Category Archives: Populism

Please join associate professor Najib Ghadbian on Friday, Sept.23, in Giffels Auditorium as he discusses "Safeguarding Constitutionalism Worldwide."

Ghadbian will focus on three challenges to constitutionalism: the rise of populism, the spread of autocracyand the difficulty in drafting constitutions in democratizing countries.

Ghadbian says of the lecture:"Constitutions codify the social and political contract between society and the state. They set the parameters for the political structure. They provide rights to citizens and protect individuals from the state. Constitutionalism refers to the way constitutions define the rule of law and limit exercises of power. Today we are witnessing broad attacks on constitutionalism throughout the world. In my presentation, I will address three types of challenges to constitutionalism.

"First the populist challenge. Populist leaders exploit fear during times of crises, then undermine political institutions and practices. One prime example is President Trump rejecting election resultsand thereby contesting the election itself as an institution. Indian Prime Minister Modi incited widespread anti-Muslim violence, infringing on the principles of religious freedom and minority rights. Populist President Jair Bolsonaro, echoing President Trump, has repeatedly criticized the integrity of Brazil's voting systemand suggested that he may not accept the results of the election citing voters' fraud.

"The second challenge is the autocratic challenge an old phenomenon in which non-democratic regimes have constitutions but abuse the rights of citizens, create an overarching executive branchand apply constitutionalism selectively. Lately, autocratic leaders such as Putin in Russia and Sisi in Egypt have been amending constitutions to eliminate term limits.

"The third challenge is the obstacle of drafting constitutions in democratizing countries, particularly where constitutions are introduced without going through a sound process of inclusivity, transparency, national ownershipand citizens' awareness campaigns. In Egypt, both constitutions designed by presidents Morsi and Sisi excluded political opponents from the drafting process and thereby lacked legitimacy. In Tunisia, president Kais Saied drafted his own constitution against the background of another constitution previously drafted that had followed the right protocols. Saied used his populist appeal to contradict the existing constitution; he used the economic crisis to justify bypassing citizen input.

"I will conclude my presentation with recommendations to safeguard constitutionalism globally, based on my comparative outlook and personal involvement with the constitutional design track in the Syrian case."

Light snacks and drinks will be provided by Ozark Catering.

Read more:

Constitution Day Lecture to be Given by Political Science Professor Najib Ghadbian - University of Arkansas Newswire

Hold onto your hats, and strap yourselves in, Canadians, because were about to take a wild ride on the rollercoaster that is 21st-century political populism.

If youre a political adrenaline junkie, youre in for a heady, loopy ride. If youre prone to populist nausea, take your Pepto Bismol.

Last weekend, Conservatives gave Pierre Poilievre an overwhelming endorsement with nearly 70 per cent support on the first ballot.

Like a start-up entrepreneur pitching to investors on Dragons Den, he won over members of the party and sold thousands of memberships in a winner-takes-all assault.

Poilievre did more than just woo the Conservative party. He reached out, grabbed them by the lapels and shook them right out of their shoes.

This marks a tectonic shift in the political landscape of the Conservative party and Canada.

So how did he do this?

Well, he ditched those old battles and pitched out something less rigidly ideological, deploying the language of grievance which was amplified by social media.

He borrowed heavily from the playbook of political populism, targeting elites, gatekeepers and woke culture. These are familiar villains evoked by populists of the right. They need something to blame so they can build communities, foment discontent and rally their base.

He threw out some pretty audacious, headline-grabbing ideas like using bitcoin to manage inflation. Ask El Salvador how that worked for them after the crypto crash. He promised to fire Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem, another one of his elites.

He pummelled the Liberal governments money-printing to help Canadians and businesses through pandemic lockdowns and restrictions. Sure, its a bit of a sucker punch, but hes boxing in a different ring and there are no Queensbury Rules.

He supported the convoy movement and seized its rally cry of freedom, another piece of potent language in the populist playbook. He railed against freedom thieves, personified by Prime Minister Trudeau and the Liberals.

He supports immigration to welcome new Canadians into his tent and fulminates about the public debt to garner support of fiscal hawks. He says he will abandon the unpopular carbon tax and cut other taxes.

He has fashioned himself as one of the people, a kid from humble origins, born to a teenage mother, adopted out and brought up by school teachers.

As a career politician elected at the age of 25, he doesnt necessarily align with the one-of-the-people crowd, but a multi-millionaire property developer and reality TV star wasnt an obvious choice as one of the people, either. And we know what happened there.

But this is populism. It doesnt have to be 100 per cent rational to work.

Like any clever populist, he can smell alienation, the fear and anger over a changing world. He gives voice to those who feel left out and under-served by governments and larger economic orders of elites who attend things like the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Populists take their oxygen from the times they are in. Fear and economic anxiety are low-hanging fruit as Canadians grapple with inflation, rising gas prices and astronomical housing prices. If Canada plunges into recession, there will be more fruit weighing down that tree.

And if you want a monster piece of low-hanging fruit, take health care.

All of this has obviously been intoxicating to the Conservative party, which has been infused with a new sense of purpose. But will it be sticky with the urban set, cultural progressives and people worried about climate change?

I honestly dont know, but can you say political polarization?

Canadians and the Trudeau government would be unwise to dismiss Poilievre populism as kooky or UnCanadian.

