Here's here youtube channel:
For example:
.
.
.
.
.
Tuesday, 4 August 2020
emma mmm english
A great place to go for help with your English:
Hello! I'm Emma, your YouTube English Coach! Welcome to mmmEnglish! My channel is about helping you to build the skills and confidence you need to speak in English and have great conversations.
william morris for the 21st century
What William Morris produced was beautiful:
And the best place to go to see his work is the Victoria and Albert Museum:
But he was much more than a designer of exquisite fabrics:
From 1871 Morris rented the rural retreat of Kelmscott Manor, Oxfordshire. He moved his London home to Kelmscott House, the current home of the Society, in 1878. Alongside his work for the firm, Morris produced a series of English-language translations of Icelandic sagas with Eiríkr Magnússon, as he was greatly inspired by his visits to Iceland. He also achieved success with the publication of his epic poems and novels, namely ... the utopian News from Nowhere (1890), and the fantasy romance The Well at the World’s End (1896). In 1877 he founded the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings to campaign against the damage caused by Victorian architectural ‘restoration’.
The Society is still very active today:
And Morris is still very relevant to today:
But where would Morris have fit in today’s world? Strickland ponders for a moment. “I think he would be fighting for environmental causes. He had moved away [from fabrics] towards the end of his life. When he died, the doctor said he died of just being William Morris – he fitted so much into his life.”
Monday, 3 August 2020
the power of positive thinking, norman vincent peale and donald trump
All politicians like to think positive:
Does “Positive Thinking” Have a Place in Politics?
We should be very concerned that the two most powerful leaders in the Western world, Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, seem to follow and advocate the teachings of self-help gurus.
BY QRIUS
Barack Obama: Yes We Can - YouTube
Norman Vincent Peale (May 31, 1898 – December 24, 1993) was an American minister and author known for his work in popularizing the concept of positive thinking, especially through his best-selling book The Power of Positive Thinking. He served as the pastor of Marble Collegiate Church, New York, from 1932 until 1984,[1] leading a Reformed Church in America congregation. Peale was a personal friend of President Richard Nixon. Donald Trump attended Peale's church while growing up, as well as marrying his first wife Ivana there.
But some more than others...
The current UK head of government is one.
These are comments from exactly one year ago, when he became PM:
And in April this year "the prime minister believed the country needed lifting, not lecturing":
The current US head of government is another who believes in the power of positive thinking.
These comments are from when he became President:
There's something very interesting about the author of the most important book on positive thinking:
The effect goes very deep:
To finish, this is from a piece which looks at the bigger picture:
Does “Positive Thinking” Have a Place in Politics?
We should be very concerned that the two most powerful leaders in the Western world, Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, seem to follow and advocate the teachings of self-help gurus.
BY QRIUS
11FEB, 20
Neil Francis
To make money in the world of self-help books, being realistic and balanced, and where failure is accepted as a good thing, will not work. It seems that the leaders of America and the United Kingdom have cottoned on to this. It is well documented that Donald Trump is a big fan of the 20th-century positive-thinking movement and some of its books. You can see this in the language he adopts:
“No dream is too big. No challenge is too great. Nothing we want for our future is beyond our reach.”
“I’ve always won, and I’m going to continue to win. And that’s the way it is.”
“I was a great student. I was good at everything.”
It is unclear whether Boris Johnson had read any of these “positive thinking” books, but somehow, their teachings have rubbed onto him as well, given that he has adopted a lot of their mantras:
“There are no disasters, only opportunities.”
“The doubters, the doomsters, the gloomsters.”
“The hamster wheel of doom.”
Many people should be very concerned that the two most powerful leaders in the Western world seem to follow and advocate the teachings of some of the most “successful” self-help gurus. Because some of their messages can not only be harmful where the vulnerable are easy prey, but also psychologically dangerous.
