We could just say, “Why do people vote against their own interests?”
To which the answer is, and always has been: “They don’t. They just disagree with you about what their own interests are and/or should be”.
Well, in some cases, I do think that the “leopards eating faces” thing is relevant—some people voted for something that they never imagined would affect them, and then it does. And in some cases, people realize that they did vote for something/someone terribly wrong. There’s actually a group called “Leaving MAGA,” for example, in which people talk about how that happened to them.
This is, of course, true. Politicians lie, dissemble, tell half truths, and/or change their minds about things once they’re in power. The cliche could as easily be “I never thought they’d raise my taxes, says person who voted for the ‘tax the rich’ party”.
We could just say, “Why do people vote against their own interests?”
To which the answer is, and always has been: “They don’t. They just disagree with you about what their own interests are and/or should be”.
Well, in some cases, I do think that the “leopards eating faces” thing is relevant—some people voted for something that they never imagined would affect them, and then it does. And in some cases, people realize that they did vote for something/someone terribly wrong. There’s actually a group called “Leaving MAGA,” for example, in which people talk about how that happened to them.
This is, of course, true. Politicians lie, dissemble, tell half truths, and/or change their minds about things once they’re in power. The cliche could as easily be “I never thought they’d raise my taxes, says person who voted for the ‘tax the rich’ party”.
Why try to "both sides" something with a hypothetical? If it's genuinely "both sides" can you not find examples of the phenomenon?
Also people don't pay close attention to politics and don't realise they're acting against their own best interests.
Our local fash (the Rassemblement National) are bankrolled by billionaires. As a consequence, if you look at their voting record, you realise that they consistently vote for stuff that benefits the rich over modest working people. For example, they voted against taxing the ultra rich, and against raising the minimum wage.
Nonetheless they have somehow managed to convince many low income white French people that they are championing their cause by being mean to immigrants.
We could just say, “Why do people vote against their own interests?”
To which the answer is, and always has been: “They don’t. They just disagree with you about what their own interests are and/or should be”.
Well, in some cases, I do think that the “leopards eating faces” thing is relevant—some people voted for something that they never imagined would affect them, and then it does. And in some cases, people realize that they did vote for something/someone terribly wrong. There’s actually a group called “Leaving MAGA,” for example, in which people talk about how that happened to them.
This is, of course, true. Politicians lie, dissemble, tell half truths, and/or change their minds about things once they’re in power. The cliche could as easily be “I never thought they’d raise my taxes, says person who voted for the ‘tax the rich’ party”.
It's not about lying. It's about voters not believing that the Far-Right fascists are serious about their agenda when they say what they are going to do.
For example Trump is not really doing much in terms of national policy that was not advertised at the election.
A general observation mostly about Brits who seem as a nation to vote against our own best interest. This includes otherwise sensible people. I did open it up to other countries. As an individual you are free to act as you wish. That doesn’t mean the OP is not true
I agree with quite a lot, but by no means all, of what you say in your OP. It's the title of the thread, your use of 'we', and your expectation of an uncritical acceptance of your other solidarities that I am challenging.
As I said, and uncharitable though you may regard this, 'There is no 'we' or 'our' that has both them and me in it''.
And @WhimsicalChristian, I think you are also wrong. 'People' as you lump them are neither reasonable, nor unreasonable. Some people are reasonable, some are unreasonable, many are reasonable about some things but not others., or some of the time but not all of the time.
If you do not agree with me, ask yourself. 'Are you reasonable or unreasonable?' Are you happy to be classified by others in such a simplistic way?
The general assumption of the Enlightenment was that human beings were reasonable creatures and therefore society as a whole was reasonable. But it sounds like you don't like generalisations.
Unfortunately we can't get away from them. They steer all sorts of fundamentals.
Similarly @la vie en rouge it's not uncommon here for Reform voters not to know about their pro-rich economic policies which affect them because they've absorbed the message that removing/stopping immigration will be great for them and haven't examined the small print. There was a video the other year of voters in Clacton being astonished to find out what Farage actually proposed to do to people like them.