With an election unlikely for the next few years, Poilievre will now have time to widen his populist offensive. He will have to walk a fine line between growing his appeal and containing his movement from toxic forces that exist within.

See original here:

GAIL LETHBRIDGE: No one should underestimate appeal of Poilievre populism - SaltWire Halifax powered by The Chronicle Herald

The Middle Out: The Rise of Progressive Economics and a Return to Shared Prosperity

Author: Michael Tomasky

Publisher: Doubleday

Price: $28

Pages: 304

For those who see the Democratic Party in turmoil, poised to lose its razor-thin congressional majority in November, and then the White House in 2024, Michael Tomasky has a message: Calm down.

The party is back in good hands, moving cautiously to the left, where Tomasky, the liberal editor of The New Republic, insists it belongs. Democrats are most successful, he believes, when they focus on the economy and the ways in which big government can make the lives of ordinary Americans fairer and more secure. Its been a winning formula since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, he writes in The Middle Out, an engaging, briskly paced mix of partisanship and history, and it has found a new champion in a president not previously known for his economic populism.

The story begins with FDR, the godfather of modern liberalism, whose New Deal programmes provided a vital safety net for the hungry and unemployed without actually ending the Great Depression. World War II did that by creating millions of high-paying but potentially short-term jobs in the defence industries. Could full employment be sustained in peacetime, or would the nation sink into another depression?

The coming decades would turn out to be the most prosperous in American history. Wages shot up, unemployment remained low, the middle class exploded in size. And the key reason, says Tomasky, was the governments unprecedented involvement in the economy the Keynesian approach begun by Roosevelt and continued by future administrations, Democrat and Republican, until Ronald Reagan took office in 1981.

It was a heady but imperfect time. Racial and gender discrimination kept large swaths of the population from sharing equally in the bounty, while the curse of McCarthyism was on full display. Yet for all its faults, notes Tomasky, the nation enjoyed a shared prosperity, compared with today. People may not have known much about John Maynard Keynes, but they did learn to trust the governments expanded role in their lives.

Tomasky pays particular attention to income inequality. Indeed, the books title refers to a middle out philosophy in which the government creates a more democratic economy, not a nanny state, by focusing on ways to enlarge the middle and working classes at the expense of the wealthy.

When did the forces of free market capitalism re-emerge? In Tomaskys telling, the first seeds were planted with the publication of Milton Friedmans Capitalism and Freedom in 1962, which argued that government had no business doing most of what it did be it running national parks or providing Social Security reached a much wider audience.

The tipping point came in the 1970s, when Friedmans calls for privatisation, tax cuts and deregulation gained political traction. Tomasky superbly reconstructs the ideas and personalities behind this neoliberal advance.

But he doesnt connect them to the devastating events that caused Americans to lose faith in the governments handling of the economy. There is barely a word about the OPEC oil embargo, the Iranian boycott or the appearance of stagflation. Even Paul Volcker, the Federal Reserve chairman whose draconian policies are credited with reversing the downward economic spiral, goes unmentioned.

While Republicans wear the dark hats in The Middle Out, Democrats to the right of Senator Elizabeth Warren fare poorly as well. He was, in fact, the most economically successful president of the last 60 years, Tomasky writes of Bill Clinton. Job creation surged, as did median family income. Inflation held steady and the massive deficit run up by Ronald Reagan disappeared. Indeed, Clinton handed George W. Bush the rarest of gifts: a $236 billion surplus.

So, whats not to like? Tomasky faults Clintons most touted policies welfare reform, financial deregulation, a balanced budget for widening the gap between the rich and everybody else. The consensus among the liberal economists and policymakers quoted in The Middle Out is that both Clinton and Barack Obama grew too close to their Wall Street and Silicon Valley donors, and that both feared the political fallout from being labelled big spenders.

Enter Joe Biden, whose 36-year Senate career had been spent in the centre lane of Democratic politics. Running for president in 2020, however, he moved decisively to the left. The Democratic Party apparatus had become more liberal in recent years, fuelled by activists and think tank intellectuals sympathetic to solving big problems through Keynesian means.

That included the pandemic that had upended the global economy. Only the federal government had the resources to confront it. Even the Trump administration had opened the coffers for vaccine development, while reluctantly supporting the $2.2 trillion CARES Act to keep the economy afloat. For Biden and his advisers, however, the pandemic exposed the inequities that Keynesian methods had mitigated in the past.

Biden responded with a $1.9 trillion rescue plan that included enormous outlays for schools, public safety, health care and infrastructure all geared to a future beyond the pandemic. Dramatic social change requires a catalyst, and in this case a deadly virus provided it.

Whether this will be enough to keep Democrats in control of Congress and the White House remains to be seen. Tomasky says the liberal vision for America will be a winner if Democrats can make the case that they are far better stewards of the economy by every major measure. It will be a tough sell, given current inflation and supply chain problems, but its an argument that has worked selectively in the past. On balance, history appears to be on Tomaskys side.

See the article here:

The power of populism - Business Standard

Breadcrumb Trail Links

His populism is at times messy but is entirely necessary

Publishing date:

Pierre Poilievre became the new leader of the Conservative party on Saturday, sweeping the contest with 68 per cent of the vote. Poilievres victory is good for Canada his disruptive politics, while not always pretty, are sorely needed in a country where the seldom-challenged status quo has left too many Canadians behind.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Voters are frustrated. Skyrocketing prices have locked young and new Canadians out of the housing market, trapping them in a quasi-feudal system where generational wealth is a prerequisite for homeownership.