In 1937, Napoleon Hill published “Think and Grow Rich,” a book that has reportedly sold over 15 million copies to date. The key lesson from this work is that the material universe is governed quite directly by our thoughts. By simply visualizing what you want out of life, those things, and more, will be delivered to you — especially if those things involve money. The past few decades have been a profitable era for all sorts of self-help and business success books. Napoleon Hill blazed a trail for an entire industry.
In 1952, Norman Vincent Peale published his “The Power of Thinking.” His core argument is that by using the power of focus and by believing in success, you will overcome any obstacles in life. No matter how insurmountable they may seem, there is no problem in your life that cannot be surmounted by the power of positive thinking.
More recently, in 2006, Rhonda Byrne’s book, “The Secret,” promoted the notion that you have the ability to be whatever you want to be, and that if you send out good thoughts and intentions to the universe, the universe will give you good things in return. According to Byrne, positive thoughts attract happiness and, conversely, negative thoughts attract bad decisions and fuel existing worries and negativity. She claims that focused concentration combined with positive thinking will lead to happiness and wealth...
This article was first published in Fair Observer
Neil Francis
To make money in the world of self-help books, being realistic and balanced, and where failure is accepted as a good thing, will not work. It seems that the leaders of America and the United Kingdom have cottoned on to this. It is well documented that Donald Trump is a big fan of the 20th-century positive-thinking movement and some of its books. You can see this in the language he adopts:
“No dream is too big. No challenge is too great. Nothing we want for our future is beyond our reach.”
“I’ve always won, and I’m going to continue to win. And that’s the way it is.”
“I was a great student. I was good at everything.”
It is unclear whether Boris Johnson had read any of these “positive thinking” books, but somehow, their teachings have rubbed onto him as well, given that he has adopted a lot of their mantras:
“There are no disasters, only opportunities.”
“The doubters, the doomsters, the gloomsters.”
“The hamster wheel of doom.”
Many people should be very concerned that the two most powerful leaders in the Western world seem to follow and advocate the teachings of some of the most “successful” self-help gurus. Because some of their messages can not only be harmful where the vulnerable are easy prey, but also psychologically dangerous.
In 1937, Napoleon Hill published “Think and Grow Rich,” a book that has reportedly sold over 15 million copies to date. The key lesson from this work is that the material universe is governed quite directly by our thoughts. By simply visualizing what you want out of life, those things, and more, will be delivered to you — especially if those things involve money. The past few decades have been a profitable era for all sorts of self-help and business success books. Napoleon Hill blazed a trail for an entire industry.
In 1952, Norman Vincent Peale published his “The Power of Thinking.” His core argument is that by using the power of focus and by believing in success, you will overcome any obstacles in life. No matter how insurmountable they may seem, there is no problem in your life that cannot be surmounted by the power of positive thinking.
More recently, in 2006, Rhonda Byrne’s book, “The Secret,” promoted the notion that you have the ability to be whatever you want to be, and that if you send out good thoughts and intentions to the universe, the universe will give you good things in return. According to Byrne, positive thoughts attract happiness and, conversely, negative thoughts attract bad decisions and fuel existing worries and negativity. She claims that focused concentration combined with positive thinking will lead to happiness and wealth...
.
.
.
Sunday, 2 August 2020
leadership is overrated
Discuss:
One of the biggest lies spread by the corporate world is that you have to be a dominant, extroverted, and charming leader in order to reserve your place in the C-suite. This is FALSE. Stereotypical leadership is overrated. The best leaders know themselves and have thoroughly developed their own personal brand. That is the real key. By knowing your personal strengths and how your brand is projected to others, you can improve employer-employee relationships, and create and manage strong tactical teams.
Leadership doesn’t automatically mean you’re successful. Leadership roles are mistakenly seen as superior to others, yet a leader is primarily someone who coordinates, directs projects and allocates resources. Yes, this is an important role but just being in this role doesn’t equate success, rather it’s what you achieve in this role.