I think the way we cover politics doesn't help. For example unless you are the sort who reads the manifesto, there are a lot of policies parties have including very good ones you just wont hear about while the news is dominated with who liked what on social media and who might be challenging who's leadership but there"s not much about what people are actually getting policy wise if they vote for a party.
... But it sounds like you don't like generalisations.
Unfortunately we can't get away from them. They steer all sorts of fundamentals.
Well spotted @WhimsicalChristian. You are quite right. Generalisations - also abstractions, and objectifying people into groups - are an excuse for all manner of loose, woolly, simplistic and ultimately destructive and very dangerous ways of thinking.
And I don't agree with you that you 'can't get away from them' or that 'they steer all sorts of fundamentals'. My experience is that they are almost always illusions that delude people into facile and naïve ways of thinking.
The leopard was supposed to eat THEIR face. Not mine. Mine is sacred. Are you seriously saying that voting in a way which leads to people losing their face is in their interest, because it's the decision they made?
No, not at all—just that they think that their own faces are immune, and then they find out they’re not. They didn’t realize they were voting against their own interests until afterwards.
We could just say, “Why do people vote against their own interests?”
We could. But I take the question in the OP to be a different question—why do electorates made decisions not in the interests of the electorate or of the society in which they’re the electorate.
So, not why did some in the electorate vote for Trump, but why did the electorate as a whole elect Trump? Not why did some in the electorate vote for Brexit, but why did the electorate as a whole approve Brexit?
I’m sorry, but I don’t know what you’re trying to say here that makes it different. Could you elaborate?
One question asks why an individual made the choice that individual made.
The other question asks why a group of people made the decision that group made.
I imagine because a majority of those individuals in the group made their choices.
We could just say, “Why do people vote against their own interests?”
We could. But I take the question in the OP to be a different question—why do electorates made decisions not in the interests of the electorate or of the society in which they’re the electorate.
So, not why did some in the electorate vote for Trump, but why did the electorate as a whole elect Trump? Not why did some in the electorate vote for Brexit, but why did the electorate as a whole approve Brexit?
I’m sorry, but I don’t know what you’re trying to say here that makes it different. Could you elaborate?
One question asks why an individual made the choice that individual made.
The other question asks why a group of people made the decision that group made.
I imagine because a majority of those individuals in the group made their choices.
Well, yes, that’s obvious. But it doesn’t answer the question why a majority of people made that choice.
Understanding why this voter or that voter voted for Trump or Brexit isn’t the same as understanding why a majority of voters voted for Trump or Brexit.
[I just accidentally pressed "post comment" before I'd typed anything and it came up in scary red writing "BODY IS REQUIRED". How very incarnational.]
I have two thoughts about why people vote and both are pretty cynical about human nature, the "we" I thought the opening post referred to.
1) Voters/people often imagine that whatever the politicians offer pre-election will be added to what they have already. They don't envision losing anything. So if a party offers tax cuts, they won't have thought what they'll lose to pay for them, for example.
2) Voters/people quite often vote against what they hate rather than for what they like. This may be a UK phenomenon particularly - I don't know enough about other countries to be sure. I certainly remember a whole school of opinion voting against proportional representation in order to annoy the politician who was proposing it.
If you put those two things together it's very easy to end up voting in a non-enlightenment-approved non-rational way, for a party who've made a bunch of big promises you listened to, and a bunch of big threats that you didn't really absorb as real, and whose election will really p*ss off those smug guys over there that you hate.
I certainly remember a whole school of opinion voting against proportional representation in order to annoy the politician who was proposing it.
I don't remember a vote on PR. When was this?
I'm meaning the Nick Clegg proposals leading to a referendum in the early Coalition years so some time after 2010. Now you mention it I remember it maybe wasn't actually PR that was being voted on it was some other change to the voting system, but the point I was making was about people voting against it because they wished to annoy Nick Clegg.
