It is too thin to be considered as such. Rather, populism is a political strategy. As a strategy, it was mainly developed during the second (Classical Populism) to third (Neopopulism) wave. In the former, it draws its inspiration from two influences: 1. Modernization and 2.
Mussolini tried to downplay the ideological ambiguity of Fascism, arguing that labels like “conservative” and “liberal” were mere empty terminologies. For Mussolini, who was likely aware of his own opportunism, a political doctrine did not have any value in and of itself, but only in its usefulness in practice. It didn’t matter which means were used for the fulfillment of important ends: “The machine first of all must run!” In early-20th century Italy, Rightist methods happened to be the most useful, in Mussolini’s view, for effecting the political change he desired. It just so happened that the 20th century was “a century of authority, a century tending to the Right”—a century in which people preferred order. Mussolini accepted that Fascism may be replaced by another doctrine more useful in the next century.
However, the recent rise of populist politics in Western countries, together with the rapid spread of digital technologies through which the populist messages are being constantly transmitted, makes it necessary to account for the interlacing of these three complex issues. Ernesto Laclau views populism
What Epstein said establishes credibility because liberals fought hard in political styles. On September 26, 2014, Cassandra Wilkinson of The Centre talked about pluralism concerning between classical liberalism and conservatism. She stated: “Classical liberalism is certainly not a synonym for conservative. In his essay 'Why I am not a Conservative ' Friedrich Hayek made plain the differences. Conservatism reflects a cautious attitude to change and a Burkean recognition of the value of institutions which have served humankind over time as proven repositories and safeguards of wisdom — the family, the rule of law, parliament and universities and for some people the church (The Centre for Independent Studies).” Wilkinson meant that liberals were different than conservatives.
Unfortunately, most centuries have two very distinct and popular political ideologies that are often polarizing. For example, early 19th-century politics was heavily argued from a communist or capitalist perspective (Parks). It’s clear that this century’s distinct and conflicting political ideologies are libertarianism and social democracy (Boaz). In, The Libertarian Mind, David Boaz discusses the themes of individualism and free market economies that are associated with a libertarian nation. Which, are arguably more attractive than the overbearing authority often associated with a social democracy.
In Emmett Rensin 's Vox article, "The Smug Style in American Liberalism", he criticizes the smug air found within the minds of modern liberals. He lays out the mindset "smug style" as "…a way of conducting politics, predicated on the belief that American life is not divided by moral difference or policy divergence… but by the failure of half the country to know what 's good for them." He gains a sense of ethos in the essay due to his credibility as a liberal writer and cements his reliability using relevant examples to solidify his argument. He plays upon the emotions of his audience with an expert use of pathos with references to real examples of the harsh treatment of people deemed "wrong" by liberals. He also highlights common unflattering traits that are common with the liberal masses.
Communism aims to pursue international domination which is what Stalin tried to do by with the Soviet Union. However, fascist leaders have interest of those only having to do with their nation. A communist society have no social classes, and this is why private ownership of property, and land are frowned upon. On the contrary, fascism is very much class based, which was demonstrated by Hitler and his view on race superiority. These goals might seem different, but the methods used to achieve these goals are really similar.
Dryzek, a deliberative democracy professor at Australia’s Canberra University, attributes Plato with putting the “ick” in rhetoric on the basis that it distorts the truth, in politics more so than elsewhere. For Plato, rhetoric was simply “…persuasion on nonrational grounds” – the polar opposite of reason. (Dryzek 320). Plato was especially at odds with Sophism, which was a method of rhetorical education aimed at teaching students the notion of “arête” (excellence), and subsequently viewed rhetoric as a sham art designed not to acquire knowledge, but to achieve a personal agenda. Ultimately, Plato believed that Sophists were engaged in rhetoric for the acquisition of power, and that Sophists may have represented the strongest, but clearly not the smartest, speakers in ancient Athens.
He is widely known, as D’Souza stated, as the philosopher of Fascism. It is also correct that Gentile ghostwrote parts of “The Doctrine of Fascism” from which D’Souza quotes during his PragerU video. Within this essay Gentile states that “Outside the State there can be neither individuals nor groups (political parties, associations, syndicates, classes.) Therefore, Fascism is opposed to Socialism which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State.” Gentile goes on to state that “Fascism rejects universal concord,… such a conception of life makes Fascism the precise negation of that doctrine which formed the basis of the so-called Scientific, or Marxian
And involving the state in these affairs leads to the citizens’ distrust of this state. TB: Is it a part of the authoritarian legacy or this still may occur without any relation to authoritarianism? AE: This is not necessarily related to authoritarianism. In Poland, for example, it has to do more with nationalism. I mean simple things: it's completely normal from a historian’s perspective, or any social science researcher’s perspective, to argue over some facts, specific moments because there are always different points of view.