Wikipedia Ambiguous on Populism as a Political Philosophy
Today, I noticed that Wikipedia was ambiguous on Populism as a political philosophy. It is an outrage. Here is how Wikipedia defines "populism":
'Populism' is a political philosophy or rhetorical style that holds that the common person is oppressed by the elite in society, and that the instruments of the State need to be grasped from this self-serving elite and used for the benefit and advancement of the people as a whole. A populist reaches out to ordinary people, talking about their economic and social concerns, and appealing to their common sense. Most scholarship on populism since 1980 has discussed it as a rhetorical style that can be used to promote a variety of ideologies.
Populism is often used derisively against appeals on behalf of the people in opposition to the interests of elites, or against distrust directed at the political elite or at the political system.
Individual populists have variously promised to stand up to corporate power, remove "corrupt" elites, and "put people first." Populism incorporates anti-regime politics and sometimes nationalism or racism. Many populists appeal to a specific region or a specific social class such as the working class, middle class, or farmers. Often they employ dichotomous rhetoric, and claim to represent the majority.
The definition is wrong. Populism is a political philosophy -- not a style. Populism can not be used to promote a "variety of ideologies." Populism is only about promoting the common good -- not ideology which it abhors. Racism is never part of Populism because racism is never part of promoting the common good. At most, Populists are reluctant nationalists or patriots for that matter.
'Populism' is a political philosophy or rhetorical style that holds that the common person is oppressed by the elite in society, and that the instruments of the State need to be grasped from this self-serving elite and used for the benefit and advancement of the people as a whole. A populist reaches out to ordinary people, talking about their economic and social concerns, and appealing to their common sense. Most scholarship on populism since 1980 has discussed it as a rhetorical style that can be used to promote a variety of ideologies.
Populism is often used derisively against appeals on behalf of the people in opposition to the interests of elites, or against distrust directed at the political elite or at the political system.
Individual populists have variously promised to stand up to corporate power, remove "corrupt" elites, and "put people first." Populism incorporates anti-regime politics and sometimes nationalism or racism. Many populists appeal to a specific region or a specific social class such as the working class, middle class, or farmers. Often they employ dichotomous rhetoric, and claim to represent the majority.
The definition is wrong. Populism is a political philosophy -- not a style. Populism can not be used to promote a "variety of ideologies." Populism is only about promoting the common good -- not ideology which it abhors. Racism is never part of Populism because racism is never part of promoting the common good. At most, Populists are reluctant nationalists or patriots for that matter.
posted by ssc | 10/22/2005 03:50:00 PM
ssc,
Being outraged by a Wikipedia definition is about the most elitist thing you can do, since, unlike the Encyclopedia Brittanica, anyone and his brother can put up Wikipedia posts. There are no "experts." It's the populist encyclopedia! (I can't help with the !!!! Blame Miers).
So quite complaining you egghead elitist. That's the definition of the people.
Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: 1pop·u·list
Pronunciation: 'pä-py&-list
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin populus the people
1 : a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people; especially often capitalized : a member of a U.S. political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies
2 : a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people
~ ~ ~ ~
To see what Progressive Living thinks of Populists, click here and here.
SSC, so are you saying that most populists are really charlatans.
Is it even possible to obtain the status of a "true populist?" It seems to me that if people are generally unequal in most matters, how is it possible to obtain the most good for everyone other that obtaining it only for the lowest common denominator.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. I'm rubber you're glue; everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you.
Look, a populist's dreamworld -- utopia really -- is everyone exchanging insults of "elitism" against each other.
Harsh Pencil has brought me a step closer to Nirvana.
I don't think calling someone elitist is name calling any more than calling someone handsome or intelligent is. You may find elitist to be a fightin word, but I don't.
But my point about Wikipedia stands. It is the encyclopedia of the people, so at least is it ironic that you wish to correct it.
Elitist is a frightening word, however, for someone claiming to be a populist.
Post a Comment