The Populist Explosion

1. Populism is a political logic, not an ideology, that pits "the people" against "the elite."

Populism, he writes, is “a language whose speakers conceive of ordinary people as a noble assemblage not bounded narrowly by class; view their elite opponents as self-serving and undemocratic; and seek to mobilize the former against the latter.”

Defining populism. Populism is not a fixed ideology like socialism or conservatism, but rather a flexible political logic that can manifest across the political spectrum. It fundamentally frames politics as a conflict between "the people"—a broadly defined group of ordinary citizens—and a corrupt, self-serving "elite" or "establishment." This dynamic allows populists to mobilize diverse constituencies by articulating grievances against those perceived to hold power.

Conflictual relationship. What defines populism is this inherent conflictual relationship, rather than specific policy positions. The exact referents of "the people" and "the elite" can vary widely, from "money power" to "pointy-headed intellectuals" or "the casta." The demands made by populists are often non-negotiable and ambitious, designed to highlight the intransigence of the establishment and solidify the "us vs. them" divide.

Warning signs. Populist movements often emerge as crucial warning signs of a political crisis, signaling that prevailing norms and worldviews are failing to address the hopes, fears, and concerns of a significant portion of the populace. While they may not always achieve their stated objectives, populists "roil the waters," forcing a re-evaluation of the status quo and acting as catalysts for political change.

2. American populism has a rich history, oscillating between left and right, challenging prevailing consensuses.

Populism is an American creation that spread later to Latin America and Europe.

Historical roots. American populism dates back to the 19th century, with the People's Party of the 1890s being a foundational example. This movement of farmers and blue-collar workers challenged laissez-faire capitalism, demanding government intervention on issues like railroad regulation, a graduated income tax, and monetary reform. It was a left-wing populist force, primarily directed against the "money power."

Left and right manifestations. The populist tradition continued with figures like Huey Long in the 1930s, whose "Share Our Wealth" program pushed Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal further left to address economic inequality. Later, George Wallace in the 1960s embodied right-wing populism, appealing to a "silent majority" against "big government" and civil rights initiatives, while paradoxically maintaining some New Deal liberal economic views. Wallace's campaigns laid the groundwork for a significant realignment in American politics.

Catalytic impact. These movements, though often short-lived, have had an outsized impact by raising issues that major parties ignored. They signal deep-seated discontent and force the political system to adapt, even if their specific demands are co-opted or rejected. They highlight the inadequacy of prevailing worldviews and act as a precursor to broader political shifts.

3. The rise of neoliberalism, prioritizing market imperatives, created fertile ground for modern populist backlashes.

The United States is still in an era dominated by this neoliberal worldview, but it has come under attack from populist politicians and movements—from Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan in the early 1990s to the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street in the 2010s.

Shift to neoliberalism. Beginning in the 1970s, both the United States and Europe saw a shift away from New Deal liberalism and social democracy towards neoliberalism. This approach prioritized market forces, deregulation, tax cuts for businesses, and free trade, often at the expense of social spending and worker protections. This was a response to global competition, profit squeezes, and "stagflation."

Business-driven agenda. American businesses, facing global competition and wage pressures, aggressively lobbied for policies that favored corporate profits:

• Tax cuts and deregulation.
• Trade deals easing overseas investment.
• Increased immigration for cheap labor.
  This agenda, initially resisted by some Democrats, eventually became a bipartisan consensus, leaving popular concerns about manufacturing job losses and rising inequality unaddressed.

Economic consequences. Neoliberal policies, while promising growth for all, led to a "dual economy" with a high-wage finance/tech sector and a low-wage service sector, squeezing the middle class. This resulted in:

• Growing income and wealth inequality.
• Loss of manufacturing jobs due to outsourcing and trade deals.
• Increased reliance on consumer debt to sustain demand.
  These trends created widespread public skepticism and discontent, setting the stage for populist challenges.

