It sounds like they want to dismiss all populism as basically fascist or fascist-adjacent, which is pretty suspect in a system where elites really do disregard the concerns of ordinary people and publishing and academia tends to be funded by the very wealthy who would maintain that state of affairs. Also, we already have the word 'fascist'.
I don't think I ever argued that he was one.
Given the more expansive definitions of populism that you see used in popular discourse (as in the tweet which is why we're even talking about populism), one paper that seems pretty transparent in its goal of hanging the albatross of racism around the neck of people's movements by whatever means available is basically irrelevant. Recycling the rhetoric of monarchists that dismissed democratic movements I'm sure is something that established institutions would like to see, but that doesn't make it good analysis.
I don't agree with the goal being to paint populists as racists. Of course race is an easy approach if you want to create an "other", but there are so many alternatives. Criminals, socialists, capitalists, democrats, republicans, academics, the rich, the poor, etc.
Whatever the case, it's not using the definition of populism that is at issue and so is irrelevant.
This is all part of Bolivian democratic mannerisms.
en.wikipedia.org
Yeah, shooting a bunch of indigenous protesters then fleeing the country with millions of dollars is honestly just a 100 level course at the School of the AmericasThis is all part of Bolivian democratic mannerisms.
Dual citizen, Bolivian and US, elected president two times - and was the worst president ever twice over. Second time he allowed his security forces to open fire on a crowd of protestors demanding his resignation, I think around 50-60 were killed. The madlad then went to the Bolivian central bank after the massacre, took all of the US dollars he could carry and boarded a helicopter to a different city - Santa Cruz, from which he went on a flight with his family to the US. He's still chilling in the US, while it refuses the demands of the Bolivian government for extradition.Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada - Wikipedia
Imagine praying to the military to kill your fellow citizens just because you dont like what they said
Could have wrote the same when Morales was got, a year ago. Cry more? As if you care about any of the people that live in that country, you just want a figurative "win" for your team. Typical westerner colonialist.
Almost as if there's a difference in legitimacy between a democratic mandate and a violent coup d'etat.
low quality bant
As I had parroted many times before, he was a greedy idiot that world-wide socialists like because he said naughty things about the US and capitalism and should have stepped down to let another person from his party run and win the vote. Instead he relented and had no legitimacy from the opposition because the court ruling was a fucking meme and if you continue to argue for it you haven't even read the document it's using to justify itself. As I said before if you think this document was legitimate enough to circumvent their own constitution (and a vote on it, which he lost) then you also think that conception begins at birth and that abortion is murder, fullstop.
When he refused to step down and let another member of his party run but instead because of his inflated ego rammed a questionable court ruling to make it a FOURTH term.