Leadership doesn’t automatically mean you’re successful. Leadership roles are mistakenly seen as superior to others, yet a leader is primarily someone who coordinates, directs projects and allocates resources. Yes, this is an important role but just being in this role doesn’t equate success, rather it’s what you achieve in this role.
Think of highly successful people like the author JK Rowling or basketball player Stephen Curry. Both are highly skilled in their profession (in fact, both have become the top 1% in their field) but they don’t necessarily know anything about leadership.
When the famous management professor Henry Mintzberg, in an interview for Dutch television, was asked “what would you recommend for leadership in the 21st century?” he answered, without delay or hesitation: “Less of it”.
Henry clearly thought we need less “leadership”, and more people who actually do stuff. And true; it has become a business buzz word and something that everyone puts on his list of career aspirations. However, not everyone can be a leader. Moreover, their effect often seems overestimated.
According to this informal research, leadership is in fact the second least sought-after skill out of eight career readiness competencies, namely critical thinking/problem solving, oral/written communications, teamwork/collaboration, information technology application, leadership, professionalism/work ethic, and career management (curated from National Association of Colleges and Employers) and creative thinking.
Henry clearly thought we need less “leadership”, and more people who actually do stuff. And true; it has become a business buzz word and something that everyone puts on his list of career aspirations. However, not everyone can be a leader. Moreover, their effect often seems overestimated.
To finish, a great video showing the importance of the follower!
.
.
.
.
.
'quite' is the trickiest word in english
This is possibly one of the most confusing words in the English language.
For example:
Here's quite a good video:
.
.
The BBC helps a little - with the British way of looking at it:
quite = completely
When it is used for emphasis with adjectives that cannot be graded, quite means completely. The colour adjective black, for example cannot be graded. Things can't be more black or less black. They are just black. So, if we put this into context and look at some more examples of quite with ungradable adjectives, we may find:
- There's no trace of red in her hair - it's quite black.
- I see no hope - the future looks quite black to me.
- It's quite impossible to learn twenty new items of vocabulary each day.
- His performance on stage was quite amazing - we were just spellbound for three hours!
- Are you quite sure? I think you're quite wrong about this.
If we are using quite with an adjective that is gradable, it means fairly or rather. The adjective easy, for example, is gradable. Things can be easier or harder. Thus, quite, when used with easy, means fairly or rather. Study these examples:
- How did you find the maths test? ~ Oh, it was quite easy, really. / It was quite difficult.
- What did you think of the cabaret? ~ Oh, it was quite entertaining.
- I'm quite tired but I'll try and finish this book review before I go to bed.
With quite a good guide here - again from the BBC:
But it's also a question of STRESS!
And here's a question on the WordReference forum:
Hello everybody,
I remember quite to be a strange adverb because the sentence changes its meaning according to where the stress in the sentence is. One meaning should be sufficiently and the other completely. Which is which? Bolded words are the stressed words in each phrase.
My brother is quite intelligent.
My brother is quite intelligent.
Thank you all!
entangledbank:
I remember quite to be a strange adverb because the sentence changes its meaning according to where the stress in the sentence is. One meaning should be sufficiently and the other completely. Which is which? Bolded words are the stressed words in each phrase.
My brother is quite intelligent.
My brother is quite intelligent.
Thank you all!
The stress may make some difference to the meaning: the second one, with the adjective stressed, sounds stronger to me, more positive. He is intelligent, and to a reasonably high degree. The first sounds a bit more limited: he is intelligent, to some moderate degree, but perhaps no more, not hugely intelligent.
And here's another example:
.
.
.
"don't think: your ideas aren't good enough"
There's a difference between "Don't think your ideas aren't good enough" and
"Don't think: your ideas aren't good enough". The first could have "that" after
the "think" and sounds very sympathetic. The second is telling you not to think
and that your ideas are bad.
