Cruz out, Sanders takes IN

[The Comrade]

american populism is decidedly right-wing.

[Philly]

Populism can have leftist elements to it. Huey Long was a left wing economic populist. He was also of course, a crook, a conman, and a complete fraud, but that's beside the point.

Right now the GOP voter base is underachieving, unsophisticated, poorly uneducated white people. As it happens, that's the perfect profile for a potential supporter if you're running a populist campaign.

The Democratic base is minorities and educated white people. Minorities are justifiably weary of populism since it's just the political equivalent of angry mob of white people in search of a convenient scapegoat for all their problems. And educated white people hate populism because it's based on the premise that their education, experience with problem solving in complex situations, and ability to use critical thinking are all meaningless.

So as long as the GOP remains in their current form, populism will necessarily be right wing, because only the conservative party has the proper demographics to support populism. But there's no static rule that poor, uneducated whites will always associate with the more conservative of the two parties. We've had shifts before and it can happen again. There have been times in our history when a thriving intellectual conservative movement existed. Trump didn't kill it. It died before he showed up, but now he's here to feed on its flesh.

The intellectualism of the left may one day be devoured by a new breed of mouth breather liberals, and if it does, a liberal populist could rise a la Trump.

[John Galt]

it's a relatively novel development for populism to be on "the right" (social conservatives). but occupy wall street is still a thing. bernie sanders is still a thing. so, no, it isn't "decidedly" right wing

[Spider]

[JockandBallTorture]

[The Comrade]

[John Galt]

[Philly]

[JockandBallTorture]

[Philly]

Correct Josh. I think we are in agreement. The Affordable Care Act would be a prime example of what I consider bad "moderate" policy. It's not "moderate" because it's a well measured thoughtful policy. It's "moderate" because The Obama Administration made concessions to the pharmaceutical industry and the hospital industry and the insurance industry to keep them from going to war against the bill. The things conceded were much of where the cost savings would have come from. These were not changes that make the bill more palatable for those outside of the ideological left. Just changes that make the bill less effective.

And that's what you get a lot of under the banner of moderation these days. Instead of saying "here's a different plan that uses a new, more moderate approach", they say "we'll give your plan a chance, but to make it more moderate, let's try implementing it with one arm tied behind our backs".

In other words, the liberal says we should fire up the grill and cook some steaks. The conservative says that we can't afford the steak or the propane and suggests eating tuna directly from the can instead. The moderate I'd like to see suggests chicken and rice. The moderates we actually have says that we should compromise by getting the steaks for the grill but not turn the grill on so we save propane.