According to the The Democracy Fund Voter Study, this group (populists) aren't marketed to by any party, but Trump marketed toward them more than Clinton.
Also, for the graph "economical liberal" means big-spending, not free-market. Notice how few libertarians there are.
Who here is for big gvmt spending, but is also actually reactionary?
leftypol auto correct so cially co nservative to actually reactionary
so I feel I won't get too many takers
but anyway they are the second largest voting bloc
28%+ of Americans
"Liberal (44.6 percent): Lower left, liberal on both economic and identity issues
Populist (28.9 percent): Upper left, liberal on economic issues, conservative on identity issues
Conservative (22.7 percent): Upper right, conservative on both economic and identity issues
Libertarian (3.8 percent): Lower right, conservative on economics, liberal on identity issues"
Holla Forums converts.
Lolberts have always punched above their weight class because they get a lot of funding.
You can't just post that image and expect us to take it for granted. How to they define the measures used on the axes? What does it mean to be economically liberal and how is it different from the other end? Why is it "social/identity"? Does that mean that they identify as liberal or conservative or do they actually support policies that the authors claim to be liberal and conservative? Etc.
All of us want democratic and collective ownership over the means of production, not "big govt spending".
We all know what this means.
I wouldn't need a study to tell you that. Everybody actually hates that lolbert bullshit, you should go to any right-wing rally, whether it be Trump, Front National, PEGIDA or whatever - everytime something like workers rights are mentioned people cheer. The thing is, people who vote right don't do so because of their economic policies, but because their boogeyman of the left is worse.
I can see this shit with my own parents as well. They absolutely fucking love left-wing policies but when I get them to vote for a party advocating it, they say they will never do it because the thing with the refugees is just insanity.
This. Absolutely this.
OP here
populism does not equal Not Socialism,
because traditionalism does not equal nationalism
"Unlike nationalists, who esteem the role of the State or nation over the local or regional community, traditionalists hold up patriotism as a key principle. Traditionalist conservatives think that loyalty to a locality or region is more central than any commitment to a larger political entity. Traditionalists also welcome the value of subsidiarity and the intimacy of one's community, preferring the Civil Society of Burke's "little platoons" over the expanded state. Alternately, nationalism leads to jingoism and views the state as abstract from the local community and family structure rather than as an outgrowth of these local realities."
replace "Not Socialism" with fa scism in that post
another auto-replace
I mean, why most left wing parties insist on the immgiration bullshit?
If they dropped that they would have basically won in most places.
...
in the American context it just means pro-free market
with economic liberal meaning anti-free market
and that's the problem. the definitions are absolutely retarded.
which is why I specified what they meant in the OP
It's not just the immigration, its the way the mainstream, and to an extent, the alternative left presents itself. There is an inherent call-out culture amongst the left, instead of trying to bring people in they tell everybody to self-criticize. Let's say some white guy comes into a leftist meeting because he's dissatisfied with his situation and says a migrant took his job. Now, be honest, what do you think would the response be of 95% of all leftist orgas?
Obviously the peak perpetuators of the lefts demise are neoliberal hillbots who ridicule Trump voters for their "economic anxiety" - and the right has managed to portray them as left, and worse, they call themselves left! This is fundamentally different from right-wingers, the obnoxious lolbert would not call himself right-winger - therefore, the right doesn't need to explain for all these embarrassing people in their camp. Meanwhile, every fucking neolib who's for gay marriage counts himself on the left and the entire left us forced to collectively apologize for that. All this shit, and of course stuff like trans issues, drive people to the right. No, seriously, I'm not for discrimination of trans people, but you have to realize that extreme forms of sexual deviances will always be massively unliked amongst the majority of the population.
However, you see how the right-wing snake oil salesmen have shifted entirely onto the "culture war" - they've realized that praising capitalism isn't really something that attracts people. It's awkward as fuck when one of these people like holds a speech and praises the white working class, but then comes to the part where he says that capitalsm is great and you should pull yourself up on your bootstraps. The applause in these cases is often hesitant and awkward. Yet people subscribe to capitalist ideologues because they thinking of it as a bitter pill they have to swallow to restore what they perceive as a golden past.
I think it's time to take gay and trans people out of the avant-garde of left propaganda/marketing
we won their wars, and you are right, now the hyperfocusing is getting embarassing and driving people to the righ
the only mass public force in my local government was a pro-trans group and anti-trans group, with the anti-trans group more grassroots mobilized.