There are lots of websites showing the funny side of getting punctuation
wrong:
Here's a particularly famous example:
“Let's eat, grandpa” versus “Let's eat grandpa”
Here's another:
It’s not just the addition or lack of commas that can change meaning. This example shows how the placement of punctuation, such as full stops/periods, commas, and question marks, can turn something that seems loving and innocent into something more sinister:
Dear John:
I want a man who knows what love is all about.
You are generous, kind, thoughtful.
People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior.
You have ruined me for other men.
I yearn for you.
I have no feelings whatsoever when we’re apart.
I can be forever happy.
Will you let me be yours?
Gloria
Now let’s see how those same words read with the punctuation in different places:
Dear John:
I want a man who knows what love is.
All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people, who are not like you.
Admit to being useless and inferior.
You have ruined me.
For other men, I yearn.
For you, I have no feelings whatsoever.
When we’re apart, I can be forever happy.
Will you let me be?
Yours,
Gloria
But, seriously, punctuation is useful:
.
.
.
.
.
Saturday, 1 August 2020
coronavirus and populism
Several 'populist' politicians have caught the coronavirus - as reported in the Sun today:
There are concerns that the current crisis will be used by 'populists':
Others would say it's a crisis which so-called populists can't handle:
Here's the view of the New European:
Given the massive surge of conspiracy theories that have circulated online in the past few months, there has been concern that another surge in anti-establishment xenophobic politics is on the cards for Europe. The worry has been that the far right will make gains again as a result. But, so far, it seems this crisis has not actually been particularly “profitable” for these groups. In fact, they seem to be floundering.In Germany, the far-right AfD openly embraced conspiracy theories. Its members claimed Angela Merkel’s lockdown measures were unnecessary.
This initially gained traction among a public trying to adapt to a strange new way of life. But the AfD were quickly seen to have painted themselves into a corner when it became clear that Germany’s lockdown was producing the desired effect and infections were dropping.
The AfD has lost a significant amount of support during the pandemic, sliding from around 15% approval in pre-coronavirus polls to something more like 9% now. This is a blow to German ultranationalists.
Meanwhile, in Italy, Matteo Salvini, leader of the League party, has found it very hard to hold the attention of the national media – which is a new experience for him. The League’s messaging has been confusing. In late February, the party initially called for the partially locked down region of Lombardy to be re-opened but then later demanded a full lockdown. The news website Politico’s analysis of opinion polling in Italy shows that the League’s popularity is down 11% from last summer...
And it does seem that 'populists' in power are handling things very badly:
Here's the view this week from Deutsche Welle on 'the World King':
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has marked one year in office, stumbling from one mishap to another. Nothing runs smoothly for him, and there are no achievements whatsoever, writes Birgit Maass.
24.07.2020
He got divorced, engaged, fathered a son and narrowly escaped death — in between, he led the UK out of the EU and fought a pandemic — all within just one year.
Indeed, Boris Johnson has had a lot to handle after assuming his dream job. As a boy, he had always wanted to be "world king," writes his sister, Rachel Johnson, in her family biography. His role model was the former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. In 2014, Johnson even published a book about his predecessor.
One thing, however, is becoming increasingly clear: Johnson is unable to deal with the challenges facing him. He is a populist, a man of grandiose gestures, as opposed to a prudent ruler who navigates his country through crises, his hands firmly on the steering wheel. His empty promises and smoke-and-mirrors approach are debauching the country — a state of affairs now deplored even by die-hard conservatives...
Chaotic, combative style of populist leaders has failed in pandemic
The coronavirus pandemic has tested the resolve of governments throughout the world and it has exposed the failings of populist leadership, writes ANTHONY ANGELINI
24.07.2020 10:12Indeed, Boris Johnson has had a lot to handle after assuming his dream job. As a boy, he had always wanted to be "world king," writes his sister, Rachel Johnson, in her family biography. His role model was the former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. In 2014, Johnson even published a book about his predecessor.