The NP Comment newsletter from columnist Colby Cosh and NP Comment editors tackles the important topics with boldness, verve and wit. Get NP Platformed delivered to your inbox weekdays by 4 p.m. ET.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Ballooning inflation, coupled with longer-term increases in the cost of living, is eroding the buying power of average Canadians with salary-based incomes, while the wealthy feast upon bloating investments and dividends. The current government has, perplexingly, decided that firehosing more money into the economy will solve this problem.

Immigrant professionals doctors, engineers and the like continue to work in jobs beneath their skill levels (i.e. driving Ubers), because, despite decades of promises, expedited pathways havent been built to recognize their foreign credentials.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

When those who have been left behind, culturally or economically, express their desperate anger, they are smeared and condescended to by well-to-do technocrats.

Given the situation, is it any wonder that Canada has become more open to populism lately?

Someone needs to address these inequalities and give voice to Canadians seething frustration which is what Poilievre has done. In the process, he is forging an unusual coalition of voters that testifies to the diverse appeal of his politics.

Is it any wonder Canada has become more populist lately?

For example, over the past year, an astonishing number of young Canadians have been turning towards the Conservative party. Younger Canadians, millennials in particular, have been crushed beneath decades of hostile policy-making that has ignored, if not actively opposed, their interests. And so, for the first time since the 1980s, a plurality (but not majority) of voters under 30 are prepared to back the populist-minded Tories.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Some believe that populism is inherently harmful. Thats a reasonable concern, because on many occasions populism has been a destructive force. But populism demonstrably has the potential to be constructive (on both the left and right) Roosevelt and Reagan are key examples.

The best forms of populism tackle economic injustice rather than stoking racial resentment. Thats why it matters that Poilievres populism has been noticeably attentive to how elitism harms Canadians of all colours and creeds injustice over homeownership, for example, has consistently been framed as an issue that harms immigrants.

To put it another way: while European right-wing populism scorns ethnic immigration (see France), Poilievres populism wants to ensure that immigrants can work in their chosen professions and buy homes.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Economic-minded populism has been historically championed by the left, but, in Canada, progressive politicians have ceded that ground, having preoccupied themselves with placating white-collar college graduates and waging cultural warfare at the expense of kitchen-table issues.

Poilievre merely swooped in and filled this gap. Its a prudent strategy that already worked in Ontario, where Premier Doug Fords Progressive Conservative government fostered an unexpected alliance with private-sector unions.

However, even if Poilievres populism isnt xenophobic, it still has its faults. Not all attacks against perceived elitism are equally legitimate, and Poilievres crusade against the Bank of Canada and Supreme Court risk undermining their overall legitimacy. Challenging the status quo doesnt justify weakening our governments core institutions.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Poilievres tone has also often been too belligerent and divisive. This certainly plays well with his base and is a huge part of his appeal, but, should Poilievre hope to become prime minister, he will need to learn how to be more diplomatic so that he can credibly represent all Canadians, not just his main supporters.

To his credit, Poilievres overwhelming victory in the Conservative race shows that concerns about divisiveness may be overblown. His political opponents warned that he would tear the Conservative party apart, but the results from Saturdays election suggest that, on the contrary, he is a great unifier in all regions of the country, voters swarmed to him.

But it is one thing to unify your party and another to unify the entire country.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

It is one thing to unify your party and another to unify the entire country

Poilievres post-election victory speech was promising, as it demonstrated a more diplomatic approach to governance. Rather than gloat or berate, Poilievre thanked his defeated opponents for their contributions to Canadian politics. This included kind words for Jean Charest, with whom Poilievre had been viciously feuding for months.

In a similar spirit, Poilievres speech he avoided some of his more controversial rhetoric and instead focussed on economic issues, such as building housing, tackling affordability, unleashing the energy economy and getting taxes under control.

Should Poilievre maintain this more diplomatic approach, while also maintaining the integrity of his populist message, his chances of winning a general election are high.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Whether he becomes prime minister or not, Poilievre has already, at the very least, forced his opponents to reconsider their complacency on key issues.

The Liberals, for example, may be forced to finally take housing seriously and invest in reforms that substantially boost housing supply. The NDP might finally re-evaluate its relationship with the working class and realize that blue-collar Canadians care about financial stability much more than language policing and TikTok politics.

Poilievres populism has its risks, but they are much less dramatic than his critics believe. Canada cannot afford to maintain a sclerotic status quo that denies so many people the opportunity to thrive. If Poilievre can shake things up, then great.

National Post

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Read the rest here:

Adam Zivo: The timing was right for Pierre Poilievre's populism - National Post

MIAMI Some of the biggest names on the right, from mega-donor Peter Thiel to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, flew to South Florida to address a conference of national conservatives who have steadily gained sway in the GOP in recent years.

On the surface, the National Conservatism Conference held Sunday through Tuesday at the JW Marriott Turnberry Resort and Spa looked like an attempt to appeal to the Republican Party's right-wing base, with a heavy focus on Christian nationalism, curbing immigration and battling woke politics. But veteran GOP operatives saw a second conference just below the surface: a play for money.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis at a rally in August. (Eva Marie Uzcategui/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The continuing realignment of the Republican base and its supporters, which has kept political professionals supremely confused about what exactly Americas political right is at the moment. (The only constant seems to be that neoconservatives, who held the reins of the party and the conservative movement for decades, seem almost entirely boxed out.)

