The Duality of Populism and its Historical Roots

“We the People” is a dominating concept in the modern world. It is the foundation of American democracy and has provided progressive inspiration for various societies across history. With “We the People” being such a powerful notion, it didn’t take long for individuals and politicians to weaponize it. Hence the emergence of populism, a form of discourse portraying a time or place in which “the people,” a morally good force, must oppose “the elite,” an oppressive and corrupt force.[1] Modern conversations about populism are neglectful of important historical context, providing largely unhelpful, simplistic, and noncomprehensive explanations. Mass misinterpretations of populism are intrinsically dangerous, as it may just be the most compelling form of political strategy within a democracy.

Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump

Populism as a term originates from the People’s Party of the early 1890s, which campaigned against corporate power and demanded an end to certain inequalities. As for a modern analysis, there are two contrasting political personas that fit Populist definitions – longtime Independent U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and business mogul turned (former) President Donald Trump.[2] Sanders’ proposed policies further those of the People’s Party, demanding accountability from corporate superpowers and seeking equality beyond what was possible in the 1890’s. On the other hand, Trump’s tax cut policies favor corporations by a long shot. Trump also has a history of using language that subconsciously blames minorities for various national issues – including job losses, the opioid epidemic, and inner-city violence. His strategy is to convince “the people” that anyone who opposes him inherently opposes them. As a politician willing to attack anything the average voter could perceive as a political threat, he has major appeal.

Political division graphic

In America today, people are struggling financially, physically, and ideologically. This has voters seeking promises for resolve, and overzealous partisans have taken advantage of that to win re-election. Henceforth, society has become gravely polarized despite the fact most people agree on more political points than they disagree, and little has been done to clear constituent grievances.[3] Populism attracts disgruntled populations, and throughout history, rounds them up in rebellion against what’s been proven to be oppressive and elitist regimes. To begin to ask questions about modern populist discourse, we must first find its historical foundation.

John Locke

The roots of modern populism can be found within the Enlightenment era of the 17th and 18th centuries. Though it began in Europe, it quickly made its way to the Americas. This time is marked by expanding literacy and critical thinking. People passionately shared ideas on how to improve society, inevitably leading to rebellion against longstanding institutions and traditions. John Locke (1632-1704) is an important example of this. His ideas urged sovereignty of the people, in which a “social contract” was made between a population and their ruler. In his eyes, when a government became tyrannical, it violated that contract, and the people therefore had a right to revolt and create a new contract.

The thoughts of John Locke provide the ideological foundation of American democracy. When the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act of 1765 and started taxing American colonists, it was not welcomed by those who resented taxation without representation in British Parliament – and the people became aware of an unfitting social contract. Eventually, petitions turned into boycotts, and soon outright warfare between colonial militants and British troops ensued. The people wanted more than representation; they wanted their own form of governance.[4] It is no wonder American populations are easily influenced by ideas that portray their ruler as an enemy of their interests, considering the birth of an independent United States comes from a movement that reclaimed power for those who felt unrepresented.

Jose Marti

As we can see already, not all notions that place the people as separate from the elite are inherently manipulative. Indeed, leaders throughout history have used the notion of “us (the people) against them (the elite)” as a genuine way of toppling oppressive regimes. Take for example the Cuban War for Independence from Spain, which ended in 1898. Important to this cause was Jose Martí, the philosopher, journalist, and writer who became a proclaimed martyr for Cuban independence. In his writings, he had no issue morally separating elite individuals and institutions from the average citizen – though, he did so with far more nuance than you’d likely see today. While Martí intellectually focused on Latin America, he also had interest in American politics. One of his greatest fears was that once Cuba was free from Spain, it would find itself under American control. After his death in 1895, those fears proved to be true.[5]

Martí pondered the political position of the United States in several writings, both critiquing and applauding depending on the topic. He had a passionate admiration for certain things laid out in the Constitution, such as the First Amendment. He asserted that while America has vast potential, those powers were being abused, rightfully taking issue with the injustices committed against racial minorities. He also insisted that American politics were being spoiled by “politicos de oficio,” or politicians by trade. Moreover, in true revolutionary fashion, Martí took no issue condemning America’s super-elite (rich businessmen of the cities), accusing them of having more influence on political outcomes than the people. In his view, these people were corroding the true American spirit with their focuses on money-making and increasing hemispheric influence. Martí declared this as an ultimate threat that, over time, would increasingly oppose the ideals America was founded on.[6]

