Oxford Union debate on April 25 on populism


Introduction: Populism is not a threat to democracy. Populism is democracy. I now look to Mr. Winston Marshall to close the case for the opposition.

Winstson Marshall: Ladies and gentlemen, words have a tendency to change meaning. When I was a boy, woman meant someone who didn’t have a cock. Populism has become a word used synonymously with r****t, we’ve heard ethnonationalist, we’ve bigot, with hillbilly, red neck, with deplorables. Elites use it to show their contempt for ordinary people. This is a recent change, not Not long ago, Barack Obama, while still President at the North America’s Leaders Summit in June 2016, he took umbrage of the notion that Trump be called a populist. How could Trump be called a populist? He doesn’t care about working people. If anything, Obama argued he was the populist. If anything, Obama argued Bernie was the populist. It was Bernie who’d spent five decades fighting for working people.

But with Trump… Something curious happens. If you watch Obama’s speeches after that point, more and more recently, he uses the word populist interchangeably with strong man, with authoritarian. The word changes meaning it becomes a negative, a pejorative, a slur. To me, populism is not a dirty word.

Since the 2008 crash, and specifically the trillion dollar Wall Street bailout, we are in the populist age. And for good reason, the elites have failed. Let me address some common fallacies, some of which have been made tonight. If the motion was that demagoguery was a threat to democracy, I would be on that side of the If the motion was that political violence was a threat to democracy, I’d be on that side of the House.

January sixth has been mentioned, a dark day for America indeed. I’m sure Congresswoman Pelosi will agree that the entire month of June 2020, when the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon, was under siege and under i**********n by radical progressives, those two were dark days for America. Yes?

Nancy Pelosi: It’s not. There is no equivalence there. It is not like what happened on J****** 6th which was an i**********n…

Winston Marshall: So you don’t agree. It’s fine. You don’t agree…

Winston Marshall: So you don’t agree. But you’ll condemn those days. My point, though, is that all political movements are susceptible to violence and indeed, i**********n. And if we were arguing that f*****m was a threat to democracy, I’d be on that side of the house. Indeed, the current populist age is a movement against f*****m. I’ve got quite a lot to get through. Populism, as you know, is the politics of the ordinary people against an elite.

Populism is not a threat to democracy. Populism is democracy. And why else have universal suffrage if not to keep elites in check? Ladies and gentlemen, given the success of Trump, and more recently, Javier Mallet taking a chainsaw to the state behemoth of Argentina’s bureaucratic monster, you’d be mistaken for thinking this was a right wing populist age. But that would be ignoring Occupy Wall Street.
That would be ignoring Jeremy Corbin’s For the Many, Not the Few. That would be ignoring Bernie against the Billionaires, RFK Jr. Against Big Pharma, and more recently, George Galloway against his better judgment. Now, all of them, including Galloway, recognize genuine concerns of ordinary people being otherwise ignored by the establishment.

I’m actually rather surprised that our esteemed opposition, Congressman Pelosi, is on that side of the motion. I thought the left was supposed to be anti-elite. I thought the left was supposed to be anti-establishment. Today, particularly in America, the g*******t left have become the establishment. I suppose for Ms. Pelosi to have taken this side of the motion, she’d be arguing herself out of a job.

But it’s here in Britain where right and left populists united for the Supreme Act of democracy, Brexit. Polls have shown the number one reason people v**ed for Brexit was sovereignty for more democracy. Thank you. What was the response of the Brussels elite?

They did everything in their power to undermine the democratic will of the British people, and the Westminster elite were just as disgraceful. As we’ve heard, David Cameron called the v**ers Fruitcakes, Loonies, and Closet R****ts. The liberal Democrats did everything they could to overturn a democratic v**e. Kirstama(?) campaigned for a second referendum.

Elites would have us v****g and v****g and v****g until we v**ed their way. Indeed, that’s what happened in Ireland and in Denmark. Let’s look at some of the other populist movements. The Hong Konger populist Revolt is literally called the Pro-Democracy Movement. The Pharma Revolt, from Netherlands to Germany, France, Greece to Sri Lanka, are taking their tractors to the road to protest ESG policy that’s floated down to us from those all-knowing infallible elites of Davos.

The trucker movement in Canada became anti-elitist when petty tyrant Prime Minister Justin Trudeau froze their bank accounts, not the behavior of a democratic head of state. The gilets jaunes in France, Ulez in London, working people, protesting policy that hurt them. And how are they treated? They’re called conspiracy theorists. They’re called far-right by the mayor as well. Ladies and gentlemen, populism is the voice of the voiceless. The real threat to democracy is from the elites. Now, don’t get me wrong, we need elites.