One thing, however, is becoming increasingly clear: Johnson is unable to deal with the challenges facing him. He is a populist, a man of grandiose gestures, as opposed to a prudent ruler who navigates his country through crises, his hands firmly on the steering wheel. His empty promises and smoke-and-mirrors approach are debauching the country — a state of affairs now deplored even by die-hard conservatives...
It seems to be the case the world over:
The coronavirus pandemic has tested the resolve of governments throughout the world and it has exposed the failings of populist leadership, writes ANTHONY ANGELINI
IN THE midst of the current Covid-19 crisis, a number of countries have reacted responsibly and effectively. Germany, New Zealand and South Korea have shown how the virus can be pushed back; through the combination of medical expertise and organised, efficient governance.
However, there are some countries whose governments have failed to stem the tide. The United States, Brazil and the United Kingdom are among the countries with the highest death and infection rates.
However, there are some countries whose governments have failed to stem the tide. The United States, Brazil and the United Kingdom are among the countries with the highest death and infection rates.
The U.S leads the world with Coronavirus cases, with 3.37 million cases and over 137,000 deaths. Brazil has the highest case numbers in South America with approximately 1.87 million cases and 73,000 deaths. The UK has topped the number of cases and deaths in Europe with 290,000 cases and approximately 45,000 deaths...
These three leaders were elected as disruptors to change the status quo and bring down the old administrative state, but destroying institutions is much easier than building them up. When confronted with obstacles, these leaders have intentionally side stepped traditional political structures. They have instead chosen to construct alternative realities that explain away any source of political discomfort. As a result, bad news is treated as lies (or fake news) and the distributors of this news are attacked as unpatriotic or as tools of some larger globalist agenda.
The political successes of this new wave of populist leaders have been built on a distrust of authority; associating expertise and intellectualism with elitism. These leaders have also knowingly embraced conspiracy theories. In his 2017 book, the Death of Expertise, the author Timothy Nichols, warned of the danger this kind of thinking can have on the US populace: “The issue is not indifference to established knowledge; it’s the emergence of a positive hostility to such knowledge. This is new in American culture, and it represents the aggressive replacement of expert views or established knowledge with the insistence that every opinion on any matter is as good as every other. This is a remarkable change in our public discourse. This change is not only unprecedented, but dangerous”.
This denialism is not just an American issue, it has grown and infected politics across the world. Conspiracy theorists litter the internet with outlandish theories that Covid 19 is a creation of the “global elite”; designed to expand government control. This seeding of distrust in objective facts and authority has made it more difficulty to implement effective, life-saving public initiatives.
At an event to present her country’s priorities for its six month EU Presidency, German Chancellor Angela Merkel highlighted the inability of populist rhetoric to counter the reality of the pandemic: “We are seeing at the moment that the pandemic can’t be fought with lies and disinformation, and neither can it be with hatred and agitation,” she said. “Fact-denying populism is being shown its limits. In a democracy, facts and transparency are needed.”
The inflammatory, emotion driven rhetoric that underpinned the election campaigns of Trump, Bolsonaro and Johnson is starkly contrasted by the cold, hard reality of a global pandemic. Controlling the virus involves co-ordinating local and national government; keeping the public informed with clear advice and constantly re-examining the government response to improve its efficiency. Errors are there to be learned from, not to be ignored.
The chaotic, combative style of the populists, built around an us versus them narrative, has proven to be completely unsuited to the current crisis. These leaders presented themselves as men of the people, fighting for the disenfranchised, but through a combination of incompetence and wilful ignorance, their response to the virus threatens the lives of the very people they claimed to represent.