In Miami, a broad array of old conservative battlers and new, authoritarian-tinged activists, shared stages as part of an effort to apply an intellectual structure to the sprawling brand of Trumpist populism that swept the right seven years ago.

Thiel, the money man behind much of the new right, compared California to communist China and berated the scourge of literal homeless poop which has beset his home state of California in a speech arguing that the flood of tech money into California had distorted the nations politics by giving the state outsized influence in national debates.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, the likely heir apparent of this brand of Trumpism, seized the crowd touting his fight against COVID-19 vaccines, gender reassignment surgery for minors and the Disney Corp. Most of DeSantiss positions are longstanding hallmarks of the right, but DeSantis dressed them in rigid language, declaring himself the protector of the states freedom and the states security.

Story continues

Supporters of former US President Donald Trump gather near his residence at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., on Aug. 9. (Giorgio Viera/AFP via Getty Images)

And Balasz Orban, the top adviser to Hungarys authoritarian leader, Viktor Orban, who has become a hero to the hard right in recent years, said that woke globalists were brainwashing children. He also said that the Wests economic sanctions against Russia for its war against Ukraine has Europe down on its knees, alluding to rising gas prices.

But behind the scenes, top Republicans corralled with donors from this South Florida enclave of Republican money.

Blake Masters, a Thiel protg whos running for a Senate seat in Arizona, was added at the last minute to headline a closed-door fundraiser for the NatCon crowd.

And National Senatorial Republican Committee Chairman Rick Scott, whos tasked with helping Republicans try to win back the chamber, spent Sunday afternoon at the luxurious Miami resort meeting with donors, including Claremont Institute chairman and Republican mega donor Tom Klingenstein, before his Sunday night speech.

Weve actually done really well, Scott told Yahoo News. After taking over the National Republican Senatorial Committee in January 2021, we said were going to raise money, define our opponents early, Scott told Yahoo News afterward.

Trump supporters at a rally in Sarasota, Fla., July 3. (Paul Hennessy/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

A New York Times investigation of the NRSCs digital fundraising operation under Scott sparked cries that Scott was more interested in promoting himself than the Senate Republican candidates. But a spokesman for Scott refuted those concerns.

Scott has been pulling in top Florida donors to the NRSC since he took over and has also flipped spending plans, with the NRSC spending more earlier in the year ahead of the November midterm elections, leaving more money for candidates and outside groups to spend closer to election day, NRSC communications director Chris Hartline said.

The reality is this has worked, despite all the pissing and moaning from Washington, Hartline told Yahoo News.

Far from the most well-known of the conservative conferences, like the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, which has turned into something of a comic-con for far-right activists and podcast celebrities, the NatCon conference felt more subdued and restrained.

Washington Republican operatives and longtime conservative think tank leaders, like National Conservative Conference chairman Chris DeMuth, mingled with conservative media outlets, Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish leaders from South Florida and college students.

JD Vance, Republican Senate candidate in Ohio. (Gaelen Morse/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

In his speech, Thiel called the gathering a ragtag band of rebels which he equated to Star Wars. (Thiel dubbed himself the Han Solo of the group and former President Donald Trump Obi-Wan Kenobi. In the original Star Wars films, Obi-Wan is an ever-present apparition guiding the group but not controlling it.)

Its donors, Zionists and a nerd prom, said one veteran Republican operative as he watched from the sidelines. The operative and other veteran Republicans speaking on background said the conference felt more like a play to peel donors from CPAC, which is increasingly seen as a singular extension of longtime operative and CPAC chairman Matt Schlapp.

Schlapp told Yahoo News the chatter and sniping didnt bother him and that he likes what he sees from the Miami conference. The more generals on the field, the better, he said.

Read the original here:

In Miami, the post-Trump populist right speaks to its base and courts donors - Yahoo News

So, its finally over. Boris Johnson has resigned as UK prime minister, following an absurd few days in Westminster as he tried to cling on to power while ministerial resignations piled up around him. In the end, it fell to Nadhim Zahawi the man Johnson had hastily appointed chancellor just a day and a bit earlier to strike the final blow, calling on the man whod just promoted him to resign. And so Johnson has gone, with a typically breezy speech outside Downing Street, just two-and-a-half years after he secured a historic mandate to get Brexit done and shake up a complacent, disdainful metropolitan elite.

What a two-and-a-half years it has been, complete with plague, penury and war in Europe. But for all the horrors of recent times and for all Johnsons many mistakes in office his tenure will remain a landmark moment in the struggle for British democracy. His Brexit deal may have been imperfect. Britain may remain lumbered with its own homegrown oligarchy and anti-democratic institutions. But in rescuing the Brexit vote from the clutches of a Remainer Parliament, in reminding the elites who ultimately rules in a democracy, and in dealing a blow to a treacherous Labour leadership that had betrayed working-class Brexit voters, Johnsons 2019 election did democracy a great service.