I certainly remember a whole school of opinion voting against proportional representation in order to annoy the politician who was proposing it.
I don't remember a vote on PR. When was this?
I'm meaning the Nick Clegg proposals leading to a referendum in the early Coalition years so some time after 2010. Now you mention it I remember it maybe wasn't actually PR that was being voted on it was some other change to the voting system, but the point I was making was about people voting against it because they wished to annoy Nick Clegg.
It was the "miserable little compromise" AV which was expected to give less proportional results than FPTP.
We could just say, “Why do people vote against their own interests?”
We could. But I take the question in the OP to be a different question—why do electorates made decisions not in the interests of the electorate or of the society in which they’re the electorate.
So, not why did some in the electorate vote for Trump, but why did the electorate as a whole elect Trump? Not why did some in the electorate vote for Brexit, but why did the electorate as a whole approve Brexit?
I’m sorry, but I don’t know what you’re trying to say here that makes it different. Could you elaborate?
One question asks why an individual made the choice that individual made.
The other question asks why a group of people made the decision that group made.
I imagine because a majority of those individuals in the group made their choices.
Well, yes, that’s obvious. But it doesn’t answer the question why a majority of people made that choice.
Understanding why this voter or that voter voted for Trump or Brexit isn’t the same as understanding why a majority of voters voted for Trump or Brexit.
Well, if you add them all together (like with a survey asking them why), then you'd have a clearer answer, I assume.
We could just say, “Why do people vote against their own interests?”
We could. But I take the question in the OP to be a different question—why do electorates made decisions not in the interests of the electorate or of the society in which they’re the electorate.
So, not why did some in the electorate vote for Trump, but why did the electorate as a whole elect Trump? Not why did some in the electorate vote for Brexit, but why did the electorate as a whole approve Brexit?
I’m sorry, but I don’t know what you’re trying to say here that makes it different. Could you elaborate?
One question asks why an individual made the choice that individual made.
The other question asks why a group of people made the decision that group made.
I imagine because a majority of those individuals in the group made their choices.
Well, yes, that’s obvious. But it doesn’t answer the question why a majority of people made that choice.
Understanding why this voter or that voter voted for Trump or Brexit isn’t the same as understanding why a majority of voters voted for Trump or Brexit.
Well, if you add them all together (like with a survey asking them why), then you'd have a clearer answer, I assume.
Maybe, maybe not.
But whether you would or not, why a majority of voters voted a particular way is still a different question from why an individual voter voted a particular way.
We could just say, “Why do people vote against their own interests?”
We could. But I take the question in the OP to be a different question—why do electorates made decisions not in the interests of the electorate or of the society in which they’re the electorate.
So, not why did some in the electorate vote for Trump, but why did the electorate as a whole elect Trump? Not why did some in the electorate vote for Brexit, but why did the electorate as a whole approve Brexit?
I’m sorry, but I don’t know what you’re trying to say here that makes it different. Could you elaborate?
One question asks why an individual made the choice that individual made.
The other question asks why a group of people made the decision that group made.
I imagine because a majority of those individuals in the group made their choices.
Well, yes, that’s obvious. But it doesn’t answer the question why a majority of people made that choice.
Understanding why this voter or that voter voted for Trump or Brexit isn’t the same as understanding why a majority of voters voted for Trump or Brexit.
Well, if you add them all together (like with a survey asking them why), then you'd have a clearer answer, I assume.
Maybe, maybe not.
But whether you would or not, why a majority of voters voted a particular way is still a different question from why an individual voter voted a particular way.
Well, yeah--it's why this one and this one and this one etc. voted that way, with percentages, etc. who voted for one reason or another. To me it's not that different a question. Of course people in groups can affect each other's attitudes as well.
Unfortunately, "I voted to punish those other people" is often why they vote for the leopards to eat others' faces.
Sadly, yes. The videos I've seen from certain gatherings and rallies and products (t-shirts, etc.) suggest as much. (Though I think those of us on the left need to beware that attitude as well, and maybe ask ourselves why people feel an impulse to punish our "side." But that could be its own thread.)