The political successes of this new wave of populist leaders have been built on a distrust of authority; associating expertise and intellectualism with elitism. These leaders have also knowingly embraced conspiracy theories. In his 2017 book, the Death of Expertise, the author Timothy Nichols, warned of the danger this kind of thinking can have on the US populace: “The issue is not indifference to established knowledge; it’s the emergence of a positive hostility to such knowledge. This is new in American culture, and it represents the aggressive replacement of expert views or established knowledge with the insistence that every opinion on any matter is as good as every other. This is a remarkable change in our public discourse. This change is not only unprecedented, but dangerous”.
This denialism is not just an American issue, it has grown and infected politics across the world. Conspiracy theorists litter the internet with outlandish theories that Covid 19 is a creation of the “global elite”; designed to expand government control. This seeding of distrust in objective facts and authority has made it more difficulty to implement effective, life-saving public initiatives.
At an event to present her country’s priorities for its six month EU Presidency, German Chancellor Angela Merkel highlighted the inability of populist rhetoric to counter the reality of the pandemic: “We are seeing at the moment that the pandemic can’t be fought with lies and disinformation, and neither can it be with hatred and agitation,” she said. “Fact-denying populism is being shown its limits. In a democracy, facts and transparency are needed.”
The inflammatory, emotion driven rhetoric that underpinned the election campaigns of Trump, Bolsonaro and Johnson is starkly contrasted by the cold, hard reality of a global pandemic. Controlling the virus involves co-ordinating local and national government; keeping the public informed with clear advice and constantly re-examining the government response to improve its efficiency. Errors are there to be learned from, not to be ignored.
The chaotic, combative style of the populists, built around an us versus them narrative, has proven to be completely unsuited to the current crisis. These leaders presented themselves as men of the people, fighting for the disenfranchised, but through a combination of incompetence and wilful ignorance, their response to the virus threatens the lives of the very people they claimed to represent.
So, 'populism' was always going to have a problem with 'experts' and their 'science':
Populist leaders struggle to fight coronavirus; experts link it to distrust of science
By John Daniszawski The Associated Press
Posted July 23, 2020
By John Daniszawski The Associated Press
Posted July 23, 2020
The countries that top the rankings of COVID-19 deaths globally are not necessarily the poorest, the richest, or even the most densely populated. But they do have one thing in common: They are led by populist, mold-breaking leaders.
Populism in politics means pushing policies that are popular with “the people,” not the elites and the experts. The United States’ Donald Trump, Britain’s Boris Johnson and Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, as well as India’s Narendra Modi and Mexico’s Andrés Manuel López Obrador, have surged to power in democratic countries, challenging the old order by promising social benefits to the masses and rejecting the establishment.
READ MORE: Canada, U.S. tourist boats at Niagara Falls highlight difference in coronavirus battle
But it turns out that when it comes to battling a new disease like COVID-19, the disruptive policies of populists are faring poorly compared to liberal democratic models in countries like Germany, France and Iceland in Europe, or South Korea and Japan in Asia.
Academics have been fretting about whether liberal democracy — the political system that helped defeat fascism in World War II, set up international institutions like the World Health Organization and seemed to have triumphed in the Cold War three decades ago — can muster the stuff to take on the new populism and address complex 21st-century challenges.
COVID-19 has crystallized that dilemma.
“This is a public health crisis that requires expertise and science to resolve. Populists by nature … have a disdain for experts and science that are seen as part of the establishment,” says Michael Shifter, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based think tank. He was discussing Brazil, where at least 81,000 people have died.
“Brazil has a wealth of expertise and the U.S. does, too,” Shifter says. “But the problem is, the populist politics makes it very difficult to implement rational policies that really resolve the issue — or at least manage the crisis more effectively.”
The United States, Brazil, the United Kingdom and Mexico all are led by leaders who have been skeptical of scientists and who initially minimized the disease. These four countries account for half of the 618,000 COVID-19 deaths worldwide so far, according to statistics tracked by Johns Hopkins University. India, meanwhile, is coming on strong. It just passed the mark of 1.2 million confirmed cases...
