Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte hailed his victory over right-wing challenger Geert Wilders on Wednesday as a rejection of the "wrong kind of populism," as Europeans anxiously watching the election held out hope for similar outcomes in Germany and France.
That is a relief. The people of the US actually rejected Trump as Clinton won by almost 3 million votes but due to the ridiculous electoral college which was adopted because of slavery and gives small rural states increased power in choosing the president Trump was able to sneak into office and he may have had help from the Russian government and certainly got a tremendous amount of help from the perplexing head of the FBI James Comey.
I haven't had time to fact check this, so if it is bogus please let me know.
I really wish that, along with measurement systems, abbreviation of dates, etc, the US would get with the program regarding international political terminology for example:
"Red" is the international color of the political left.
"Blue" is the international color of conservatism.
"Liberalism" is a economic-political philosophy of lasses-faire, dog-eat-dog capitalism (their color is yellow)
"Neoliberalism" is a resurgent and more virulent form of the above.
And relevant to this article, "populism", when used without qualifying adjectives, is the political vehicle of right-wing demagoguery and appeal to popular nationalism and xenophobia, there is not anything good about it. Even left- populism can be a tow-edged sword with a tendency toward fascism and corrupt leaders like Juan Perón or Huey Long.
I'll give you an 80% or a B. You got liberalism wrong. Here is the first sentence of the Wikipedia description of liberalism. "Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality." During much of recent US history the Democratic Party has been the party of liberalism. That is why the Republicans are always attacking liberals.
Gerry Wilders was too one-note to be taken seriously as a world leader, much less than that of the Dutch prime minister. However, I am more bothered about how the term "populism" has become toxic sledgehammer for globalists like Rutte, Hollande, Merkel, and the EU elite, who pretend to love all comers yet seem mysteriously reluctant to reopen the floodgates to the third world. Rutte uses the phrase "wrong kind of populism" when only a few days ago he acquiesces to Wilder's line of thinking by turning away two Turkish diplomats,which no doubt helped him in the polls on Wednesday. I did not know what was worse to listen to, the spasmic cheerleading of the EU globalists or the hypocrisy of a pretender.
Billionaires Robert Mercer (Breitbart financer) and Wilbur Ross (Us Secy of Commerce) both contributed large sum$$$ to Wilders and Marie LePen (France). Mercer propped up Nigel Farage in the UK and was the power (money) behind Brexit (he will clean up financially with the GB out of the EU). Farage was a guest speaker at the recent CPAC conflagration of creeps and curmudgeons. Putin reportedly invested million$$ in LePen's campaign.
They are pernicious parasites always looking for hosts to suck dry and then they move on to their next victims.
To the Dutch people: Van harte gefeliciteerd!
You used your heads and hearts to save your nation from the cruelty of despots like Wilders and Trump. I applaud and thank you.
Can you put up some sources for this? I'm having trouble finding any.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/no-one-knows-what-the-powerful-mercers-really-want/514529/ (What Does the Billionaire Family That Backed Donald Trump Want?)
Apparently the Russian bank that gave Le Pen a 2014 loan now wants the money back. Not entirely wholehearted support....
I'd say the answer is sort of between what you and Yunzer are saying because the definition of liberalism changes quite a bit from country to country (Which was part of Yunzer's point to begin with). You mentioned "liberty and equality" the "liberty" part of that is generally talking about individual liberties as in both the libertarian laissez-faire stuff Yunzer mentioned as well as freedoms like www have in our bill of rights. The "equality" part of that typically refers to the governmental guarantees of equality. Equality in what, and how much government does to enforce that side of things can make "liberals" the left in one country and the far right in another.
That's my take on it anyways.
Thank you for posting the links.
Did I use the terms "whole hearted?"
More on the Putin-LePen connex: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/1/1589450/-How-Putin-Slowly-Takes-Control-of-Marine-Le-Pen (How Putin Slowly Takes Control of Marine Le Pen )
My son, a serious student of world politics, has provided me an ongoing wealth of information that I greatly appreciate.
More on Wilbur Ross: Wilbur Ross and the Era of Billionaire Rule https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-01-26/wilbur-ross-and-the-cabinet-of-billionaires
There are not too many pies (political and corporate) worldwide in which Ross does not have any number of fingers....
It will be interesting to see who Rutte forms a coalition with to govern. The Greens and the Socialists combined for 28 seats so I'm hoping the governing coalition will be to the left of the Prime Minister's party since they seemed to move rightward to win the election.
Actually Yunzer has it right. In the rest of the world "liberalism" refers to what Americans would call conservative, free-market, economics and its related politics.
You've simply recited the American labeling system. As for whether the Democratic Party can be said to be the party of liberalism is, at best, up for debate. Some would say that such a characterization may have once been true, an all too long time ago, but clearly is no more, though you are correct that Republicans love to hate liberals.
I'd like to add my own pet peeve -- the misuse of the term "conservative." The dictionary says it means: "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions." By this definition, Obama was conservative whereas the Republicans are anything but.
The most egregious examples relate to views on the environment, where those who want to despoil it are called "conservative" whereas those who want to, well, conserve it are called environmental extremists. Somehow Monsanto is "conservative" for wanting to fill the world with its genetically modified organisms. Meanwhile, the precautionary principle is considered radical.
In law, conservative should mean preserving precedent. But on the Supreme Court, people like Scalia were called conservative even as they tear precedent to shreds as with the rulings on campaign finance or their decision that the 2nd Amendment means that everybody has the right to own as many guns as they want.
Meanwhile, Trump is determined to destroy institutions like the EPA, while the Republicans try to dismantle the ACA and have their eyes set on breaking Social Security, an institution that's worked just fine for 80 years.
There's a better word for the likes of Scalia, and Trump who wants to "make America great again." They are reactionaries. The whole damned Republican Party isn't conservative, it's reactionary. Or maybe just crazy.
I'm more of a radical wannabe myself, but I hate seeing the term conservative, which has positive connotations in many people's minds, being applied to those who are anything but.
In the UK the Liberal Party were traditionally the 'left wing' party since the 17th century (called 'the whigs' until 1868) until the Labour Party split from them and were formed in the early 20th century taking the majority of voters with them, leaving them now a minority centre left party. The confusion of the term Liberal arises because this party represented reaction to traditional aristocratic (Tory) hereditary rule, a residue of the feudal system, promoting instead parliamentary democracy and the new liberal values of the enlightenment, equality, liberty, fraternity etc, but also free trade and enterprise which at that time helped create a new wealthy middle class to rival the traditional upper claseses whose wealth and titles were generally inherited. Thus they promoted both Liberal social values and free trade. This party's ideals where subsequently exported to the USA. Consequently, the term liberal, as being to the left, exists generally in those countries that follow the anglo-saxon model of free trade (which was itself a form of 18th centrury liberalism) yet came to mean specifically that, IE free trade and economic liberalism, in those European countries outside that sphere who are based on the social democratic model of government.