Just wondering which one people prefer. Obviously populists are exciting, but they often support ideas that don't really work in practice and are prone to grandstanding and not really getting much of what they really want.
The pragmatic politician on the other hand often doesn't support much that gets people excited, but does try to work with folks who are actually in Congress to get more stuff done and what they work on tends to work when it gets made into law even if it ends up being rather mundane and benign in most people's opinion.
@mattbbpl: Who do you have in mind that represents both?
From a pure definition standpoint, I don't see how they're mutually exclusive:
Populist:
a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.
pragmatic
dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.
If you want an example of one would could be considered both, wouldn't Obama qualify? He addressed the healthcare system which was a popular goal at the time, but he recognized the failures of the 50 years prior to him and aimed for a modification that was should have theoretically been easier to pass politically because his opponents had recently proposed and enacted similar legislation.
Edit. For the record I don't tune into Tucker Carlson. I've just been contemplating people like Bernie, Trump, and Warren and comparring them to people who regularly get legislation passed such as Nancy Pelosi and considered how easily people get excited about the former and how easily people get down on the latter.
I think a better axis would be idealistic vs pragmatic. But even in the populist vs pragmatic I would choose pragmatic.
Good policy-making is not, based on ideal world policies, but adapting to the situation at hand.
I favored Bernie Sanders last election, because he seemed to be the best politician to deal issues of climate change, the lack of wall street regulation and automation (I do favor automization overall, but society has to lay the groundwork around it). Some of his ideas, seemed overly idealistic however, and I didnt favor those (especially his more protectionist side).
You don't get to pass laws without popular consensus.
Unless you are an African dictator. But even those countries are getting more democratic. You need to pull the crowds in.
If you just slip in after another politician without winning any elections, that's called the May effect and means you neither have to be intelligent or practical, just there.
Gordon Brown was a genius economist but he looks like Sadsack from the Raggy Dolls and everyone scoffed at him and his party kicked him out even though he would have been better for the country than Blair. Brown was like an old eastern block politician, used to having power but just earned it from hard work and service to the party over years. He had no idea how to play politics.
we have a Bernie Sanders of our own. He wears a cardigan to parliament and just sits there as far as I can see. He might win the next election just because he's not Theresa May, without any charisma or ideas as far as I can see.
Just saw a picture of one of histories great losers Ed Milliband. I'm Labour and even I think he would have been a disaster. He would have been way more embarrassing than George on the world stage.
He lost because he couldn't east a sandwich. In short, he's a dunce. He may have gone to politics college or whatever but he is a moron. He should have walked that election but managed to score an own goal from inside the enemy goal area.
Ed Milliband - Monumental moron
Jeremy Corbyn - Donkey from Winnie the Pooh.
@Valkeerie: I don't support technocracy.
Yeah but then you wouldn't get to live on planet Ix. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en3px5RLmZ4
Obama was supposed to be both. But he was just too chill. He didn't cut in the Congress ruff and tumble and he got very little done aport from 'Obama-care' at least as far as popular opinion goes. He promised too much in the end.
So I much prefer a pragmatic politician because I'm idealistic. But most people are more flexible in their thought and allow for new personalities to sway their influence whereas I am cynical so do loads of research to find, oh that charismatic dude on the tv is actually the son of a banking dynasty. Yet again. He will be sh*t.
But there's a reason the US has election campaign budgets that are eye watering.
You need cash to get into power in this media age. The tories pull so many tricks every time it's election time. You need to do something special to get the Conservatives out because they are damn tricksy.
Politics is war and personalities win elections. That's the reality.
Log in to comment