Speaker 1: OK, let's hear from a few more people, you can join
the discussion on our discord at David Pakman dot com slash discord. Let's go next to Markus
from Manitoba. Marcus, you were on the air. Speaker 2: Oh, David. Hello.
My question for you is, why do you think all of these self-identified
left wing populists, a prominent left wing populists online and in real politics
have have tended to go in a similar direction over the course of their political careers?
I'm thinking people like your friend and mine, Tulsi Gabbard and Jimmy Dora. Mm-Hmm.
And Matt Taibbi is tending to go in a similar direction of, you know, kind of being receptive to
Russian. French friendly towards Russia, a kind of repeating or tending to be.
Promoting, promoting kind of narratives similar to the kind of things that we see on the right.
Coming from Trump and such. Why you think this is what what, what is causing this?
Speaker 1: You know, I really I really don't know. I don't think there is one answer. Like,
for example, if we were to just say these faux left wing populists are doing this
because of money, for example, Speaker 2: um,
Speaker 1: maybe, maybe to some degree, for some of them, I don't know that there really is
that much money in it. So I don't I don't think that's really the explanation.
Maybe it's for attention. I mean, attention is linked to money. Maybe some of them are like, you
know, I just kind of blend in if I just do actual leftism. So I'm going to do this kind of wacky,
reactionary faux populist thing. Maybe that's kind of a factor. Another part might be some of them
might actually have been confused about what their actual politics are, and maybe they thought they
were on the left and then they realize they're actually kind of not. And they they make that
more clear in their public pronouncements. I don't think there's one answer, but it is weird because
it's like you could just say you're on the right. You don't really have to claim to be on the left
but have reactionary positions. You can just be and look tootsies been welcomed at CPAC now. So
clearly there's space for them on the right. You know, I don't know that I have one answer,
Speaker 2: but I do have my own personal theories on why this is. Yeah, it may be controversial
that I know that, you know, previous callers have voiced. Two opposing opinions about populism that,
you know, I recall someone said something like Trump. Why is Trump called a populist?
Trump isn't a real populist. Right wing populism isn't real populism. I think that gets something
fundamentally wrong. It sort of presupposes that populists or populism requires being
honest about your populist beliefs. I don't think it does, right? I think populism is a rhetorical
primarily well or rather like there are different definitions of populism.
Speaker 1: No, but I think you're right. I mean, I've commented before. The reason
populist rhetoric can be so tricky is that there can be any policy underneath it, and the populism
itself is not policy. And like the great example was, you know, you could have Bernie and Tucker
similarly saying, We've got a real problem here where the middle class is being taken advantage of
and we've got to support the middle class. We need to make sure that legal infrastructure and
all this stuff supports the middle class. Bernie would have one solution. And Tucker would be like.
And it's brown people coming from Mexico that are the problem, right? So. So I think that you're
getting exactly at what I've said for years. Speaker 2: Yes. And I mean, I think there is a
substantive difference between people who are both called populists like Bernie and Tucker
Carlson or I don't think Tucker has any plans to or he obviously has no actual policy proposals
that could solve the problems he's talking about, right? Whereas Bernie might, although I'm also
somewhat skeptical that he is really all that pragmatic or whatever. I still like
Bernie Sanders, sure. But I do think that at. What unites them both is and what unites all strands of
populism is primarily the rhetoric that he uses. Speaker 1: Yes. And I think so. And here's where
there will be some who will disagree with one of the things that you're saying. There are some
who will hear what you're saying and they'll go, Well, Tucker's not really a populist.
He's actually in a privileged, elitist right winger. But I think the point you're making is
there is really no such thing as a populist. Populism is a is a rhetoric and you've got
to look at policy. Some people would just disagree with you as to what populism is. Is
it policy or is it rhetoric or is it both? Speaker 2: Well, exactly, and I would say,
furthermore, that I. The very rhetoric of populism, it is defined by its its its
creation of this dichotomy between the elite and some nebulous category known as the people.
Yes, some are really nebulous categories. And often the populists themselves are coming from
elite positions. This has been the case since really ancient times. Yes, populism has been
a strategy that's worked in democracies since democracy first came into existence of Cleon in
Athens. Think of Julius Caesar. It was a populist and and all of them or a lot of them do tend
to come from the elite classes, and they frame themselves as being sort of class traitors being
like actually on the side of you, the people. And in fact, often it is just a rhetorical tool
to allow them to gain a position of power. Speaker 1: Yes, I agree with you completely.
And there are many in my audience who will disagree, but I really appreciate
you laying it out so clearly. Speaker 2: Thank you,
Speaker 1: David. All right, there is Marcus from Manitoba dropping the hammer in a serious manner.