4. Left-wing populism champions the people against economic elites and systemic inequality.

Leftwing populists champion the people against an elite or an establishment. Theirs is a vertical politics of the bottom and middle arrayed against the top.

Focus on inequality. Left-wing populism, exemplified by figures like Bernie Sanders and movements like Occupy Wall Street, primarily targets economic inequality and the power of the "billionaire class" or "1 percent." They frame the conflict as a vertical struggle between ordinary people and a wealthy, self-serving elite that manipulates the political and economic system.

Challenging neoliberalism. These movements directly assault the core tenets of neoliberalism, advocating for policies that would redistribute wealth and power. Examples include:

• "Medicare for all" and free public college.
• Higher taxes on the wealthy and financial transactions.
• Re-regulation of finance (e.g., Glass-Steagall Act).
• Opposition to trade deals that lead to job outsourcing.
  These demands are often presented as non-negotiable, designed to highlight the fundamental antagonism between the people's needs and the establishment's interests.

Catalyst for change. While often struggling to achieve their most radical goals, left-wing populists play a crucial role in shifting public discourse and pressuring mainstream parties. Huey Long's "Share Our Wealth" pushed FDR to enact the Second New Deal, and Occupy Wall Street brought economic inequality to the forefront of American debate. Bernie Sanders's campaign, though unsuccessful in securing the nomination, significantly influenced the Democratic Party's platform on economic issues.

5. Right-wing populism champions the people against elites and an "out-group" like immigrants or minorities.

Rightwing populists champion the people against an elite that they accuse of coddling a third group, which can consist, for instance, of immigrants, Islamists, or African American militants. Leftwing populism is dyadic. Rightwing populism is triadic. It looks upward, but also down upon an out group.

Triadic conflict. Unlike left-wing populism's dyadic "people vs. elite" structure, right-wing populism introduces a third element: an "out-group." The elite is accused not only of self-interest but also of "coddling" or prioritizing this out-group, which can include immigrants, minorities, or specific religious communities. This creates a "people vs. elite vs. out-group" dynamic.

Key grievances. Right-wing populists, such as George Wallace, Pat Buchanan, Donald Trump, and European parties like the National Front, often focus on:

• Immigration: Accusing immigrants (especially undocumented or non-European) of burdening public services, driving down wages, and contributing to crime or cultural erosion.
• Trade: Criticizing trade deals and outsourcing for costing native jobs.
• "Big government": Opposing government programs perceived to disproportionately benefit minorities or the poor at the expense of the "middle American radical."
  These concerns resonate with segments of the working and middle classes who feel economically "left behind" and culturally marginalized.

Cultural and economic anxieties. While often rooted in economic grievances, right-wing populism frequently intertwines these with cultural anxieties. Concerns about national identity, social cohesion, and the perceived threat of foreign cultures or religions become central to their appeal. This blend allows them to mobilize voters who feel ignored by mainstream parties and who are wary of both economic globalization and social liberalism.

6. The Eurocrisis and the European Union's institutionalized neoliberalism fueled widespread populist discontent.

But whether wittingly or not, the EU and Eurozone institutionalized the rule of neoliberalism.

End of social democracy. Post-WWII Europe enjoyed decades of social democratic consensus and economic boom, but the 1970s downturn, marked by profit squeezes and global competition, undermined this model. Leaders like Margaret Thatcher and François Mitterrand (after an initial U-turn) adopted neoliberal strategies, prioritizing market forces, deregulation, and austerity. This shift eroded the traditional working-class loyalty to mainstream left parties.

EU's neoliberal framework. The formation of the European Union and the Eurozone, while intended to foster peace and economic stability, inadvertently institutionalized neoliberal policies:

• Stability and Growth Pact: Limited national deficits and debt, effectively ruling out Keynesian stimulus.
• Loss of currency control: Member states (especially Southern Europe) lost the ability to devalue currency to manage trade deficits or economic crises.
• Freedom of movement: Allowed free movement of goods, capital, and labor, leading to job outsourcing to lower-wage countries and increased immigration.
  These policies left national governments "hamstrung" in responding to economic downturns and popular discontent.