(Though I think those of us on the left need to beware that attitude as well, and maybe ask ourselves why people feel an impulse to punish our "side." But that could be its own thread.)
That sounds a lot like asking why an abuser beats their spouse. That they didn't have dinner ready on time may be the excuse but it's not the reason nor is it a justification.
(Though I think those of us on the left need to beware that attitude as well, and maybe ask ourselves why people feel an impulse to punish our "side." But that could be its own thread.)
That sounds a lot like asking why an abuser beats their spouse. That they didn't have dinner ready on time may be the excuse but it's not the reason nor is it a justification.
One reason might be they the left have destroyed their world, where whatever prejudice or bigotry they particularly like was normal and shared by nearly everyone. That's what they mean when they see Halal in the canteen or mixed race couples on the telly or gay couples adopting and say "the world's gone mad".
(Though I think those of us on the left need to beware that attitude as well, and maybe ask ourselves why people feel an impulse to punish our "side." But that could be its own thread.)
That sounds a lot like asking why an abuser beats their spouse. That they didn't have dinner ready on time may be the excuse but it's not the reason nor is it a justification.
One reason might be they the left have destroyed their world, where whatever prejudice or bigotry they particularly like was normal and shared by nearly everyone. That's what they mean when they see Halal in the canteen or mixed race couples on the telly or gay couples adopting and say "the world's gone mad".
The idea that one's problems can be directly caused by an amorphous but identifiable group of other people is a particularly sticky one.
A young man can't get a permanent job in a university department? It must be because all those less untalented women are taking up all the jobs because of "woke" policies of the university. Even though nobody can actually point to an untalented woman, the truth stops being important.
It certainly does not help that the Left is incredibly timid and too often allows the Far-Right to determine the shape of public debate.
(Though I think those of us on the left need to beware that attitude as well, and maybe ask ourselves why people feel an impulse to punish our "side." But that could be its own thread.)
That sounds a lot like asking why an abuser beats their spouse. That they didn't have dinner ready on time may be the excuse but it's not the reason nor is it a justification.
One reason might be they the left have destroyed their world, where whatever prejudice or bigotry they particularly like was normal and shared by nearly everyone. That's what they mean when they see Halal in the canteen or mixed race couples on the telly or gay couples adopting and say "the world's gone mad".
The idea that one's problems can be directly caused by an amorphous but identifiable group of other people is a particularly sticky one.
A young man can't get a permanent job in a university department? It must be because all those less untalented women are taking up all the jobs because of "woke" policies of the university. Even though nobody can actually point to an untalented woman, the truth stops being important.
It certainly does not help that the Left is incredibly timid and too often allows the Far-Right to determine the shape of public debate.
I confess I leave too much misinformation unchallenged on social media because frankly, mental health self care matters and I don't want the abuse.
(Though I think those of us on the left need to beware that attitude as well, and maybe ask ourselves why people feel an impulse to punish our "side." But that could be its own thread.)
That sounds a lot like asking why an abuser beats their spouse. That they didn't have dinner ready on time may be the excuse but it's not the reason nor is it a justification.
One reason might be they the left have destroyed their world, where whatever prejudice or bigotry they particularly like was normal and shared by nearly everyone. That's what they mean when they see Halal in the canteen or mixed race couples on the telly or gay couples adopting and say "the world's gone mad".
The idea that one's problems can be directly caused by an amorphous but identifiable group of other people is a particularly sticky one.
A young man can't get a permanent job in a university department? It must be because all those less untalented women are taking up all the jobs because of "woke" policies of the university. Even though nobody can actually point to an untalented woman, the truth stops being important.
It certainly does not help that the Left is incredibly timid and too often allows the Far-Right to determine the shape of public debate.
I confess I leave too much misinformation unchallenged on social media because frankly, mental health self care matters and I don't want the abuse.
That sounds sensible. You really do have to put your own oxygen mask on before helping others.
