this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2024
244 points (96.9% liked)

News

23287 readers
4230 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
dezmd@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
Blackbeard@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
244
Pope Francis Decries Populism and Says There’s a ‘Cancer’ Ailing Democracy (www.thedailybeast.com)
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 79 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Populism is a reactionary movement. It doesn't just spring up out of nowhere - it comes to be specifically if and when there's a relatively common perception among the people that the government no longer serves their interests.

The solution then is simple and straightforward, at least in principle - all it takes is for the government to institute the necessary reforms to win back the trust and support of the people.

The problem comes because all too many politicians don't have the necessary empathy, integrity and/or determination to actually do that.

So they have nobody to blame but themselves.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Yup. I don't even get what "populism" is when mentioned in media. Isn't that-- democracy?

I'm a leftist but even I understand when people come into the embrace of the far-right, because the mainstream parties neglected the people's everyday concerns.

People who are hungry, people who are out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

  • Franklin Roosevelt
[–] Uruanna@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Yup. I don't even get what "populism" is when mentioned in media. Isn't that-- democracy?

Populism is demagogy, it's repeating people's complaints back to them, to amplify them and place yourself as an apparent leader, but without actually bringing any solution - and when it does, it's immediately far right "beat everyone out". Democracy is actually creating policy and voting on it, which by definition implies people disagreeing in that vote. Populism is rounding up everyone with the same mind, excluding everyone else (not voting on anything) and trying to crush opposition with numbers and no policy. It's the antithesis to democracy.

Edit - it might depend on the region of the world, I don't think I've seen a lot of left wingers be called populists. Originally it just means the opposition between the people and the elite, so that would match what you say, and apparently some left parties are trying to return to that definition for some reason, but it seems the Pope is taking the other version that has become much more common.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 4 months ago

Neoliberal types definitely called Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren "populist". Trying to equate it with rightwing demagoguery seems like it's a deliberate poisoning of the term by people who are aligned with the very status quo power structure that populism attacks. In a choice between the status quo establishment and racist rightwing populism, of course the status quo is better, but the rightwing populism is a problem exactly because the establishment is so distrusted for their lack of responsiveness to people's needs.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 5 points 4 months ago

People are also using "populism" here to be a solely negative political movement associated with the right wing, but it's just a matter of people thinking the people running society aren't doing a good job for the majority. Not sure if that's intentional or not, but it's a value-neutral political expression. Anywhere you say "populism" you should generally be able to substitute "anti-establishmentism" and it'll be roughly correct, but doing so in a lot of these comments doesn't make sense. The establishment isn't inherently good, though I can see why the head of the largest religious establishment in the world might consider challenges to it bad.

[–] Copernican@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

That doesn't work if there's not honest media.

[–] suzune@ani.social 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Populism does not rely on facts, it does not offer solutions and works with people who prefer drama over reality.

Don't think you can get any solution from these unreasonable statements some people make. It does not make more sense than a political joke.

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

The point isn't whether it works or not - the point is why it comes to be in the first place - why and how people reach a point at which they embrace it.

And that's when they come to see that their government is failing them - most often, when it's serving its own interests and the interests of a wealthy few rather than the interests of the people at large.

And here's a tip - you can't combat it by deriding the people who embrace it. If anything, that just makes them double down on it, since, to them, that's just further evidence that you're an elitist piece of shit who doesn't care about them or their needs, so they're going to turn to these other people over here who (say they) do.

Again, there's one and only one way to counter populism - governmental reform. The problem is that people see that the government isn't doing enough to serve their needs. The solution is for the government to do more to serve their needs.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And here's a tip - you can't combat it by deriding the people who embrace it. If anything, that just makes them double down on it, since, to them, that's just further evidence that you're an elitist piece of shit who doesn't care about them or their needs, so they're going to turn to these other people over here who (say they) do.