Democracy deficit. The EU's governance structure, with its appointed Commission and unelected Central Bank, created a "democracy deficit" where citizens had little direct input into crucial economic and social policies. This insulation from popular protest, combined with the economic consequences of neoliberal policies and rising immigration, created a vacuum that populist parties eagerly filled, often by challenging the very legitimacy of the EU.

7. Southern European left-wing populists struggled to overcome the EU's rigid austerity demands.

As a populist party promising to fight against the forces trying to impose austerity upon the country, Syriza appears to have failed.

Austerity's grip. The 2008 financial crash plunged Southern European economies like Greece and Spain into deep recession, exacerbated by their Eurozone membership. Unable to devalue their currencies, these nations faced immense pressure from the "Troika" (European Commission, ECB, IMF) to implement harsh austerity measures: massive budget cuts, tax increases, and privatization. These policies deepened recessions and fueled widespread public anger.

Syriza's capitulation. In Greece, the left-wing populist Syriza party rose to power in 2015 on an anti-austerity platform, promising to reject the Troika's demands. Despite a national referendum where Greeks overwhelmingly voted against the Troika's deal, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras ultimately capitulated to even more onerous terms. This move, driven by the fear of Eurozone exit and economic chaos, effectively transformed Syriza from an anti-establishment force into a manager of austerity, losing its populist edge.

Podemos's dilemma. In Spain, Podemos emerged from the "Indignados" movement, adopting a "people vs. casta" populist logic and advocating for post-neoliberal policies. Initially gaining significant traction, Podemos softened its anti-EU and anti-Euro stance after witnessing Syriza's fate, fearing a similar backlash from Spanish voters committed to Europe. This strategic shift, combined with an alliance with the traditional left, diluted its populist message and led to a disappointing electoral performance, failing to displace the mainstream Socialist party.

8. Northern European right-wing populism capitalized on surging immigration and cultural anxieties.

Together, the flood of immigrants, the terrorist acts, and sexual assaults lent credence to two decades of agitation by rightwing populist groups against immigrants and Islam.

Immigration surge. Northern European countries, largely untouched by the Eurocrisis's economic devastation, experienced a dramatic surge in non-European immigration and asylum seekers, particularly after 2014. This influx, combined with a rise in Islamist-inspired terrorist attacks and social incidents, fueled existing anxieties about cultural identity, public services, and security.

Populist gains. Right-wing populist parties, which had long agitated against immigration and Islam, saw their support soar:

• Danish People's Party: Became the second-largest party in 2015, influencing government policy to cut benefits for refugees and impose cultural mandates.
• Austrian Freedom Party: Its candidate nearly won the presidency in 2016, capitalizing on concerns over asylum seekers.
• UKIP (Britain): Led the successful Brexit campaign, fusing anti-EU sentiment with anti-immigration rhetoric, appealing to "left-behind" working-class voters.
  These parties often combined anti-immigrant stances with a defense of the welfare state, but exclusively for native citizens.

Nationalism and sovereignty. These movements often frame their opposition to immigration and the EU in terms of national sovereignty and cultural preservation. They argue that elites have betrayed the nation by allowing uncontrolled immigration and ceding national control to Brussels. This resonates with voters who feel a loss of identity and control in a globalized world, leading to significant political reshuffling, as seen with Brexit.

9. Populist movements serve as critical warning signs of systemic political and economic failures.

The heated denunciation of these campaigns and parties, based on inexact historical analogies, makes it difficult to understand why what populists say resonates with the greater public, and how they are pointing, however imperfectly, to real problems that the major parties are downplaying or ignoring.