(Though I think those of us on the left need to beware that attitude as well, and maybe ask ourselves why people feel an impulse to punish our "side." But that could be its own thread.)
That sounds a lot like asking why an abuser beats their spouse. That they didn't have dinner ready on time may be the excuse but it's not the reason nor is it a justification.
Except it's not like asking that, and as I said, I think the impulse to "punish" the "other side" is not at all only on one "side."
And I do think that the impulse to "punish" the left bears examining. But again, I think that deserves its own thread. I know that Kamala Harris and others (Cory Booker) want to have the "autopsy" on what went wrong in the 2024 presidential campaign--one thing I have heard from various sources, and I'd be curious to see if this is borne out by the "autopsy," is the sense that those of us on the left are always lecturing or talking down to people who are not on the left. That we're smug in our educated self-righteousness. That kind of thing can breed resentment (which can be understandable). And that kind of resentment can be tapped into. Figuring out how to avoid that could be vital for both future elections and for just treating people better and having genuine dialogue.
You cannot counter emotional tirades with facts. The Far-Right is about vibes and feelings and at the moment this sets the agenda.
There is a narrative that suggests Trump is setting his agenda based on seeing himself as a wrestling character - including the trash-talk, the lies, the backstories and weird alliances. Where it exists in a kind of make-believe where fans know what is happening is not real and yet allow it to shape their reality because it is fun and flamboyant.
The rest of the English-speaking world is not really on the same page with this agenda, but we have our own tinpot versions and tricksters trying their luck with the same thing.
The Left almost never engage in this kind of thing because even if you do not like the agenda, there is clearly one there. Leftist populists, particularly in the English-speaking world, do not really exist in any substantive way. Those from "the left" who are in power almost everywhere at the moment are actually grey centrists who seem to be pandering to the agenda of the Far-Right.
I confess I leave too much misinformation unchallenged on social media because frankly, mental health self care matters and I don't want the abuse.
I think there's also a thing where arguing with people in public onlyh gives them more attention.
Sometimes, shunning really is the best approach. Sadly, that takes social discipline, which is something that liberals aren't good at.
Arguing with folks, in my experience, tends to inspire them to reinforce their prejudice. And it strengthens their arguments in a world where the marketplace of ideas is debased to a war zone.
Those from "the left" who are in power almost everywhere at the moment are actually grey centrists who seem to be pandering to the agenda of the Far-Right.
We're going to have to disagree about this.
Where it exists in a kind of make-believe where fans know what is happening is not real and yet allow it to shape their reality because it is fun and flamboyant.
I don't honestly get this impression from the majority of Trump fans I've encountered, met, and known.
Those from "the left" who are in power almost everywhere at the moment are actually grey centrists who seem to be pandering to the agenda of the Far-Right.
We're going to have to disagree about this.
Where it exists in a kind of make-believe where fans know what is happening is not real and yet allow it to shape their reality because it is fun and flamboyant.
I don't honestly get this impression from the majority of Trump fans I've encountered, met, and known.
Name a leftist politician in power in a liberal democracy who can be considered a populist.
I think we underestimate the role of religion in some people voting to have the leopards eat their faces. There are plenty people from identities targeted by the far right who support them because they have been brought up to reject or convinced to attack certain other groups, rights and values which the far right also target.
Arguably Corbyn was a left populist and so is Zack Polanski.
It manifests itself in a different way to right-wing populism but it's still populist in tone.
Rather than 'arguably, I would have thought it is very difficult to argue otherwise.
On the one hand this is a very strange position for a pro-European liberal to take, as the majority of the policies proposed by both generally represent left/right consensus in other European countries and on a number of other issues their positions are uncontroversial appeals to liberalism (equality, committent to international law etc.)
Stylistically you could make the case somewhat for Polanski and less so for Corbyn (who despite being an atheist was Christian-Socialist in style)
I think we underestimate the role of religion in some people voting to have the leopards eat their faces. There are plenty people from identities targeted by the far right who support them because they have been brought up to reject or convinced to attack certain other groups, rights and values which the far right also target.
