shattering.

Your comments are more ridiculous when we have Donald Trump polling between 30% - 40% based on a message of reactionary right-wing populism, by proposing the upending the existing order of multilateral trade agreements, permissive immigration, and general hatemongering against groups his supporters perceive as "takers".

The last truly populist Democratic President was FDR, and ever since then Democrats have been accepting of the slow and steady progress of working within the system to advance liberal causes (i.e. the establishment). Both Clintons and Obama have all advanced liberal goals without upsetting the established order. So have past conservative politicians, but Donald Trump is no conservative in the traditional sense.

PODEMOS and SYRIZA are examples of left-wing populism in Europe. Lega Nord and Front National are examples of right-wing populism. Italy's 5 Star Movement and Ross Perot in 1992 are examples of populism that combines a broad spectrum of political views (tbf, they are/were vaguely more left than right).

France and Spain's Socialist parties and Italy's and America's Democratic Parties are examples of left wing establishment parties.

Germany's Christian Democrats and the UK and Canada's Conservative parties are examples of right wing establishment parties.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Describing yourself as an idealogical centrist is almost as bad as calling yourself a populist tbh.

What can anyone call themselves?  You're checking off most of the, err, known definitions with rapid speed.

Good to paraphrase the Ayatollah of Iran 'death to pseudo academic political definitions'

[RINO Tom]

Social liberalism is not populism. Outside the rantings of Bernie Sanders and his brave army of privileged white college kids, the Democratic Party is not advocating burning the system down. They accept capitalism but want strong safety nets funded by progressive taxation. They are nowhere even close to SYRIZA, PODEMOS, or other left-wing populists. Obama's raising of the top income brackets from 33% to 36% and 35% to 39.6% and a small surcharge on capital gains to expand private health insurace is not earth-shattering.

Your comments are more ridiculous when we have Donald Trump polling between 30% - 40% based on a message of reactionary right-wing populism, by proposing the upending the existing order of multilateral trade agreements, permissive immigration, and general hatemongering against groups his supporters perceive as "takers".

The last truly populist Democratic President was FDR, and ever since then Democrats have been accepting of the slow and steady progress of working within the system to advance liberal causes (i.e. the establishment). Both Clintons and Obama have all advanced liberal goals without upsetting the established order. So have past conservative politicians, but Donald Trump is no conservative in the traditional sense.

PODEMOS and SYRIZA are examples of left-wing populism in Europe. Lega Nord and Front National are examples of right-wing populism. Italy's 5 Star Movement and Ross Perot in 1992 are examples of populism that combines a broad spectrum of political views (tbf, they are/were vaguely more left than right).

France and Spain's Socialist parties and Italy's and America's Democratic Parties are examples of left wing establishment parties.

Germany's Christian Democrats and the UK and Canada's Conservative parties are examples of right wing establishment parties.

Social liberalism *isn't populism* in what way?  What's so "unpopulist" about saying "we need to pass gun control to help save our innocent children, even if the big, evil gun lobbyists and all of their money and lies don't like it"?  That's at least as populist as "it's my constitutional right to own a gun," if not more.  Gay marriage literally swung into the political scene on grassroots organizations, didn't it?  It only made any headway whatsoever in terms of political support once public opinion was more in favor of it.  Populism is a hard term to define, but campaigning on raising the minimum wage, making "millionaires" pay "their fair share," etc. would fit most definitions, IMO.  As you've alluded to, there can be conservative and liberal populism, and I think it's false to say the Republicans utilize it anymore than  Democrats do.  I'll just go ahead and say that when Democrats talk about "increased turnout," they are talking directly about pumping up their voters with populism.  And we all know they need "high turnout" to win, so I don't think it's outlandish to say the party lives and dies with it.

[RINO Tom]

Describing yourself as an idealogical centrist is almost as bad as calling yourself a populist tbh.

What can anyone call themselves?  You're checking off most of the, err, known definitions with rapid speed.

Good to paraphrase the Ayatollah of Iran 'death to pseudo academic political definitions'

I've become content with telling people I'm a registered Republican who disagrees with the platform a fair amount and letting them form whatever impression they want from that.

[Blair]

The impression I get with Populism is that it's often not grounded in fact

[Cassius]

I suppose 'populism', such as it is, can be boiled down to the notion that you are somehow voicing and fighting for the interests and concerns of 'the people', who usually seem to be pitted against internal 'elites' and/or external threats. Now, whom 'the people', 'the elites' and the threats are differ from person to person, thus rendering 'populist' almost meaningless as an ideological label (except, perhaps, as a view on how societies should be governed, in other words purely by the will of 'the people', which is, in a way, a notion that underpins nearly all modern democratic states in theory). I mean, 'the people vs the elites' dichotomies can range from 'the downtrodden poor against the oppressive upper classes' to 'those born and bred in x country against outsiders looking to take everything they have'. It's not a label that really conveys any particular ideological stance (although I guess it's been utilised by right wing movements and their observers far more in recent decades than for their left-wing counterparts).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Isn't 'populist' a snarl word that Very Serious People deploy if they want to boost their ego? like a lefist calling somene a neoliberal or a libertarian crying about statists?

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Social liberalism *isn't populism* in what way?  

See the 1st and 3rd paragraphs above.