This is honestly the future feminists will deliver to us unless we ban them from all our meetings.
i forget where but i do remember seeing a study that corroborates this. the main take was that the ruling elite's ideology was both more socially liberal and economically conservative than what the vast majority of regular people are comfortable with and thats why voting turnout and engagement tends to be low.
because of idpol. historically the left was against immigration because it weakens labor's bargaining power. it was actually the right that always granted amnesty to immigrants. reagan, the bushes, clinton.
this study says that the populists you are mentioning are the second largest voting bloc, larger than conservatives
They also tend to be anti-elitist
We've gone through a few iterations of elites pretending to be populists, but any good form of populism, is actually reactionary, fiscally progressive,and anti-elitst
In absolute terms, this means that a third party like Solidarity Party should have a significant amount of the vote. However anyone that spent some time reading up on the American electoral and political system will come to find that unlike in most democracies, it is completely rigged and doctored to allow only for the existence of the Republican and Democratic party. This isn't even something that can be reduced to just their shitty FPTP system as other countries also using it, or a variant thereof (UK - 7.5 parties represented in Westminster, Australia - 10 parties with parliamentary representation) have a healthy number of 3rd parties that can shoot for relevance even in a system that does tend to be largely dominated by 2 parties.
In the US, the problems go much deeper, 3rd parties face straight up discrimination from establishment media, they're excluded from any public debates, they are nigh unable to even get registered in most states with obscure rules thrown in their way and a thousand other problems.
The Rs and Ds keep this system because it allows them complete monopoly over the ballots. They don't have to accurately reflect the needs of the voting demographic but can easily allow their policies to be shaped by corporate donors without any repercussions as the people are forced to either vote for one of them, or simply not vote.
IMHO leftist parties in the US absolutely have to participate to the broad front coalition formed by the Libertarian and Green parties in their fight for electoral reform, because without a thorough shakeup of the established political system and the transition from oligarchy to democracy, nothing can be achieved.
oh.. that's exactly the sort of party I'm talking about…
Yea it'd have to become a Democratic front group to win elections . You CAN influence politics as a third party it's just much harder and much more masochistic.
This group will generally be large because the economy is "nerd stuff" and tends to be pretty emotionally dull so people will just go with what makes sense, while social policies revolve around emotional investment into culture and values. Populism is more or less the "natural" position for your average alienated prole. General conservatism happens when you can convince them that economic issues are actually social issues. General liberalism happens when you convince them that social issues can be resolved the same way as economic issues.
This has been the modus operandi for the D.S.A. and look where that led them. The candidates they run under the Democratic name are only allowed so much leeway before the party bureaucracy steps in and puts them back inline (check the debacle with the D.S.A. candidate that supported BDS and got kicked out), trying to influence one of the 2 major parties when you're not supported by big corporate donors is something only the Evangelicals have ever achieved.
And even the major Evangelical leaders were filthy rich, which is what allowed them to bypass the corporate sponsorship.
You're talking about selling that to people who stopped reading at historical materialism and whose god is critical theory. The institutions that have created this mindset are entrenched lumpenprole creation machines
Fuck off with with cathfash nonsense
Furthermore, I'm not in any capacity saying that Holla Forums should join/support the ASP, I'm simply pointing out that if the US was a normal western democracy with proportional representation, the ASP would get some 25% of the vote, not 0.25%
SOCDEM GANG ASSEMBLE
between bread on the table or a cross on the wall they'll choose the cross until they're truly and utterly destitute and aware of their destitution
and even then, the moment they get on their feet they'll go back to the cross
I consider myself actually reactionary, but that doesn't mean I want my values made into law. I don't like slutty women, for example, and I'd prefer it if I could get married and make it into old age. I've already been divorced, so that's already a lost goal. Mostly, I'm just normal. I don't hate gays (sometimes I think it'd be easier to just be gay), and I don't hate trans people. I just won't go out of my way to appease them other than by calling them what they want.
looks like spooks matter.
I'd like to see the actual questions for this. Most surveys show that 10% of the population would fall in the fiscally conservative, socially liberal box.
I can't believe there's that many both fiscally and socially liberal people, this poll has to be fucked somehow.
Do you unironically believe people are against basic social security and public investment into infrastructure? I literally know nobody who propagates lolbert talking points outside of the internet. There are a few classical liberals but even they advertise digital and educational investements these days.
no; even most libertarians are for public control of infrastructure.
Most people, however, would like a greater degree of direct control over their savings, which is exactly what a 'classical liberal' plan would allow: a social security opt-out into a Roth IRA.
semantically, the phrase "fiscal liberalism" in the modoern American context means big gvmt spending, and yes people who support big gvmt spending and social liberalism are the largest voting bloc in the US
Problem is there are 3 meaningfully large voting blocs, not two.
I understand what liberalism in america means, I'm in disbelief because I always thought a majority of people subscribed to the cancerous "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" crowd
Not when it comes down to individual policies.
Also the Libertarian Party only gets low single digits, but if the loudness of internet voices decided elections, they'd win errytime.
The questions are full retard and weighted to produce a "COMMUNIST OR FASCIST!!!" dichotomy illusion that doesn't exist in America. Americans simply do not swing that far out from the center of the pole these days.
Wait, so Hillary voters were socially liberal but fiscal conservative?