Oh aye; additionally I see unbelievable amounts of social media comment that work on the simplistic basis that left = atheist = evil; conservative = Christian = good.
And there's the single issue abortion votes as well, of course.
Name a leftist politician in power in a liberal democracy who can be considered a populist.
I’m guessing this is in reference to my disagreement with your claim:
Those from "the left" who are in power almost everywhere at the moment are actually grey centrists who seem to be pandering to the agenda of the Far-Right.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see what you’re driving at here.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon counts as a populist, I think. He's never succeeded in being elected President of the Republic, but in a (hypothetical) two way race with the fash I reckon he'd be in with a fighting chance.
Populism presents a society as a conflict between the people and the elites. Left-populism identifies the elites straightforwardly in terms of wealth. I don't know if there's a distinction between left-populism and leftism in general; I suppose you could say that the less intellectual in style the more populist. Right populism just identifies the elites as educated people. The other vicious aspect of right populism is that once you start identifying elites as not the people it's easy to identify other less elite groups as not the people either. I suppose that's one reason for an anti-semitic strain that used to crop up in left-populism from time to time.
I would add an extra aspect to your definition @Dafyd . It is also obsessed by those perceived to be unjustly enriched or assisted by "them", the system in its current form. In left populism, that is the wealthy. In right populism, this is an identified group - immigrants, Jews, gays, trans people, neurodivergent people, non-white people, etc etc etc. The list is potentially endless.
I’m on the left and I hold it as absolutely true that excessive wealth and a society that permits, promotes and encourages avarice is inherently evil. Moreover, that is exactly what we have in UK and (it appears) the USA too. Not sure about other places: Russia, some of the Baltic states (ex-USSR).
Does that make me a populist? Or a straight down the line socialist?
Yes, I agree, @sionisais. This question occurred as I was writing. This all depends on what "populist" means: it would be possible to argue that all true left-wing politics is/are populist, in that the interests of the mass of the people, rather than an elite or other identified particular group, are the focus of effort.
I agree it depends on how you define popularism. There different types of leftists as there are on the right.
Some people who I know who lean right do not want Tommy (ten names) Robinson anywhere near politics. He is too far right. Apparently his protest this weekend in London was a bit of a disaster
Sorry, you meant a European liberal populist. Off hand, I cannot think of any, but I am sure there has got to be one or two somewhere. Maybe France.
*In power* was specified, not merely in elected office. Mamdani might qualify, but what makes him "populist" rather than merely "popular"?
Depends on how you define in power. Bernie is the senior minority member of the US Senate Military and Veterans Affairs Committee. He knows how to use that status to move legislation as the minority leader.
It is only a few months away when we will see a change in Congress. AOC just might be in the party that will have power.
Mamdani fits the populist mode in that he came out of the proletariat, and he is taking on the financial barons of the city. He is going up against the real estate developers, corporate landlords, private equity interests and the transit and grocery monopolies. His agenda is all about ordinary people reclaiming power. Oh, and he is popular.
@Gramps49, Zohran Mamdani may be a populist but he is decidedly not from the proletariat. His father, Mahmood Mamdani, is an academic who has an endowed chair at Columbia University, and his mother, Mira Nair, is a filmmaker who has won numerous prestigious international awards for her films.
Comments
This is, of course, true. Politicians lie, dissemble, tell half truths, and/or change their minds about things once they’re in power. The cliche could as easily be “I never thought they’d raise my taxes, says person who voted for the ‘tax the rich’ party”.
Why try to "both sides" something with a hypothetical? If it's genuinely "both sides" can you not find examples of the phenomenon?
Our local fash (the Rassemblement National) are bankrolled by billionaires. As a consequence, if you look at their voting record, you realise that they consistently vote for stuff that benefits the rich over modest working people. For example, they voted against taxing the ultra rich, and against raising the minimum wage.
Nonetheless they have somehow managed to convince many low income white French people that they are championing their cause by being mean to immigrants.
