Does Populism really mean what it is?

Tomorrow will be France's day to show the world how far the world has gone backwards or whether she will be another country to become a bastion of sanity. Things look OK going into tomorrow but like everything in life, never count the chickens until they hatch.

I am concerned by how this movement of violent attitudes towards other human beings is becoming more prevalent. Making things worse is the media's liberal use of the word "populism" on such trends. "Populism"...really?

From Google:

Yes, this is a simple meaning, "Support for the concerns of ordinary people". Or "the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people". Very simple explanations. So why am I baffled by the use of "populism" on candidates like Farage, Trump and Le Pen.

Now, it all goes down to math from here. What percentage of human beings in this world is considered ordinary? Or inversely, how many do you consider to be extraordinary?

We all like to think that we're extraordinary, but most of us aren't. We are more alike to one another than we think, but similarly, we are unique. OK, let's be less philosophical and more realistic. Let's use the 80-20 rule, just to be less populist and more realistic. Let's not use the 1% argument, because that is so cliche and make my arguments too easy.

Brexit vote, 73% turnout, 52% or 18m (both rounded up) out of 65m. Out of nearly 50m eligible to vote, only 18m wanted out. That's less than 40% of eligible voters and less than a third of UK's population. Why is the idea of UK leaving the EU a "populist" decision? What about the rest of the 15m that aren't eligible to vote?

While we're on topic, what does UK gain with the Brexit vote? Well, UKIP promised trillions, right? OK, I can't remember the exact number but I remembered it was all about money promised to them. Sure, the words used might be "jobs" but people who voted for it is just thinking about their wallets.

Sure, Cameron was ineffective but Brexit is pulling the rug from under the future citizens of UK because not only is it bad now and near future, the extra barriers it will create for itself and future citizens aren't going to be much better. All these for made up dollar amounts that probably will never be real? Seriously? Isn't removing Cameron easier? Or removing the major political parties and perhaps the age old bureaucracies that, at least to Brexit voters, think is "plaguing" the British Isles?

Next, closer to home, at least where I am right now, 2016 Presidential Elections. Trump got 63m votes (rounded up) to Clinton's 65m votes (rounded way down). Total turnout is 60%, 137m votes (both rounded up) out of 324m in USA. Less than a quarter of the country voted for the president we have now, whose rhetoric stirred up so much hateful speech during and after the elections, with concerted effort to introduce a new way of life called alternative facts.

The people who voted for him were promised jobs, tax cuts, improved economy and repeal of ObamaCare, otherwise known as Affordable Care Act, while we're in an improving economy no less. Sure, they will argue they aren't benefiting much, well, I've not benefited much, and that's not due to a lack of trying on my part, but that's no excuse to hate the system keeping 324m people alive.

He's not a scientist, he's not an industrialist, he is a media personality with riches handed to him from his ancestry. So why is he called a "populist"? For stirring up irrational fear and hatred for other human beings? In less than 25% of the country's population?

There are other reasons why Clinton lost, Democrat Party self imploding, irrational hatred for Obama, Clinton's arrogance and underestimation of her opponent, lack of traditional groundwork at key battlegrounds, James Comey and perhaps Russia. Whatever my beliefs are on the situation, she lost and 63m voters put Trump in the White House.

Then we have France. Well, we don't know what will happen since the underdog win by Trump emboldened every underdog and gave them hope against frontrunners. Personally, I like Macron, I have no comment on his skills and ability but I want to see how a young yet fairly experienced politician and professional will do for his country while hopefully listening to all of his people, not just his supporters. Of course, Macron could be bad but I can only fear the worst if Le Pen wins.

But I digress as usual.

France has a population of 65m in 2012, registered voters 46m, and assuming the crazy case of Le Pen winning by 51%, that would be at best 23m given France's current population of 66m using the same rate of participation. So Le Pen appealed to at best 23m of the population and is called a "populist"? Especially when she has no concrete plan for her promises to even those 23m? Much less any attempts to listen to the non-supporters. Are those citizens disavowed?

I mentioned how disappointed I was when I heard a French former soldier supporting Le Pen because he wanted to close the borders and spend more time "watching" citizens. Like martial law? And another supporter willing to give up 10% liberty to get more security? Seriously, why do they think math work on civil liberties?

Anyway, the numbers quoted above hopefully brings out my point. Why does less than 25% of the population make their politicians "populist"? Especially when they are just yelling their demands and trying to take away civil liberties of non-supporters? OK, the far left has not been kind either but their percentage is at best as similar to those on the far right.

That's what normal is supposed to be, where more than 50% of the people are agreeable to, not just about 25% of the people wants. Also, the 25% quoted above multiple times above is at best, because with the misinformation out there, some centrists are misguided into thinking "populists" work.

My view of populists need to (a) have support for more than 50% (b) listens to everybody and gets buy in from everybody, whether they support him/her or not and (c) no violent behavior tolerated. That might be my pacifist beliefs talking but we have to believe it can be done for it to be done. And the 50% threshold is really where I want to emphasize as being a "populist".

So journalists, real or not, please stop using the word "populist" and "populism" on people peddling fear, hatred and violence in order to get elected. They should be given a label suitable for their rhetoric. Like "hatredist" or "hatredism", because the people who peddle fear and hatred should be labeled for who they are, no matter how much they would deny it.

After all, we should not expect a lying, hate and fear peddling person to do any less hating and lying any time soon. So please France, do the right thing and not pick a fake populist, because their foreigner and minority hating tendencies can easily turn towards you when it suits her.