That election changed Britain forever. You could feel it in the air. After a bitter interregnum following the 2016 Brexit vote, in which a furious political class tried to cancel the biggest electoral bloc in history, the peoples will had finally prevailed. Working-class voters, long ignored by the ruling class and their own Labour Party, made themselves matter first by voting Brexit and then by taking a chance on a Tory promising to get Brexit done. The Conservatives succeeded in bulldozing the Red Wall by recognising that the Brexit vote was not a demand for a more xenophobic or inward-looking Britain, but a more democratic Britain. On top of finally implementing Brexit, they pledged to review the role of the House of Lords, prerogative powers, the courts and the Human Rights Act in dampening democratic decision-making. Johnson dubbed his government the peoples government. While he has fallen well short of his lofty rhetoric, he saw which way the wind was blowing. Voters wanted to take back control, and not just from Brussels.

These are the populist sentiments that put Johnson into No10. Which is why the slow replacement of that so-called peoples government by a kind of Tudor court was so sickening. Following the departure of Dominic Cummings hardly a radical democrat himself, but at least a weirdo with a plan Downing Street increasingly became a den of airheaded Sloane Rangers jostling for position. From former No10 policy chief Munira Mirza to former Brexit negotiator David Frost, those around Johnson who had real stature and an understanding of the mandate they had received walked away as the governments position on everything from the culture wars to Covid became increasingly reactive and incoherent. Meanwhile, from Owen Paterson to Partygate to Chris Pincher, firefighting one scandal after another began to paralyse Downing Street.

Without question, a media sent mad by Brexit and Boris exploited every scandal going to try to bring the government down. The cynicism of it all was stunning. So much so that Alastair Campbell the man who helped lie us into a disastrous, barbarous war became TVs go-to authority on the subject of truth and standards in public life. But Downing Streets ineptitude, its bullshitting and its inability to take a position and stick to it poured fuel on every fire. Meanwhile, with Brexit and the vaccine rollout behind us, the government increasingly had nothing to show for itself. Voters want their wishes enacted and their interests defended. Parties and pinching would mean much less if the government also had a programme that commanded support. But in the end it didnt. To the extent that the government had a coherent programme at all, it was increasingly set against the interests of working-class people. Net Zero, a campaign for mass impoverishment, was perhaps the prime example.

In his final, bunkered hours, Johnson began to resemble his worst caricature: a wannabe world king clinging on to power for its own sake. Despite losing the confidence of his backbenchers, his ministers and the public, he insisted he had to deliver for those who voted for him, despite increasingly forgetting who his voters are and what precisely he was supposed to be delivering to them. In the end, for all the scandal-mongering and talk of the most evil and mad PM ever, Johnsons government came to resemble so many that came before it a bitchy, ideas-lite administration that could only galvanise support by talking up the fear of the alternative. What an insult to those voters who took a chance on the Tories in 2019. They wanted Brexit to be implemented and for a different kind of politics one that paid more attention to them than the SW1 set. And it all ended in the mother of all Westminster soap operas, penned by the PMs own idiocy and ineptitude.

Johnson had to go. He proved himself a dreadful vessel for the populist spirit he briefly courted. He became a block to the project of deepening the democratic revolt of 2016. But we should be open-eyed about what lies ahead. Following Johnsons resignation, all the usual ghouls are circling. If Boris goes, Brexit goes, is their unofficial slogan, coined by Tory Europhile Michael Heseltine. Boris Johnsons reign ends in disgrace, just like his friend Donald Trump. The end of an era of transatlantic populism? Lets hope so, tweets Belgian Remoaner pin-up Guy Verhofstadt. They all spy in Johnsons demise an opportunity to undo not just our exit from the European Union, but also the principles Brexit represented that the people are sovereign, that citizens should shape their nation, and that those in power must be accountable to us and sackable by us.

Well, theyre in for a shock. Brexit was always bigger than Boris Johnson. In conflating the two, Johnson diehards and Remoaners make the same mistake. Indeed, Johnson went into 2019 a deeply unpopular candidate. Even many Leavers were suspicious of him. In the end, voters took a chance on him because they wanted Brexit and a more democratic politics. The idea that Johnsons failures in office and the caterwauling of his critics have convinced them of the error of their ways and the brilliance of technocracy is absurd. The pandemic has if anything offered us a neat demonstration of how, clever though they are, experts dont always know best, and that doom-mongering models be they about Covid cases or the post-Brexit economy often arent worth the paper theyre printed on. This is why experts should advise, but never rule.

We must remain vigilant against any attempt to reverse the democratic gains of the post-Brexit era. But those who think Brexit will just disappear with Boris clearly havent been paying attention. The Brexit vote has to some extent rewired our political class. No one could now win a Tory leadership race, let alone an election, pledging to undo Brexit. Even the Labour Party now has to at least pretend that it has accepted it. Earlier this week, Keir Starmer through gritted teeth ruled out taking the UK back into the Single Market or Customs Union. No one believes Starmer or Tory Remainers for that matter when they pose as born-again Brexiteers. But the fact that they now have to pose as being okay with Brexit is, in its own way, remarkable.

None of this will stop the vengeful old regime from trying to reassert itself, of course. But they will have a fight on their hands. As we see across the pond, populism isnt going anywhere. Even the demise of Trump in 2020 a far more flawed populist tribune than Johnson, to put it lightly and the return of the adults in the form of Joe Biden has not stemmed the populist tide. If anything, new battlegrounds have been opened up, with parents leading a fightback against woke educationalists and toppling Democrats who give in to critical race theory.

Boris Johnson may be gone, but the British people still rule. Its now the job of any democrat to make sure that those spurned elites, those desperate to see the post-2016 era die with Johnsons premiership, are proven wrong once again. The world king is dead, long live populism.