It's not about lying. It's about voters not believing that the Far-Right fascists are serious about their agenda when they say what they are going to do.
For example Trump is not really doing much in terms of national policy that was not advertised at the election.
The general assumption of the Enlightenment was that human beings were reasonable creatures and therefore society as a whole was reasonable. But it sounds like you don't like generalisations.
Unfortunately we can't get away from them. They steer all sorts of fundamentals.
I think the way we cover politics doesn't help. For example unless you are the sort who reads the manifesto, there are a lot of policies parties have including very good ones you just wont hear about while the news is dominated with who liked what on social media and who might be challenging who's leadership but there"s not much about what people are actually getting policy wise if they vote for a party.
And I don't agree with you that you 'can't get away from them' or that 'they steer all sorts of fundamentals'. My experience is that they are almost always illusions that delude people into facile and naïve ways of thinking.
No, not at all—just that they think that their own faces are immune, and then they find out they’re not. They didn’t realize they were voting against their own interests until afterwards.
I imagine because a majority of those individuals in the group made their choices.
Understanding why this voter or that voter voted for Trump or Brexit isn’t the same as understanding why a majority of voters voted for Trump or Brexit.
I have two thoughts about why people vote and both are pretty cynical about human nature, the "we" I thought the opening post referred to.
1) Voters/people often imagine that whatever the politicians offer pre-election will be added to what they have already. They don't envision losing anything. So if a party offers tax cuts, they won't have thought what they'll lose to pay for them, for example.
2) Voters/people quite often vote against what they hate rather than for what they like. This may be a UK phenomenon particularly - I don't know enough about other countries to be sure. I certainly remember a whole school of opinion voting against proportional representation in order to annoy the politician who was proposing it.
If you put those two things together it's very easy to end up voting in a non-enlightenment-approved non-rational way, for a party who've made a bunch of big promises you listened to, and a bunch of big threats that you didn't really absorb as real, and whose election will really p*ss off those smug guys over there that you hate.
I don't remember a vote on PR. When was this?
I'm meaning the Nick Clegg proposals leading to a referendum in the early Coalition years so some time after 2010. Now you mention it I remember it maybe wasn't actually PR that was being voted on it was some other change to the voting system, but the point I was making was about people voting against it because they wished to annoy Nick Clegg.
It was the "miserable little compromise" AV which was expected to give less proportional results than FPTP.
Well, if you add them all together (like with a survey asking them why), then you'd have a clearer answer, I assume.
But whether you would or not, why a majority of voters voted a particular way is still a different question from why an individual voter voted a particular way.
Well, yeah--it's why this one and this one and this one etc. voted that way, with percentages, etc. who voted for one reason or another. To me it's not that different a question. Of course people in groups can affect each other's attitudes as well.
Sadly, yes. The videos I've seen from certain gatherings and rallies and products (t-shirts, etc.) suggest as much. (Though I think those of us on the left need to beware that attitude as well, and maybe ask ourselves why people feel an impulse to punish our "side." But that could be its own thread.)
There have been a bunch of videos (on YouTube) from The Daily Show with Jordan Klepper going to Trump rallies in particular...
That sounds a lot like asking why an abuser beats their spouse. That they didn't have dinner ready on time may be the excuse but it's not the reason nor is it a justification.
One reason might be they the left have destroyed their world, where whatever prejudice or bigotry they particularly like was normal and shared by nearly everyone. That's what they mean when they see Halal in the canteen or mixed race couples on the telly or gay couples adopting and say "the world's gone mad".
The idea that one's problems can be directly caused by an amorphous but identifiable group of other people is a particularly sticky one.
A young man can't get a permanent job in a university department? It must be because all those less untalented women are taking up all the jobs because of "woke" policies of the university. Even though nobody can actually point to an untalented woman, the truth stops being important.
It certainly does not help that the Left is incredibly timid and too often allows the Far-Right to determine the shape of public debate.
I confess I leave too much misinformation unchallenged on social media because frankly, mental health self care matters and I don't want the abuse.
