Is populism a valid political paradigm?

[Vee]

Populism in politics is often thrown around as a dirty word.

In recent times its gained a couple of prefixes, you can now have left-populism and right-populism. Whereas before populism used to refer to right-populism, a Conservative philosophy of protecting the domestic political arena.

In Australia we're in midst of an election campaign where populism is paramount, we saw it in 96 with what was dubbed the Howard 'small target' strategy and now a near-identical strategy is being employed by Rudd that's been dubbed 'me too'.

The Advantage of the Australian electoral system is that it elects the least unpopular candidate not the most popular but this is still a form of populism.

Thus I ask, is populism a valid political paradigm?

[samsara15]

There are so many forms of populism I'm not sure exactly what it is. Whatever populism is, politicians to whom the label is attached seem to spring up quite often, and sometimes gain a lot of power. There must be something valid about it, some form of valid political expression, since it keeps coming back.

[Osborn F Enready]

Saying you are a "populist" means different things to different people.

I think the term is vague for political purposes, akin to calling yourself a "windsock", going whichever direction the prevailing public wind is blowing.

I don't see what benefit would come of it, and I cringe when I hear Lou Dobbs talk up "populism" so much.

A pure populist, is a fan of pure democracy from what I have come to understand, and I don't see much validity to it.

[Milton Bradley]

I must echo Osborns thought on this issue. Particularly the "windsock" reference. Perhaps the best description available for somebody so inclined.

[Vee]

Did I infer correctly? That you guys do not see much validity to democracy?

[Charlatan]

Populism is appealing to the public? I never knew what it was myself, not even that existed in terminology, but am familiar with the concept. If a politician sways with the demands fof the people, they are listening to what makes people unhappy. If they want cheaper electicity, and they instead give them cheaper public transport they won't really notice. For the country to support it's leader they need to listen. If the public misunderstands the goals of the state, then there will be dissent on a slight scale with them blaming the government for everything. The governmnet htough has a plan to serve the most needy places, if it decides to serve the minority that direly needs them, and they don't support the majority that doesn't need anything but has wants, they are doing the right thing.

The people should never have a say in what goes on in the house, as they do not have all the figures to make those decisions. Populism is therefore bad, self serving, hell let's call it evil. The state should run like it sees the best for the people.

[Vee]

And that worked out so great for the Roman empire.

[Vee]

And that worked out so great for the Roman empire.

That was rude of me. I'm sorry.

Months later I have re-read what was written above. I do not agree that is what governments plan or do but I do agree that is what they should do.

[Vee]

If you would prefer another word to populism, perhaps demagoguery.