In a debate hosted by Intelligence Squared, participants discussed the prompt “Western democracy is threatening suicide,” largely centered on the rise of radical populism in democracies. Speaking for the motion, Philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy said democracy isn’t just voting, it’s based on the value of truth – but populists “don’t give a shit about the truth, values, or creed, they don’t even believe in fascist creed,” and that Trump decided the truth is exactly what fits his political agenda. Moreover, Trump is not the only one profiting off of mistruths. The indignant assertions of various politicians incite their constituents to only perceive “black and white” – Republican, Democrat, savage, civilized, evil, honorable, friend, or enemy.[7]

While I agree with arguments for the motion, I do not agree with how populism itself was portrayed in the discussion. In Three Lessons of Contemporary Populism in Europe and the United States, Bart Bonikowski – an Associate Professor of Sociology with the University of Harvard – highlights crucial contextual information about populism that both academics and mainstream media sources largely fail to provide. He says populism is often misperceived as a right-wing ideology, and that it’s falsely presented as a new attribute in political culture. To understand populism’s crucial position in modern politics, it’s important to break down each of these misconceptions.

Populist Party Platform 1892

Firstly, populism is not an ideology, and not only right-wing politicians can be considered populists. This misunderstanding is likely because right-wing politicians are more commonly and effectively weaponizing populism than their leftist counterparts. Put simply, populist dialogue is anti-elite, pro-people, and suspicious of longstanding institutions. How this rhetoric manifests depends on who is presented as “the elite,” which demographics are included in “the people,” and why institutions are mistrusted. Also, a politician doesn’t have to be considered a populist to employ populist strategy. Empirical analyses show that many politicians use populist language selectively, depending on the audience and contextual social setting.[8] For example, President Eisenhower used lots of populist rhetoric in 1952, but not in 1956 – and the same trend applies to President Clinton, who applied populist discourse in 1992 but not in 1996. As a political frame, populism can be used to express a vast array of ideological positions.

As shown earlier, populist discourse has roots dating back to the Enlightenment period, and possibly even beforehand. In several nations, varying levels of oppressed peoples rallied for their causes against their given elites. For example, slave uprisings in Central America are a pure example of a people rallying against an oppressive elite. Today, although nowhere near as extreme, Americans are struggling to stay afloat amid political turmoil and division. Anyone observing U.S. politics wouldn’t be surprised to see people flock toward the alluring deception of promises made by charismatic leaders.

Economic inequality art

Contextual predictors of successful populist movements include economic inequality and stagnation, rising immigration, ineffective governance, social inequality, and rapid changes in cultural norms. When these realities come together, the stress within a society can become so intense that people are more willing to consider ethno-nationalist and (or) anti-elite stances.

Both leftist and right-wing populist movements have anti-elite themes, though their grievances, targets, and accusations differ. Also, while right-wing populism is often based in ethno-nationalism – leftist populism is typically heavily opposed to neoliberal policies and ethno-nationalist policy. In either circumstance, populist attitudes reject nuanced discussion, and instead replace it with moral outrage.[9] Specifically, policy disagreements turn into accusations of fundamental corruption, and because that dialogue rejects an opponent’s political legitimacy, compromise becomes less likely, and division intensifies. This is directly connected to gridlock in Congress, where lawmakers are becoming so apart from one another that effective governance has been nearly replaced by routine obstructionism. By corroding people’s trust in institutions, furthering political divides, and exacerbating legislative deadlock – populism puts a critical level of pressure on democracies.

Even with all these dangers, populism is not an inherently evil strategy that only power-hungry moguls are willing to use. In the words of Bonikowski, “populism possesses one virtue: it gives voice to the grievances of those who are often silent in the political process. As a result, it can serve as a barometer for deep-seated social problems and a catalyst for social change.”[10] Portrayals of a society in which the elite’s interests directly oppose those of the people are not always far stretched or based in desires for authority. This has been the case several times throughout history, and we can’t expect that trend to change.