Tom Slater is editor of spiked. Follow him on Twitter: @Tom_Slater_

Read the rest here:

Long live populism - spiked

Roundly rebuking his neo-liberal globalist political philosophy, the French public has refused to grant President Emmanuel Macron a parliamentary majority as Marine Le Pens populists on the right and an ecological alliance on the left surged at the ballot box to strip the once self-described Jupitarean leader of his ability to govern France firmly.

Just under two months after securing a second term as President of France, Emmanuel Macron and his Ensemble! coalition have suffered a disastrous result in the final round of voting in the parliamentary elections on Sunday, securing just 245 seats, far short of the 289 necessary to maintain a governing majority and at the low end of polling projections leading up to the vote.

The nights true victor at least in terms of exceeding expectations was perhaps Marine Le Pens National Rally (RN), which saw a surprising result of 89 candidates elected to the National Assembly, the most in the history of the party, including its predecessor National Front. Le Pens party, which previously only boasted eight representatives, will now have enough representation to form a parliamentary group, providing a major boost to the party in terms of prominence in the national discussion and the ability to fundraise.

Prior to the second and final round of voting on Sunday, posters had estimated that RN would win between 25 and 45 seats, suggesting that anti-Macron sentiment was strong enough to convince left-wing voters to side with Le Pen to prevent the neoliberal president from retaining his grip over the parliament.

Hailing the stunning result for her party, the populist firebrandsaid: This victory is that of the French people. Tonight, they have taken their destiny into their own hands by making Emmanuel Macron a minority president. This victory is yours!

In all, Macron will lead the largest party in the French Parliament but without an overall majority at 245 seats, according to the French interior ministry. The hard-left NUPES (New popular ecological and social union) performed roughly as polled and won 131 seats. Marine Le Pens National Rally outperformed expectations to take 89 seats. The Republicans, the once establishment party of former president Nicolas Sarkozy came fourth with just 61 seats: just 15 years ago, they won 313.

Commenting from across the English Channel, Brexit leader Nigel Farage said: A big night for Marine Le Pen.The dam will break in the end, referencing the potential for populists to finally gain control of thelyse Palace and win theFrench presidency.

The huge upset at the parliamentary level for the National Rally comes after the party secured the largest vote share in the history of the party in a presidential election in April, in which Le Pen received 41.5 per cent of the vote share. While the vote represented a comfortable margin of victory for President Macron, RN saw significant gains among younger millennial voters as well as winning the working-class vote, spelling a potential downfall for the so-called centrist consensus pushed by globalist elites such as former Rothschild banker Macron.

Though Mr Macron had cast himself as a leader akin to the Roman god Jupiter and had promised in 2017 that his presidency would unify France by doing everything in the five years to come so there is no more reason to vote for the extremes, he has apparently failed on this front, with the socialist NUPES coalition headed by far-leftJean-Luc Mlenchon winning 131 seats, making the hard left the largest opposition voting bloc in the parliament, should the group of socialists, communists, and greens maintain a unified front something which could prove difficult forMlenchon.

Celebrating his far-left coalitions success in preventing Macron from securing a majority, Mlenchon said: The great upsurge of history, of the France of rebellions and revolutions, has a face. That of NUPES. Not for a moment do we give up on the ambition to govern and bring the country to another horizon.

These challenges that are coming, we will meet them with a strength that we did not have. We beat Macron. He does not have the majority, he added.

Jean-Luc Melenchon, leader of the France Unbowed party, speaks during an election night event Photographer: Benjamin Girette/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Going forward, it will now be much more difficult for President Macron to enact the agenda on which he stood for re-election, including reforming the countrys pension system, a move that would increase the age of retirement and his stated goal of cutting taxes,as he will likely be needed in Paris to focus on waging wars on the domestic front, forging alliances in the National Assembly if he has any chance of passing his agenda items. The beleaguered president will most likely need to turn to the centre-right Les Republicans, meaning Macron may need to shift to the right to pass legislation.

Amid the cost of living crisis sweeping the continent and the resurgence of populism on the right and the left in France, Macron could also yet again be besieged by an emboldened and angered Gilet Jaunes (Yellow Vest) movement on the streets of Paris.

The loss of his parliamentary majority may also see Macron diminished on the world stage. With hopes now dashed of retaining a governing majority, it remains to be seen how effective Macron will be at casting himself as the premier leader in Europe.

Upon the retirement of Angela Merkel in Germany and the subsequent elevation of Social Democrat (SPD) Olaf Scholz as chancellor who is the head of a somewhat precarious traffic light coalition government including the Greens and the centrist-liberalFree Democratic Party (FDP) the mantle of head honcho in the European Union appeared to be within grasp for Macron. Yet, Sundays results may throw such a vision in doubt.

As Britains state broadcaster the BBC put it in their analysis of the result on Monday morning, noting: The results of Sundays legislative election confirm that this second term will be a different beast from the first, with Mr Macron cutting the figure of a chastened and greatly weakened leader.

The diminishment of Macron on the world stage could have an impact on the future of the Ukraine war, with the French president previously attempting to cast himself as a mediator of sorts, being one of the few European leaders to continually hold talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the hopes of crafting a peace agreement.

