University of Oxford Debate: Populism vs. the Elite Establishment

[LevelUP]

Many people believe there is a horizontal culture war between the right and the left. However, some people are becoming aware of the growing vertical culture war between Populism and the Elite Establishment.

Social media companies such as TikTok represent populism in that the narratives and political movements are established by ordinary people and not the elite establishment. It is no wonder why the government is moving to censor or outright ban social media companies to limit their influence over society.

This is a two-sided debate that occurred recently at the University of Oxford.

Winston Marshall argues that populism is not a threat democracy, but rather is democracy itself.





Nancy Pelosi argues that populism is a threat to democracy due to voters being manipulated
https://youtu.be/VW8SnMRhExA?si=uihH2urRFGLouSAu

The Oxford Union voted in favour of the motion “This House Believes that Populism is a Threat to Democracy.” The final count had 177 members voting for the motion and 68 members voting against.

Note:
When they vote in favor of a motion, this vote is primarily symbolic. It represents the opinion of the participants in the debate and the audience present at the event, but it does not have any legislative or binding power. The outcome reflects the prevailing views and persuasive arguments presented during the debate, serving as an indication of public sentiment or student opinion on the issue at hand.

[sanantone]

Populism, by nature, operates off of divisiveness. They split people up into groups and demonize one or more groups. Right populism tends to demonize immigrants. On the extreme end, right populism is fascism. Left populism tends to split people up into socioeconomic classes. These days, most of the ire is directed at the wealthy and upper-middle class, but in the past, the ire was directed at the rising middle class that was previously poor. On the extreme end, left populism is communism. Contrary to their messaging, populism doesn't like social mobility, and equality feels like oppression.

Most of the people who have triggered populist movements on both sides were born into privileged families and were college-educated when most people didn't even finish high school. They were the elites. Today, we have Bernie and Donald; both of them are wealthy elites.

[LevelUP]

Traditional universities represent established, often elite institutions and are seen as gatekeepers of educational power and opportunities.

Whether you like it or not, everyone on this forum is part of a populist movement by supporting alternative methods of education, such as hacking degrees.

Alternative methods like ACE credit make college:

1. More accessible
   
   
2. More affordable
   
   
3. Faster to complete
   
   
4. Allow students to leverage existing knowledge
   
   
5. Allow students to maintain a work-life balance while earning college credits
   

This aligns with populist values of inclusivity and equal opportunity.

Populism, at its core, is about advocating for the interests and rights of the common people against those of the elite or established powers. While it is most commonly associated with political movements, the principles of populism can be applied in various other contexts, including economic, cultural, technological, educational, and social arenas.

[sanantone]

Left populism would see this as a sad consequence of capitalism and would call for all college education to be free. If someone can't afford to pay for credit-by-exam and ACE courses out of pocket, that wouldn't be considered equal opportunity.

As someone who was from an economically disadvantaged family and did not earn a lot of money when I joined this forum almost 15 years ago, I actually attended a community college and used my financial aid refund to pay for CLEPs and DSSTs. If it weren't for the Pell Grant, I wouldn't have been able to afford my first degrees from TESU. I was barely able to afford food for my younger sister and me. Work-life balance? What was that? I was trying to get as much overtime as possible. Luckily for me, I had some jobs that allowed me to work on my online classes or study for exams while at work.

Obama did propose a pilot program to allow financial aid to be used for CBEs, but I don't think that ever came to fruition, or the program didn't last long.

[inor]

Funny how populist leaders are usually elites themselves, huh? Kind of as if the whole "movement," if you even can call it that, is nothing but a grift to take advantage of those who feel powerless by making false promises to them that you'll make them powerful. 'Trust me, I have the easy solutions that """they""" don't want you to know about! Only 3 easy payments of a wrecked economy and civil society's breakdown!'

[Old Guy]

"Populism is a Threat to Democracy????" Giving the people want they want is a threat to democracy???? That must make sense to someone.

[sanantone]

"Populism is a Threat to Democracy????"  Giving the people want they want is a threat to democracy????  That must make sense to someone.

Are the majority of people populists? In the U.S., when's the last time a populist candidate has won the popular vote? The people in a populist movement can choose that they don't want a democracy. History has shown us, though, that they regretted that choice. 

Populism doesn't require majority consent because different populist movements have their own definitions of which people count in determining what's popular. People can be excluded from populist movements based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, socioeconomic class, religion, sex, political leanings, etc. For example, we currently have a right populist movement in the U.S. that is against abortion and doesn't want more gun regulations. However, the majority of the U.S. population supports access to abortions and at least some new gun regulations. Is the right populist movement being inclusive of what's popular among everyone or only what's popular among conservatives?

[LevelUP]

"Populism is a Threat to Democracy????"  Giving the people want they want is a threat to democracy????  That must make sense to someone.

You brought up a good point.

I think what is happening is a lot of these populist movements are being created by very unpopular (less than 25% support of people) government policies.

Going after farmers and threatening the food supply is a pretty unpopular position, sparking populist movements in Europe.

Are the majority of people populists? In the U.S., when's the last time a populist candidate has won the popular vote? The people in a populist movement can choose that they don't want a democracy. History has shown us, though, that they regretted that choice. 

Populism doesn't require majority consent because different populist movements have their own definitions of which people count in determining what's popular. People can be excluded from populist movements based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, socioeconomic class, religion, sex, political leanings, etc. For example, we currently have a right populist movement in the U.S. that is against abortion and doesn't want more gun regulations. However, the majority of the U.S. population supports access to abortions and at least some new gun regulations. Is the right populist movement being inclusive of what's popular among everyone or only what's popular among conservatives?

There are some on the right that want a compromise on abortion. Even Trump warned that extremist positions, such as the new Florida abortion law, could end up driving people away from the party. There is a risk of populist movement for abortion rights as 41% of Republicans believe abortion should be legal in all/most cases)

[Old Guy]

Abortion, the burning issue of the 1970s. Despite all the whining there is no place in the United States where you can't get an abortion and there hasn't been for over 50 years. It's all political BS. The vast majority of people believe there should be limits on killing viable children.

[sanantone]

Abortion, the burning issue of the 1970s.  Despite all the whining there is no place in the United States where you can't get an abortion and there hasn't been for over 50 years.  It's all political BS.  The vast majority of people believe there should be limits on killing viable children.

That's because voters keep rejecting proposed bans.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/electio...-rcna99031

The restrictions in some states are still restrictive enough that some women have been unable to get abortions for medical reasons. This child was not viable, and this woman was in and out of the emergency room. She had to go to another state to terminate the pregnancy.

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/11/...-kate-cox/