Social liberalism incorporating some populist rhetoric and policy proposals does not make social liberalism populist outright. Populism generally is seen as advocating a widespread popular view that is opposed to (and often actively stopped) by a vested elite or interest. This is often coupled with proposals to radically change the status quo and if successful would be seen as historically and politically significant. Populist parties also generally tend to eschew the traditional left vs. right debate and make it the people vs. small group with vested interests.

Sometimes, left wing populist parties will even take on establishment socially liberal parties (e.g. Spain and Greece) who they view as corrupt, self-serving, and giving "fake" concern for struggling people.

Sometimes they overlap, but for the most part they don't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The gun debate isn't "populist vs. establishment" here. The gun debate in America is still within the right vs. left paradigm. Some people on both sides go for the populist rhetoric of the evil gun lobby or protecting common folk against the oppressive government, but if Obama's gun restrictions are passed/stand in court, it would not be anything earth-shattering in terms of American political history. Especially when gun control tends to be a 50-50 issue, it's hard to claim a popular mandate in many proposals (and Obama's are incredibly tame, which is why they have wide support).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like social liberalism, grassroots movements are not necessarily populist. The gay rights movement started out incredibly small and went against the overwhelming popular public opinion since the 1960s, so like the Civil Rights movement, that's a huge stretch to call those movements "populist".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, as I said in the first and third paragraphs of my original post, Democratic proposals like raising the minimum wage and small increases in taxation on the wealthiest are not necessarily populist even if there is some rhetorical and goal overlap. Tax cuts are often dressed up in rhetoric like "returning peoples' money to them and not giving it to the wasteful government" (as the Bush Tax Cuts were about "returning the surplus to the people"). Does that mean the Republican Party and George W. Bush as a whole were right wing populists? Not at all.

I would agree with the assertion that populist ideas have become more prevelant across the world and specifically the US over the past 30+ years as the negative side effects of things like globalization have hurt a lot of people, but the Democratic Party is not economically populist as a whole. They are still a left-wing establishment party at the end of the day committed to free market-driven growth with a firm but gentle government hand utilizing the existing structure of government to correct injustices and prevent mistakes from spilling over.

Calling the Democratic Party as a whole populist because of the minimum wage and higher taxes on the rich is like calling them communist outright for their support for labor unions, or saying Republicans are Nazis. It's ridiculous.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

There's only one relevant party in American history that can realistically be described as non-populist, and it's the Federalists, and there's a reason that monstrosity died almost immediately.

[RINO Tom]

There's only one relevant party in American history that can realistically be described as non-populist, and it's the Federalists, and there's a reason that monstrosity died almost immediately.

Seems strange to include the Federalists but not the Whigs (not saying you're wrong).

[RINO Tom]

Social liberalism *isn't populism* in what way?  

See the 1st and 3rd paragraphs above.

Social liberalism incorporating some populist rhetoric and policy proposals does not make social liberalism populist outright. Populism generally is seen as advocating a widespread popular view that is opposed to (and often actively stopped) by a vested elite or interest. This is often coupled with proposals to radically change the status quo and if successful would be seen as historically and politically significant. Populist parties also generally tend to eschew the traditional left vs. right debate and make it the people vs. small group with vested interests.

Sometimes, left wing populist parties will even take on establishment socially liberal parties (e.g. Spain and Greece) who they view as corrupt, self-serving, and giving "fake" concern for struggling people.

Sometimes they overlap, but for the most part they don't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The gun debate isn't "populist vs. establishment" here. The gun debate in America is still within the right vs. left paradigm. Some people on both sides go for the populist rhetoric of the evil gun lobby or protecting common folk against the oppressive government, but if Obama's gun restrictions are passed/stand in court, it would not be anything earth-shattering in terms of American political history. Especially when gun control tends to be a 50-50 issue, it's hard to claim a popular mandate in many proposals (and Obama's are incredibly tame, which is why they have wide support).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like social liberalism, grassroots movements are not necessarily populist. The gay rights movement started out incredibly small and went against the overwhelming popular public opinion since the 1960s, so like the Civil Rights movement, that's a huge stretch to call those movements "populist".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, as I said in the first and third paragraphs of my original post, Democratic proposals like raising the minimum wage and small increases in taxation on the wealthiest are not necessarily populist even if there is some rhetorical and goal overlap. Tax cuts are often dressed up in rhetoric like "returning peoples' money to them and not giving it to the wasteful government" (as the Bush Tax Cuts were about "returning the surplus to the people"). Does that mean the Republican Party and George W. Bush as a whole were right wing populists? Not at all.

I would agree with the assertion that populist ideas have become more prevelant across the world and specifically the US over the past 30+ years as the negative side effects of things like globalization have hurt a lot of people, but the Democratic Party is not economically populist as a whole. They are still a left-wing establishment party at the end of the day committed to free market-driven growth with a firm but gentle government hand utilizing the existing structure of government to correct injustices and prevent mistakes from spilling over.

Calling the Democratic Party as a whole populist because of the minimum wage and higher taxes on the rich is like calling them communist outright for their support for labor unions, or saying Republicans are Nazis. It's ridiculous.

You seem to be working with a fairly concrete definition of populism that I might be willing to accept for this conversation, but I wouldn't say it's necessarily what I have been most used to.  It sounds like you're saying the Democrats can't be a populist party unless they support some kind of upheaval of a system that's currently in place?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

There's only one relevant party in American history that can realistically be described as non-populist, and it's the Federalists, and there's a reason that monstrosity died almost immediately.

Seems strange to include the Federalists but not the Whigs (not saying you're wrong).

...

Brain fart there on my part, apologies.