Have read about that before, I think there's some truth to it,
but to ascribe all or even most of the tumult to that would be hubristic, and the type of thinking that led to the populism in the first place. It says to people: "If you're displeased, it's not because you have legitimate grievances, it's because you are biased and illogical. Science proves things are better than ever. The current politics are working well, if you don't agree you're wrong. The march of progress continues unabated." There's something off about that. It's more reasonable imo to think the mainstream politics was not able to adequately address some major grievances, people felt/ feel unrepresented, frustrated and angrey, and they vote/d outside the mainstream.
To defuse populism, the mainstream has to somehow meaningfully absorb the concerns that led to it (not necessarily the solutions) and change to address them while leaving the toxic aspects behind. I don't know how feasible that is or what it ultimately looks like, it's a difficult problem and some of the grievances are probably beyond the capability of politics to deal with alone.
|
(
In response to this post by Joey Wahoo)
Posted: 02/23/2020 at 12:16PM