Too often the ones who blame the working class for not understanding that (some) populist solutions don't work, have been conditioned to support economic and/or political views that further the interests of the wealthy few, while themselves being a part of the working class, while not realizing it. For example the working person who advocates for centrist policies which keep distributing money from them to the top, because "the left's" idea to tax the rich "doesn't work."

Again, there's one and only one way to counter populism - governmental reform. The problem is that people see that the government isn't doing enough to serve their needs. The solution is for the government to do more to serve their needs.

While this is true, I'm not sure if it's possible or likely to come about through the electoral process in places where democracy has been captured by the upper class. That's probably not the case in France, yet, but it very much is in the US. I think in such cases the process can only start at the labor level where labor takes a bigger chunk of the profits through labor action. Thus reducing the money flowing into democratic and regulatory capture. Thus making more money available to elect or "buy" politicians that represent that payer - labor. In other words - the majority.

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 2 points 4 months ago

And I agree on both counts.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 months ago

Plenty things in economies are a matter of opinion, not facts. They're then subject to political choices. For example whether to tax the top more or to increase the retirement age. Too often however matters of opinion similar to this are presented as facts by one side in order to invalidate the other possibilities as non-factual.

[–] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago

Seems to me the rise in populism in western countries are the majority being treated the same as minorities.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 30 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What would a king chosen by his advisory council know about democracy?

[–] Noodle07@lemmy.world -4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's a church, not a nation. What about your boss not being chosen democratically?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

The Holy See isn't a nation? Are you sure about that? It has sovereignty. What else would it be?

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 29 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Says world leader who was undemocratically elected

[–] LordTE7R1S@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 4 months ago

And was allied with the most populist government in his country before he got there

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 27 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Well, I sure didn't vote for him.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You don't vote for Pope

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 9 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Well, how do you become Pope then?

[–] don@lemm.ee 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

He is elected by a papal enclave, which is a gathering of the College of Cardinals.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 14 points 4 months ago

Listen. Strange men in tall hats is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical hat ceremony.

[–] Plastic_Ramses@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

You mean hes not elected by some moistened bint throwing a pointy hat at him?

[–] notaviking@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Populism is a feature of democracy. It's just like in life, easy answers, like fast food for example, are always easy to suggest, but in the long term might not be the best. But if you can show your voter base, eating these disgusting vegetables in the long term is going to do everyone good, slight inconvenience, major benefit. So there will always be the power hungry populist that will give easy and popular answers to hard questions, it is the voters duty to determine who has their long term interests at heart and who is able to bribe you with your shortsighted desires to get into power.

[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 9 points 4 months ago

On the other hand, you do need to fuck up education big time, and suck hope out of the people with policies that only benefit the rich for decades for it to be appealing.

In your analogy, people today have no vegetables on the menu, just subsistence amounts of bread and water versus hamberders and cheap beer. And we get less and less bread every year.

People would like veggies, a lot of them, especially kids, but the veggie peddlers are beaten up and driven away by the bread and water people, since literal poison is easier to compete with.

[–] bl_r@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 4 months ago (2 children)

In a two party system, populist movements grow when the opposition party is failing (or is perceived as failing) people. Alternatively, both parties can fail the people before one becomes populist.

The two party system has failed Americans. But now that the republicans have created a populist movement, the failure of democrats to properly serve many people causes them to be pulled by populism. It doesn’t help that the culture war lets absolue horseshit issues fly by without actual basis in reality, since that fuels the fire without actually having to do the hard discussions about policy.

The MAGA movement is a “third way” that formed because the paths forward shown by both democrats and republicans seemed to lead to nowhere for many people.

I don’t think this is a cancer, I think this is a horrendous feature of the design of a representative democracy under capitalism (at least, in the American sense)

Capitalism will crush people while trying to wring every bit of profit out of them, and in a capitalist democracy, the state supports capitalism.