Beyond denunciation. While populist movements often exhibit toxic elements like scapegoating and demagoguery, dismissing them as "fascist" obscures their deeper significance. They act as crucial early warning systems, highlighting genuine problems that mainstream political parties and prevailing ideologies fail to address or actively ignore.

Unaddressed grievances. Populist demands, even if impractical or laced with misinformation, often point to real tears in the fabric of accepted political wisdom:

• Economic inequality: Huey Long's radical tax schemes, Sanders's "Medicare for all," and Occupy Wall Street's "99 percent" slogan all highlighted the maldistribution of wealth.
• Trade and capital mobility: Trump's threats of tariffs and Perot's "sucking sound" warning, while hyperbolic, underscored the negative impact of unfettered globalization on manufacturing jobs and wages.
• EU dysfunction: Syriza, Podemos, and the National Front correctly identified the structural flaws of the Eurozone and the EU's "democracy deficit."
• Immigration impact: Right-wing populists, despite nativist rhetoric, raised legitimate concerns about the strain on public services and downward pressure on wages from unskilled immigration.

Catalysts for re-evaluation. Populists force a reckoning, compelling a re-evaluation of policies and assumptions that have become entrenched. Their rise indicates that the "circulatory system of trade deficits, recycled dollars, and private and public debt that sustains neoliberalism won’t go on forever." They signal that the existing political and economic order is not working for everyone, and that fundamental repairs are needed.

10. Modern populism is distinct from historical fascism, despite superficial resemblances.

But there are two major historical differences between populism today in the United States and Western Europe and the interwar fascist movements.

Democratic operation. Unlike interwar fascist movements that sought to destroy democracy and establish dictatorships, today's populist movements in the US and Western Europe operate openly within democratic electoral systems. They win and lose power like conventional parties, and even those with historical ties to fascism have largely repudiated those roots. While some leaders may display anti-democratic tendencies, they are typically idiosyncratic rather than systemic.

Nationalist, not imperialist. The original fascist movements were inherently expansionist, seeking imperial domination and the redistribution of global power. Modern populist movements, by contrast, are primarily nationalist, focused on reasserting national control over currency, fiscal policy, and borders. They aim to strengthen their own nations internally rather than conquer others, often opposing supranational formations like the EU.

Centrifugal force. These movements exert a centrifugal force on global politics, prioritizing national interests over international integration. Trump's "America First" agenda, for example, seeks to withdraw from overseas conflicts and rebuild domestic infrastructure, not launch new wars of conquest. While their exclusionary nationalism can be "repellent," it differs fundamentally from the global ambitions and violent totalitarianism of historical fascism.

11. The future of neoliberalism and the European Union faces growing, potentially destabilizing, populist challenges.

Europe is another matter entirely. The European Union and the Eurozone were built with the best of intentions, but many Europeans have not seen their benefits, particularly those who live in the less prosperous nations within the Eurozone.

Erosion of neoliberalism. In the United States, the populist assaults from Trump and Sanders have significantly shifted the economic debate, moving away from supply-side nostrums and towards concerns about trade deals, runaway shops, and Wall Street regulation. While a full "political earthquake" overturning neoliberalism is not imminent, the consensus is eroding, creating ongoing conflict within both major parties.

EU's precarious future. The European Union, particularly the Eurozone, faces a more immediate and profound crisis. Its institutionalized neoliberalism, lack of federal budgeting arrangements, and rigid deficit limits have proven dysfunctional, especially for less prosperous members. The "freedom of movement" policy, while well-intentioned, has exacerbated immigration pressures in wealthier nations, fueling right-wing populism and resistance to further integration.

Growing pressures. The pressures that have created populist parties in Europe—economic stagnation, unaddressed inequality, and large-scale immigration—are likely to intensify. This could lead to more countries following Britain's example and deciding to "bolt" from the EU. The long-term viability of the EU, once hailed as a triumph of modern times, is increasingly in doubt, with populist forces acting as a powerful, potentially disintegrating, factor.

Last updated: February 19, 2026