Interestingly, the role of top dog in the European land war has increasingly fallen to Brexit Britain, with Prime Minister Boris Johnson becoming a chief ally of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky after taking a much more hawkish line than his counterparts in continental Europe who have proven to be more dependent on Russia for energy imports.

Follow Kurt Zindulka on Twitter here @KurtZindulka

See the rest here:

Populism Rising: Le Pen Makes Historic Gains, as Macron ... - Breitbart

In the celebration of 75 years of Independence, one must look back at the rich discourse around mindless nationalistic ideals and sober patriotic beliefs.

A nationalistic procession carried out in the neighbourhood to celebrate the festivity of independence in a modest, sober, loving, and thoughtful way symbolising magnanimity and inclusiveness of the nation suddenly turned into an unruly angry mob passing by Subedar Puneets house. They were hurling abuses and anti-national slogans against him because the eyes could not spot the ordered flag unfurled on the rooftop while all along it was on his chest. It reminds us of Rabindranath Tagore, who probably ascertained the horrors of Nationalism and wrote that We must give a warning that this idea of nationalism is prevalent evil that is sweeping over the present world and eating it into its moral vitality.

The scenario as described above may be a fictional work of artistic liberty but the message behind it is certainly not. The idea of throttling down nationalism on its people is as real as the sun rising from the east. Nationalism in its different forms has over the time become a tool to proceed to a majoritarian notion, of any kind be it caste, religion, or race, to topple the idea of liberal democracies in the garb of reform. In other words, the sentiments are exploited in the name of loyalties to foster an illiberal regime which runs counter to Internationalism and is loved by populist leaders. This modus operandi of coerced or forced nationalism for political gains therefore also vindicates George Orwells quote Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception.. At this stage one must also not forget about Subedar Puneets love and loyalty for the nation: how is it different from negative nationalism? Is it patriotism? Are they not the same?

Also read: Questions for freedom

Nationalism and patriotism are popular catch phrases often used together and interchangeably today but they are not same and a deconstruction of both, especially in these testing times is quintessential. Nationalism and patriotism in themselves are dynamic umbrella concept(s) which can be understood only with contextualisation. It is also important to note that they differ in their popular usage in different parts of the world and even in different phases while in the same country. The attribute may change with time; however, the principal thread largely remains the same. They are two distinct loyalties simply put as love for our own country, but the miniscule difference is that while patriotism is positive affirmation and embraces the flaws of the nation, nationalism is rather aggressive, insecure and fosters a feeling of superiority over others.

Nationalism and patriotism are popular catch phrases often used together and interchangeably today but they are not same and a deconstruction of both, especially in these testing times is quintessential.

Nationalism is premised on the idea of a nation state, while patriotism places reliance on the society and the emergence of a nation. Nationalism is a feeling that ones country is superior to another in all respects, while patriotism is merely a feeling of admiration for a way of life. Generally, the idea of nationalism becomes negative with irrational blaming and the spread of hatred among people. It is safe to say that patriotism is based on affection and nationalism is rooted in rivalry and resentment. It has been observed that most nationalists assume that their country is better than any other, whereas patriots believe that their country is one of the best and can be improved.

The tool of coerced nationalism and its deployment by populists around the world, which ironically never feels coerced, is also a ready-made and simple solution for complex issues which promises to be countrys virtue and, in the end, also serves as an easy escape from governmental failure in name of peoples allegiance for the country. The phenomenon of coerced nationalism also translates into toxic nationalism when it becomes more of hero-worshippism as the world has seen in the past and is encountering even now.

In India, Tagore was evidently against nationalism as he believed that the notion of internationalism which must prevail over all mankind, and which must be founded on the human ethics of simplicity, beauty and unanimity with others at the level of both, individuals and nations. In his criticism of nationalism, Tagore has been influenced by the incidence of cruelty, and indignity perpetrated by the Western nations against what he called the philosophy of No-Nations. In this regard, he explicitly challenged those manifestations of the non-violent movement for independence which had the effect of generating hatred against the British.

Also read: Har ghar tiranga!

We must also note that the notion of Nationalism in its current form has moved from being emancipatory to conservative. The symbols of conservativeness are readily seen in the modern day Indian political landscape. In the midst of equating a religious majority into a political majority, today India is flirting with illiberal constitutional democratic values through conservativism. In India, fanatic nationalists make an attempt to equate democracy and majoritarianism i.e., the pursuance of a permanent unbeatable majority which would place large groups in power forever to achieve the idea that, The philosophy based upon a broad agreement that the majority should set the goals of Indian state. The government therefore seems to translate a religious majority into a political majority and gain electoral benefits with Hindu or negative Nationalism.

Nationalism is a feeling that ones country is superior to another in all respects, while patriotism is merely a feeling of admiration for a way of life.

In the celebration of 75 years of Independence one must look back at the rich discourse around mindless nationalistic ideals and sober patriotic beliefs for our country. It is time to reflect and understand that coerced nationalism does more harm to Subedar Puneet and many more like him, who are honest, dedicated, taxpaying and patriotic individuals, rather than gain. It is time to not fall prey for forced nationalistic paraphernalia used by populist leaders only for electoral gains. The inclusiveness of liberal democratic spirit of India is at the verge of a great fall from which a retreat would be a monumental task for us as a nation. The eradication of intent of questioning is final virtue of coerced nationalism, the intent of questioning is manifestation of patriotism.