Populism in politics means pushing policies that are popular with “the people,” not the elites and the experts. The United States’ Donald Trump, Britain’s Boris Johnson and Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, as well as India’s Narendra Modi and Mexico’s Andrés Manuel López Obrador, have surged to power in democratic countries, challenging the old order by promising social benefits to the masses and rejecting the establishment.
READ MORE: Canada, U.S. tourist boats at Niagara Falls highlight difference in coronavirus battle
But it turns out that when it comes to battling a new disease like COVID-19, the disruptive policies of populists are faring poorly compared to liberal democratic models in countries like Germany, France and Iceland in Europe, or South Korea and Japan in Asia.
Academics have been fretting about whether liberal democracy — the political system that helped defeat fascism in World War II, set up international institutions like the World Health Organization and seemed to have triumphed in the Cold War three decades ago — can muster the stuff to take on the new populism and address complex 21st-century challenges.
COVID-19 has crystallized that dilemma.
“This is a public health crisis that requires expertise and science to resolve. Populists by nature … have a disdain for experts and science that are seen as part of the establishment,” says Michael Shifter, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based think tank. He was discussing Brazil, where at least 81,000 people have died.
“Brazil has a wealth of expertise and the U.S. does, too,” Shifter says. “But the problem is, the populist politics makes it very difficult to implement rational policies that really resolve the issue — or at least manage the crisis more effectively.”
The United States, Brazil, the United Kingdom and Mexico all are led by leaders who have been skeptical of scientists and who initially minimized the disease. These four countries account for half of the 618,000 COVID-19 deaths worldwide so far, according to statistics tracked by Johns Hopkins University. India, meanwhile, is coming on strong. It just passed the mark of 1.2 million confirmed cases...
Populist leaders struggle to fight coronavirus; experts link it to distrust of science - National | Globalnews.ca
But: in a word of caution, once the economy starts to get really bad, then opportunists will take advantage:
Why Populism Can Survive the Pandemic
ROSA BALFOUR JULY 15, 2020
Summary: Countries with populist governments have been especially badly hit by the coronavirus pandemic. But beware: the virus is unlikely to kill off populism. To rid the world of populism, its root causes must be addressed.
Reshaping European Democracy
Bolsonaro, Johnson, Salvini, Trump. Erdoğan, Kaczyński, Le Pen. Modi, Orbán, Putin. Some of these global leaders are populists; some have authoritarian streaks; others are authoritarians using populism to consolidate power. Some will be booted out after their disastrous mismanagement of the coronavirus pandemic. Others will stay, and new ones will arrive.
Given the poor performance of many populist governments in dealing with the coronavirus, populism looks like it could be magically swept away. But such wishful thinking ignores the reasons for the rise of populism and its likely endurance. To rid the world of populism, its root causes must be addressed...
Why Populism Can Survive the Pandemic - Carnegie Europe - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
.
.
.
But: in a word of caution, once the economy starts to get really bad, then opportunists will take advantage:
Why Populism Can Survive the Pandemic
ROSA BALFOUR JULY 15, 2020
Summary: Countries with populist governments have been especially badly hit by the coronavirus pandemic. But beware: the virus is unlikely to kill off populism. To rid the world of populism, its root causes must be addressed.
Reshaping European Democracy
Bolsonaro, Johnson, Salvini, Trump. Erdoğan, Kaczyński, Le Pen. Modi, Orbán, Putin. Some of these global leaders are populists; some have authoritarian streaks; others are authoritarians using populism to consolidate power. Some will be booted out after their disastrous mismanagement of the coronavirus pandemic. Others will stay, and new ones will arrive.
Given the poor performance of many populist governments in dealing with the coronavirus, populism looks like it could be magically swept away. But such wishful thinking ignores the reasons for the rise of populism and its likely endurance. To rid the world of populism, its root causes must be addressed...
Why Populism Can Survive the Pandemic - Carnegie Europe - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
.
.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)