If-when President Biden has shown us anything, we need someone to run the countries. When the President has severe dementia, it’s not just America that crumbles, the whole world burns. But let’s examine the elites. European corporations spend over €1 billion a year lobbying Brussels. Us corporations spend over €2 billion a year lobbying in DC.

Two-thirds of Congress receive funding from pharmaceutical companies. P****r alone spent €11 million in 2021. They made over $10 billion in profit. No wonder then that 66% of Americans think the economy is r****d against them for the rich and the powerful. And by the way, we used to have a word for when big business and big government were in cahoots.

Let Let me read you some mainstream media headlines.
The New Yorker the day before the 2016 e******n, “The Case Against Democracy.”
The Washington Post, the day after the e******n, “The problem with our government is democracy.”
The LA Times, June 2017, “The British e******n is a reminder of the perils of too much democracy.”
Vox, June 2017. “The two eminent political scientists say the problem with democracy is v**ers.”
New York Times, June 2017. “The problem with participatory democracy is the participants.”

Mainstream media elites are part of a class who don’t just disdain populism, they disdain the people. If the Democrats had put half their energy into delivering for the people, Trump wouldn’t even have a chance in 2024. He shouldn’t He shouldn’t have a chance.

You’ve had power for four years. From the fabricated Steele Dossier to trying to take him off the b****t in both Maine and Colorado, the Democrats are the anti-Democrat Party. All we need now is the Republicans to come out as the Promonicist Party.

Ladies and gentlemen, populism is not a threat to democracy, but I’ll tell you what is. It’s elites ordering social media to censor political opponents. It’s police shutting down dissenters, be it anti-monicists in this country or g****r critical voices here, or last week in Brussels, the National Conservatives Movement.

I’ll tell you what is a threat to democracy. It’s Brussels, DC, Westminster, the mainstream media, big tech, big pharma, corporate collusion, and the Davos cronies.

The threat to democracy comes from those who write off ordinary people as deplorable.

The threat to democracy comes from those who smear working people as r****t.

The threat to democracy comes from those who write off working people as populists.

And I’ll say one last thing. This populist age can be brought to an end at the snap of a finger. All that needs to be done is for elites to start listening to, respect it, respecting, and, God forbid, working for ordinary people. Thank you.

Via Winston Marshall.

OMG, you are a comically sad little man. Although the origin of TDS has been explained to you several times, your being the Prince of Flatliners disallows grasping its reality. The following will hopefully enlighten you as to how the term came about and eventually evolved.

The origin of the term is traced to conservative political columnist and commentator Charles Krauthammer, a psychiatrist, who coined the phrase Bush derangement syndrome in 2003 during the presidency of George W. Bush. That "syndrome" was defined by Krauthammer as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency—nay—the very existence of George W. Bush". The first use of the term Trump derangement syndrome may have been by Esther Goldberg in an August 2015 op-ed in The American Spectator; she applied the term to "Ruling Class Republicans" who are dismissive or contemptuous of Trump. Krauthammer, in an op-ed harshly criticizing Trump, commented that—in addition to general hysteria about Trump— "Trump Derangement Syndrome" was the "inability to distinguish between legitimate policy differences and ... signs of psychic pathology" in his behavior. https://niagaraindependent.ca/trump-derangement-syndrome/

TDS was originally a made up condition, conceived as a derisive label by the alt-right to attack anyone who criticizes or refuses to support Donald Trump - the idea being that others are so obsessed with Trump that many have collectively lost their minds. Unfortunately like many of their other little online crusades, this has backfired. People dislike Trump for actual reasons which often go well beyond just politics or partisanship, and if anyone has 'TDS', it is often those that blindly support him. So the term has now been co-opted by others to refer to Trump supporters who are blinded by their unrealistic devotion to Trump.

TDS has been described as "hatred of President Trump so intense that it impairs people's judgment", and has been called the preferred nomenclature of Trump defenders who view those who oppose him and his policies. Previous allegations of Bush Derangement Syndrome and Obama Derangement Syndrome, has led TDS to being viewed more broadly as the rise of p**********l derangement syndromes as a function of increased polarization—not to mention our national self-sorting—at work in the country today. The term has been described as something used by conservative groups whenever someone speaks out critically against Trump, regardless of political affiliation.

The term has been used in a more generalized sense inclusive of positive emotions as well as hatred towards Trump. For example, TDS accounts for denialism about Trump's defeat in the 2020 e******n, as a political diagnosis of people who simply can't accept the fact that he lost the e******n. This new definition derogatorily describing the nature of Trump followers rather than his deriders has been picked up by others and widely used.

TDS is related to gaslighting, another psychological concept in vogue during the Trump era.