The phenomenon of coerced nationalism also translates into toxic nationalism when it becomes more of hero-worshippism as the world has seen in the past and is encountering even now.

Also read: Flagging it

The Indian flag or the patriotism associated with it is integral to our own being and it is time we resist its appropriation by fringe, reclaim it. So, if you dont spot a tiranga on the rooftop, try looking in the heart for it and redeem yourself; Redeem our India.

(The author would like to express gratitude towards Gautam Kumar for his insights in curating this article. Major excerpts of this article are taken from the authors own research paper published by National Law University, Delhi available here.)

See original here:

Forced nationalism and perils of populism The Leaflet - The Leaflet

Fox News host Laura Ingraham on Monday said Americans might be ready to turn the page on former President Trump as he decides whether to run for president a third time.

People conflate Trump with peoples overall sense of happiness in the country. Donald Trumps been a friend of mine for 25 years, and Im always very open about this on my show. But, you know well see whether thats what the country wants, Ingraham said during an appearance on Lisa Boothes podcast. The country I think is so exhausted. Theyre exhausted by the battle, the constant battle, that they may believe that, well, maybe its time to turn the page if we can get someone who has all Trumps policies, whos not Trump.

Trump has unleashed a streak of populism in the Republican Party that might not appeal to voters writ large in 2024, Ingraham theorized.

The other problem is that its really not about Trump, right, this is about the views that Trump now brought to the floor for the Republican Party, Ingraham said. They dont like his views, they dont like the fact that he called out the military for their failures, that he wanted us to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. That he wanted to treat China and our trade relationship with China in a much it was smarter, but much different way than the globalists preferred. And they certainly didnt like the fact that he sent all those illegal immigrants back to Mexico with that Remain in Mexico.

Ingraham has been among Trumps longest and most loyal supporters in the conservative media ecosystem, just last week attacking the Justice Department and FBI following the search warrant executed at the former presidents Florida home in connection with an investigation into classified documents reportedly taken from the White House.

When we get power back, its time to hold everyone accountable. The military leadership, the civilian leadership, the civil service, those in Congress who have abused their power, all of them have to held accountable, Ingraham said on her prime-time show, hours after news of the search broke.

The Fox News host is one of several who the Jan. 6 House select committee found was texting with then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, imploring him to get Trump to do something to stop the rioting at the Capitol that day.

The relationship between top talent at Fox and Trump is closely watched by media watchdogs and political analysts as the former president flirts with another White House bid.

On Monday morning, Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy called on the former president to tamp down the rhetoric against the Justice Department and FBI following the Mar-a-Lago search and implore his supporters not to threaten members of federal law enforcement.

Whatever we can do to help because the temperature has to be brought down in the country, Trumptold a Fox News hours after Doocys remarks.If it isnt, terrible things are going to happen.

Go here to see the original:

Laura Ingraham: Voters might say its time to turn the page on Trump - WGN TV Chicago

Readings (Year C):

Isaiah 66:18 21Psalms 117:1, 2Heb 12:5 7, 11 13Luke 13:22 30

The question of inclusion and exclusion is a perennial human problem which has become important in recent times. The growing climate of nationalist populism, with such ideological goals as isolationism, nativism, anti-immigration, anti-Blackness, anti-Semitism, and related sentiments is a reality that has characterized many political movements today, especially in the West. Underlying all nationalist movements is the basic principle of inclusion of some, the we (those who belong), and the exclusion of others (those who do not have the right to belong).

In the first and third readings, we are confronted with the same question of inclusion and exclusion. However, unlike the nationalist political climate of our time, the readings speak about Gods eternal plan to include all people (especially those without rights) in the family of Gods redeemed people. The first reading from Isaiah envisions a time when all nations will share in Gods kingdom and have access to Gods saving grace. The text alludes to a future when the Israelites and the Gentiles will form one community, and all will participate in one worship of God. God will even select the Gentiles (those who were formally excluded from membership within Gods people) to become priests and Levites. In this reading, we see a picture of an inclusive and equal community of Gods people where nationalism and race distinction no longer hold sway. Here we see the free and inclusive nature of Gods gift of salvation.

The Gospel reading further buttresses the message of the first reading but goes beyond it. It stresses the free gift of membership into the community and Gods salvation. We hear that many people will come from the four corners of the world and eat in the kingdom of God. But Jesus also admonishes against any feeling of entitlement to the kingdom. In fact, he contrasts those who feel they have a right to Gods kingdom, and those who actually enter the kingdom. In this passage Jesus emphasizes that while salvation is gift of God, human response through obedience to God is required. This point is accentuated with the imagery of the narrow door. Here Jesus deploys the athletic or martial imagery: strive, or fight (), a term usually used in the Hellenistic world to reference the exercise of virtue, underscores this human response. Gods gift of salvation is free but not cheap. The passage also speaks of the urgency to accept Gods invitation now since the narrow door will not remain indefinitely open.

In the reading from Hebrews, the author stresses the importance of discipline and obedience in the formation of Gods people. The heavenly race will not be an easy one. We are reminded of Gods discipline and training. God will train us how to walk through the narrow door proposed by Jesus. This training will be painful, but the goal is to guide us through the right path. These readings invite us to accept Gods training towards inclusivity and acceptance of others especially the socially excluded in our midst.

Advertisement

See the rest here:

A reflection for the twenty-first Sunday in Ordinary Time - U.S. Catholic magazine