Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Deal with Populism

caracaschronicles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 95 posts

Re: How to Deal with Populism

#41

Post by alva »

midgetjones wrote: post #19
alva wrote: post #6

How about addressing the widespread concerns that cause "populism" even if it means setting back your own ulterior agenda? Brexit and immigration is a good example of this. Blair decided mass immigration was a good idea for a number of reasons. At some point they surely realised that although it would provide an economic boost, some people would lose out financially and most did not want significant cultural change i…

But is migration the direct cause of other people losing out financially? UKIP know that a lot of people are racist and only too happy to have a finger to point at whatever scapegoat sounds believable to them.

But what if local communities place more value on preserving their culture as it has been than their finances? Are their wishes just to be ignored?

Re: How to Deal with Populism

#42

Post by 1_2__3 »

It's disappointing to me how many comments still refer to concerns by Trump or Brexit supports as essentially optics. "They blame immigrants", "they see immigrants coming in at the same time as things being bad and make assumptions", "they're just being racist", etc. Maybe some of them believe their country's culture is suffering and that part of the problem is an influx of immigrants. Maybe they're not wrong. Acting like this is all a matter of misinformation needing to be corrected seems stupefyingly arrogant to me.

Re: How to Deal with Populism

#43

Post by rayiner »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #31
alva wrote: post #6

How about addressing the widespread concerns that cause "populism" even if it means setting back your own ulterior agenda? Brexit and immigration is a good example of this. Blair decided mass immigration was a good idea for a number of reasons. At some point they surely realised that although it would provide an economic boost, some people would lose out financially and most did not want significant cultural change i…

Immigration is a great example to pick of technocrat vs populist. Left technocrats see immigration as a human rights issue. Freedom of movement is a well-recognized fundamental human right; your ability to move from Gloucester to London is enshrined in Britain's unwritten constitution. Left technocrats do not see the movement from Paris to London to be any different than the movement from Gloucester to London. Right…

It's also a human rights issue from the populist side. Self determination--the right of groups of people to choose the structure of their society--is also a human right. Society is a very intimate thing. It's a group of people consenting to share each others' burdens as well as rewards; it's a group of people giving up individual autonomy and consenting to be governed by the will of the group. Immigration without consent is a deep violation of the group's integrity and autonomy.

The real issue is individualism versus collectivism. Populists think that groups' freedom of association trumps individuals' freedom of movement, while individualists think the opposite.

Re: How to Deal with Populism

#44

Post by kebolio »

Don't like this pejorative use of the word populism. Populism is getting people to vote for you for what they want, telling them they need to do what you want is the polar opposite of what needs to be done to fight the far right.

Re: How to Deal with Populism

#45

Post by skellington »

sandworm101 wrote: post #4
Senji wrote: post #2

Why are you `dealing` with populism in the first place?

Because populism leads very quicky to dark places. Most all systems of government, of vested authority and state monopoly of violence, are to address our instinct towards populism. Egging on the mob never ends well.

You're only labeling it "populism" (which is normally defined as 'support for the concerns of ordinary people') because you don't like the outcome. If you liked the outcome you would call it "democratic."

Somehow the idea of being concerned about the outcome for ordinary people has become vilified by American liberals because red state, blue collar, ordinary people are worthless.

What is going on?! Trump wants to be a job protectionist while Democrats want globalization? Aren't you people aware that not that long ago the Democrats were fighting the Republicans against globalization because they claimed that globalization was only good for corporate interests and bad for ordinary Americans?

PS I think Trump is a nut job in many ways so please don't read the above as an endorsement.

Re: How to Deal with Populism

#46

Post by mattmanser »

1_2__3 wrote: post #39
mattmanser wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having joined in that discussion where it became clear that you didn't even know the meaning of the word immigrant, you didn't listen to what we said and now you're projecting your own prejudices on other people. And falling back on calling everyone a racist again. Which is precisely what this article says doesn't work.

Yeah, his whole argument can be boiled down to, "No but seriously they're racist you should ignore them."

people pretty much admit that it's not about immigration status ... but ethnicity

That's a nice way of saying "everyone admitted they're racists".

No-one in that thread did.

The most ridiculous thing about all this is that I actually come from a white immigrant community (dutch around a port town), but my generation acculturised with the UK.

It really sticks in your craw when I'm generally a left-leaning liberalist but some tit like pjc50 starts accusing you of being a racist because I've been in supermarkets obviously filled with white immigrants as they're all speaking polish.

It really has helped me realise how devoid of empathy people who start accusing everyone of racism for merely discussing immigration are.

It's incredibly upsetting to be called a racist merely for asking why mass migration to the UK has been allowed. It's a perfectly reasonable question.

Also he really doesn't understand the meaning of the word immigrant, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13471112

Re: How to Deal with Populism

#47

Post by ASinclair »

alva wrote: post #35
rwmj wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gordon Brown (PM after Blair) introduced the Migrant Impact Fund precisely to spread the benefits of migration to those who would normally lose out. The Tory/Lib Dem coalition cancelled the project 4 months after they got into power (in August 2010 to be precise). Then austerity was piled on top, and now we've arrived at where we are today.

But if the primary concern of the electorate are cultural changes this is an irrelevant gesture. Now some might say it is racist or xenophobic to want to maintain the culture of your local community. I don't believe it is. It is a good example of how the constituents wishes (preserve culture of local community ) is at complete odds with the governments wishes. They can keep on throwing money at them, but it will neve…

> Now some might say it is racist or xenophobic to want to maintain the culture of your local community. I don't believe it is.

My question: is it a National Government's job to maintain the culture of local communities? I would hope not.

Re: How to Deal with Populism

#48

Post by AstralStorm »

alva wrote: post #41
midgetjones wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is migration the direct cause of other people losing out financially? UKIP know that a lot of people are racist and only too happy to have a finger to point at whatever scapegoat sounds believable to them.

But what if local communities place more value on preserving their culture as it has been than their finances? Are their wishes just to be ignored?

Then they should look closer to home after those who damage local culture. It is not immigrants, but big multinational business.

Businesses do provide jobs of course, buying some of the locals.

Re: How to Deal with Populism

#49

Post by midgetjones »

alva wrote: post #41
midgetjones wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is migration the direct cause of other people losing out financially? UKIP know that a lot of people are racist and only too happy to have a finger to point at whatever scapegoat sounds believable to them.

But what if local communities place more value on preserving their culture as it has been than their finances? Are their wishes just to be ignored?

What is preventing them from preserving their culture?
Post reply on HN