Exam question for the future (or heck, why not now?)
Which was more important for the growth of modern populist nationalism, the global financial crisis or the simultaneous rise of social media?
Which was more important for the growth of modern populist nationalism, the global financial crisis or the simultaneous rise of social media?
Comments
Social media is just a tool, its the abuse by its owners that is the real culprit. For example, if algorithms only ever promoted progressive posts we would be in a different world by now.
You see the same radicalisation with new means of communication throughout the generations. The palimpsests of the parliamentarians rapidly printed and distributed contributed hugely to the distrust and fear of the king. Half were lies too.
While both the global financial crisis and the rise of social media were crucial, it is their interaction—economic disillusionment amplified through digital platforms—that most effectively fueled modern populist nationalism.
Forced to choose? You can't light a fire without a spark, but both were crucial.
John Hume was a nationalist, and he used populist tactics.
That term only exists to avoid naming powerful figures & organisations as far-right, fascist or supporters of illiberal democracy.
The use and manipulation of both by RW billionaires will feature heavily in the answer.
GFC resulted in more money going towards high growth tech stocks which gave the money to build the networks which fed on bad news which came because of austerity which fed populism which then became a feedback loop.
So pleased too you correctly used 'which' 😊
The global financial had very little to do with the rise of populist nationalism.
If you track voters who switched from mainstream parties to populist ones a significant % were barely affected by the crisis. Indeed home owners in secure jobs/retired voters actually benefited.
This led to a huge surge of wealth in older voters who were a big % of Brexit/Reform party.
Now much less.