That sounds sensible. You really do have to put your own oxygen mask on before helping others.
Except it's not like asking that, and as I said, I think the impulse to "punish" the "other side" is not at all only on one "side."
And I do think that the impulse to "punish" the left bears examining. But again, I think that deserves its own thread. I know that Kamala Harris and others (Cory Booker) want to have the "autopsy" on what went wrong in the 2024 presidential campaign--one thing I have heard from various sources, and I'd be curious to see if this is borne out by the "autopsy," is the sense that those of us on the left are always lecturing or talking down to people who are not on the left. That we're smug in our educated self-righteousness. That kind of thing can breed resentment (which can be understandable). And that kind of resentment can be tapped into. Figuring out how to avoid that could be vital for both future elections and for just treating people better and having genuine dialogue.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2028-election/kamala-harris-dnc-release-autopsy-report-2024-campaign-rcna343453
There is a narrative that suggests Trump is setting his agenda based on seeing himself as a wrestling character - including the trash-talk, the lies, the backstories and weird alliances. Where it exists in a kind of make-believe where fans know what is happening is not real and yet allow it to shape their reality because it is fun and flamboyant.
The rest of the English-speaking world is not really on the same page with this agenda, but we have our own tinpot versions and tricksters trying their luck with the same thing.
The Left almost never engage in this kind of thing because even if you do not like the agenda, there is clearly one there. Leftist populists, particularly in the English-speaking world, do not really exist in any substantive way. Those from "the left" who are in power almost everywhere at the moment are actually grey centrists who seem to be pandering to the agenda of the Far-Right.
It manifests itself in a different way to right-wing populism but it's still populist in tone.
I think there's also a thing where arguing with people in public onlyh gives them more attention.
Sometimes, shunning really is the best approach. Sadly, that takes social discipline, which is something that liberals aren't good at.
Arguing with folks, in my experience, tends to inspire them to reinforce their prejudice. And it strengthens their arguments in a world where the marketplace of ideas is debased to a war zone.
We're going to have to disagree about this.
I don't honestly get this impression from the majority of Trump fans I've encountered, met, and known.
Name a leftist politician in power in a liberal democracy who can be considered a populist.
Here's an article about Trump and wrestling https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/04/19/donald-trump-pro-wrestling-wwe-00298303
On the one hand this is a very strange position for a pro-European liberal to take, as the majority of the policies proposed by both generally represent left/right consensus in other European countries and on a number of other issues their positions are uncontroversial appeals to liberalism (equality, committent to international law etc.)
Stylistically you could make the case somewhat for Polanski and less so for Corbyn (who despite being an atheist was Christian-Socialist in style)
Oh aye; additionally I see unbelievable amounts of social media comment that work on the simplistic basis that left = atheist = evil; conservative = Christian = good.
And there's the single issue abortion votes as well, of course.
I’m guessing this is in reference to my disagreement with your claim:
I’m sorry, but I don’t see what you’re driving at here.
Bernie Sanders?
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez?
Zohran Mamdani?
Sorry, you meant a European liberal populist. Off hand, I cannot think of any, but I am sure there has got to be one or two somewhere. Maybe France.
*In power* was specified, not merely in elected office. Mamdani might qualify, but what makes him "populist" rather than merely "popular"?
Does that make me a populist? Or a straight down the line socialist?
Some people who I know who lean right do not want Tommy (ten names) Robinson anywhere near politics. He is too far right. Apparently his protest this weekend in London was a bit of a disaster
Depends on how you define in power. Bernie is the senior minority member of the US Senate Military and Veterans Affairs Committee. He knows how to use that status to move legislation as the minority leader.
It is only a few months away when we will see a change in Congress. AOC just might be in the party that will have power.
Mamdani fits the populist mode in that he came out of the proletariat, and he is taking on the financial barons of the city. He is going up against the real estate developers, corporate landlords, private equity interests and the transit and grocery monopolies. His agenda is all about ordinary people reclaiming power. Oh, and he is popular.