Before 2016 you had oligarchy on both sides of the U.S. aisle. In 2016 we had democracy/populism rising up from both left and right (Sanders and Trump). Trump toppled the oligarchic GOP primaries; Sanders was not able to do so, although he came close in 2020. Biden was the DNC oligarchy's answer to Sanders, for the DNC used its oligarchic resources to dramatically reshape the race after Sanders began winning in 2020. Harris was the DNC oligarchy's answer to Biden's poor debate performance. Harris' candidacy was expressly oligarchic rather than democratic, as she was an unelected candidate. — Leontiskos
There are lots of things Trump voters were voting against, but I think much of it was tied up with the unabashed oligarchy of the DNC (which is now also bound up with progressive theories which are out of step with the demos). It sounds like Laclau sees populism as a quasi-revolutionary movement borne out of frustration with the status quo. That makes sense and I think it is reflected in the 2024 U.S. elections (as well as recent elections in Germany, Canada, France, and elsewhere).
(But with that said, it isn't necessarily revolutionary to elect the elected candidate over the unelected candidate in a democracy. Populism and democracy seem to very much go hand in hand in this case.) — Leontiskos
That's one thing that can happen with Trump 2 administration, if everything would go nice and well also.But I remember that even amidst all the hubbub, the average Americans that I knew were not very concerned about it. — Leontiskos
Infidelity in the end isn't at all an issue, if you know the politician himself. It's just a thing that tells something about the politician before we know him.Clinton's approval rating and Trump's reelection show that, for better or for worse, the electorate didn't take such proceedings seriously. — Leontiskos
Indeed they will. Just like as actually the people inside the Clinton administration did and as the people inside the 1st Trump administration told how it was inside the White House. Quite chaotic and incoherent. I assume that Trump 2 will be similar. In the end, these administrations will simply appear as they arey, which is rather chaotic. Even so, a lot of those "incoherent" policies done by the incoming Trump administration will indeed get picked on by the next administration (just like many policies wered done with the Biden Administration) and hence will be a part of the long tradition of US policy in then end.The media will undoubtedly portray Trump’s administration as a chaotic mess of incoherent policies. — Number2018
Populism emerges when a significant sector of the population rejects the political leadership on offer. — The Conservative Mind with R.R. Reno: At the End of Liberalism - 57:38
It is a relevant brief account of recent U.S. history. I would just add that what you refer to as ‘oligarchy’ is likely an extremely complex agglomeration of political, bureaucratic, and corporate groups and forces. We do not know its exact structure and mechanisms, but it seems reasonable to assume that the ‘oligarchy’ progressively augmented its power and its detachment from the ‘demos.’ — Number2018
Your understanding of Laclau’s theory is quite similar to mine. He provides an elaborate conceptual framework for understanding the rare and precarious events of democratic eruptions.It is a valuable contribution to the discussion of our political realities, avoiding partisan clichés, stereotypes of mundane language, and biased media coverage. Another challenge is the incredible speed with which the political landscape shifts and the rapid alteration of related narratives. Who remembers Brexit or the COVID pandemic today? It is also quite frustrating to observe the reflections and commentaries of most of pundits and academics. Many of them seriously argued that Trump’s election marked the revival of Nazism in the U.S. or he constituted a genuine threat to democracy. — Number2018
So, I believe that Laclau does not sufficiently elaborate on the affective component of the populist process of 'constructing internal frontiers and identifying institutionalized 'others.' His book was published 20 years ago, and he could not have predicted the ubiquitous spread of the 'woke' attitudes and the overflow of various aspects of populist phenomena. — Number2018
his points about conservatism and progressivism being relative and non-ideological (and populism being neither inherently left nor right). That is, conservatism values permanence and progressivism values change, and apart from that core the doctrines are all historically contingent. Thus a doctrine will not ultimately be a sign of conservatism or progressivism, — Leontiskos
He could clearly articulate the two different sentiments behind both systems of values. However, to become political platforms, both must manifest within the same global digital medium, adhering to its structural fields, temporalities, and rules of engagement. — Number2018
The dictates of this medium inevitably transform any system of values into a populist mode of expression. — Number2018
and Trump’s second administration can serve as an experimental setting for this. So far, MAGA seems to function as a façade for the vast concentration of executive power, which is where it reveals its affinity with the enactment of a 'liberalism of open, liquid society.' — Number2018
The dictates of this medium inevitably transform any system of values into a populist mode of expression.
— Number2018
But why? If for Laclau (as also for Reno) populism is a revolutionary desire for change from the status quo, then why must any system of values be transformed into a populist mode of expression? — Leontiskos
and Trump’s second administration can serve as an experimental setting for this. So far, MAGA seems to function as a façade for the vast concentration of executive power, which is where it reveals its affinity with the enactment of a 'liberalism of open, liquid society.'
— Number2018
Well first, can a empty signifier function as a façade? And if not, then it seems that MAGA must be more than an empty signifier. But perhaps you are not claiming that it is MAGA per se that is the empty signifier? — Leontiskos
for the sake of argument let's say that MAGA is all about concentrating executive power. Still, what does that concentration have in common with "the enactment of a 'liberalism of open, liquid society'"? Trump seems to be using the power of the executive to do just the opposite, and all concentrations of power seem to have a conservative bent (in the sense that they want to maintain that power - they want permanence qua power). — Leontiskos
I’m referring to a situation where a system of values becomes the foundation for large-scale political struggle. — Number2018
Laclau’s concept of the empty signifier refers to a vague and transient, yet potent and dynamic, sense of solidarity. — Number2018
MAGA is not just about concentrating executive power. But the logic behind its implementation takes on a dynamic of its own, one that eludes pre-existing discursive or ideological frameworks. Take, for example, the latest executive orders on tariffs that the Trump administration is set to impose on Canada and Mexico. — Number2018
I’m referring to a situation where a system of values becomes the foundation for large-scale political struggle.
— Number2018
I don't see why the "digital medium" gives every system of values a populist mode of expression. For example, when the incumbent uses that same digital media to promote the reigning values, what is at stake is not poplism. — Leontiskos
Trump has touted tariffs for a long time, so I don't see this as "the logic taking on a dynamic of its own." Tariffs are basically a simplistic approach to the "America first" mentality that is inevitably bound up with MAGA. — Leontiskos
If populism requires a shift from pre-election promises to post-election actions, then it's not so clear that it fits Trump, because he has a surprising tendency to fulfill his promises. Or at least to try. And maybe that's a problem with Laclau: populism can function fine even when the signifier is not empty. Sometimes the people know what they want, and there isn't a great deal of ambiguity in the signifier. Sometimes the desired change has a clear direction. — Leontiskos
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.