Representative democracy leads to unaccountable representatives. They still need to get re-elected if they want to (or they could just serve capital and dip), but with all the dogmatism caused by political parties, the hierarchy of the parties protecting the politician, and the benefits of having corporate sugar daddies, especially media corporations, they can get away with enriching themselves at the expense of Americans, while still having decent odds at reelection.

Further, people in power, for whatever reason gave this tendency to build their power, usually at the expense of those without it. The state gives itself new powers and new toys at the expense of everyone else. Fear of terrorism gave us some of the most draconian laws on the books, such as the patriot act, which has not been repealed whenever there has been an opportunity to. The police got afraid of the people, and bought themselves guns, counterinsurgency training and tools from a foreign apartheid state, armored cars, and raises. The supreme court went from writing itself into existence to giving the president near legal immunity, rolling out the red carpet for the authoritarian state to become an even more authoritarian state.

When you mix these tendencies together, its no wonder why this state has failed. And while it hasn’t failed everyone, the nature of capitalism leads to a pretty large exploited class ripe for exploitation. And this populist movement is ready to take advantage of that, between those primed by culture war drivel, economic suffering, or seeing their demographic and/or class lose power in some way.

This populism isn’t a cancer on an ailing democracy.

It is a symptom of a failing democracy, unable to sustain itself from the structure of itself.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I agree with your overall points, but populism is not exclusive to two-party system. Much of Europe, with many countries having a multiparty, proportional representative parliaments, are experiencing populism as well. We see the rise of far-right AfD in Germany, National Rally in France and Sweden Democrats to name a few.

[–] bl_r@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 months ago

That’s true. I was just trying to explain my view of the US system.

Broadly speaking, do think that if a country has two dominant neoliberal parties, like the US, this will inevitably happen.

[–] dudinax@programming.dev 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

A huge chunk of the most virulent MAGA are successful. Whatever their reasons, "The Democrats failed them" is only something they've been told, not something that really happened, because they were never failed.

[–] bl_r@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 months ago

You don’t need to be downtrodden to feel like a party is failing you. Considering life is getting harder for so many lower and middle class people, a lot of people are feeling worse than they did 10-15 years ago. This is where people have been failed by both parties.

I mentioned that there are people who are feeling like they are losing their position in society. Some people are simply bigoted and are upset at seeing minorities get visibility, some are upset that christianity is less prevalent among Americans. I don’t think either of these reasons is valid, though, fuck the old hierarchies.

The issues faced by Americans in the rural south are completely different than the ones faced by Americans on the east or west coasts. We basically live in separate worlds. Republicans failed them, but to think the democrats didn’t is silly. For example, a lot of people live in rural areas, where the police would take an hour to get there if someone was being attacked by someone or some animal. Guns are a bit more necessary in places like this than they are in a big city.

Granted, I think the media’s lies is the biggest cause of the populism. And holy shit does right wing media spew lies at an incredible rate.

[–] DampSquid@feddit.uk 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Is the cancer called 'any and all religions'?

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 4 months ago (2 children)

We could abolish religion and still have harmful populism.

[–] DampSquid@feddit.uk 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Worth a shot!

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 months ago

Religion is a human idea.

Human ideas are the problem. You can have ignorant hatred without religion.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It would go a long way to fixing the problem.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 months ago

Religion is a human idea.

Human ideas are the problem. You can have ignorant hatred without religion.

[–] Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If he didn't name them directly, they won't understand he's talking about them. There's a lack of intellect and critical thinking there. That's why it works in the first place.

[–] Brokkr@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

He's the Pope, he's literally the head of the world's largest group of people regularly practicing the lack of critical thinking.

[–] 2484345508@lemy.lol -3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So many out of touch old powerful white men

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Pope’s Latino bro. Any other reductive comments?

[–] 2484345508@lemy.lol 3 points 4 months ago

Pope Francis, born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, is of Italian descent. He was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on December 17, 1936, to Italian immigrant parents.