American Revolutionary War

The values of America as a nation are rooted in Enlightenment ideals of power to the people, where if the people feel their government is not representing their interests, it is time for a change. Therefore, if the masses are so easily swoon by populist discourse, it shows a deep-rooted resentment of longstanding institutions and authorities.

The modern problem seems to be that charismatic, ill-intentioned leaders are taking note of mass discontent and using it to their advantage. Once those “leaders” convince the people of their loyalty, they can easily misguide the people’s justifiable anger so that it brings them more power – covertly stealing the power from the people they promised to give back. As the leader garners more and more power, the people become more and more discontent, yet do not see who their real “elite enemy” truly is. So, there seems to be a paradox – the same strategy that can put power back into the people’s hands can also take it back just as easily. According to Bonikowski, for populism to reach a positive outcome, the underlying causes of its appeal must be addressed. It must be truthfully established why the people are hurting, how it connects to a lack of political control, and what variety of instances have led to the issue. Additionally, the appeal of moral resentment must be resisted, and this is one of the easiest ways to spot malicious populist dialogue. Never should an idea that claims to empower the people divide populations that are largely experiencing the same daily sufferings. [11]

Though American democracy was formed to ensure the government works for the people, too many are feeling disregarded. In a generalized context, many individuals in nearly every demographic will say they don’t think the government works for them. This is leading to less faith in democracy – according to Professor Yasha Mounk with Harvard University in the debate mentioned earlier, less than one-third of millennials say it is essential for them to live in a democracy. As more and more people believe the government does not work for them, they are letting powerful figures influence their opinions about the “elite,” who to blame, and what to be angry about. The solution to the issue at hand may now be a question of who is able to persuade the masses, and how the people will respond.

Sources 

[1] “Populism.” ECPS, December 28, 2020. https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/populism/.

[2] Postel, Charles. “If Trump and Sanders Are Both Populists, What Does Populist Mean?” Organization of American Historians. Accessed November 25, 2023. https://www.oah.org/tah/february-2/if-trump-and-sanders-are-both-populists-what-does-populist-mean/.

[3] Kleinfeld, Rachel. “Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States ...” Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States: What the Research Says, September 5, 2023. https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/09/05/polarization-democracy-and-political-violence-in-united-states-what-research-says-pub-90457.

[4] Tignor, Robert, Jeremy Adelman, Stephen Aron, Stephen Kotkin, Suzanne Marchand, Gyan Prakash, and Michael Tsin. Worlds Together Worlds Apart. 4th ed. Vol. 2. New York City, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2014.

[5] Edward Boorstein. Cuba vs. U.S. Imperialism. Students for a Democratic Society. Documents.

Students for Democratic Society, n.d. https://jstor.org/stable/community.33125243.

 

[6] Kirk, John M. “Jose Marti and the United States: A Further Interpretation.” Journal of Latin

American Studies 9, no. 2 (1977): 275–90. http://www.jstor.org/stable/156129.

[7] “Western Democracy Is Threatening Suicide.” Open to Debate, September 14, 2022. https://opentodebate.org/debate/western-democracy-threatening-suicide/.

[8] Bonikowski, Bart. Three Lessons of Contemporary Populism in Europe and the United States, 2018. https://bjwa.brown.edu/23-1/three-lessons-of-contemporary-populism-in-europe-and-the-united-states/.

[9] Bonikowski, Bart. Three Lessons of Contemporary Populism in Europe and the United States, 2018. https://bjwa.brown.edu/23-1/three-lessons-of-contemporary-populism-in-europe-and-the-united-states/.

[10] Bonikowski, Bart. Three Lessons of Contemporary Populism in Europe and the United States, 2018. https://bjwa.brown.edu/23-1/three-lessons-of-contemporary-populism-in-europe-and-the-united-states/.

[11] Kleinfeld, Rachel. “Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States ...” Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States: What the Research Says, September 5, 2023. https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/09/05/polarization-democracy-and-political-violence-in-united-states-what-research-says-pub-90457.