Why Do We Need to Fight Populism?

It's the road to authoritarianism

Donald Trump, Viktor Orbán, Marine Le Pen. The UnPopulist Illustration.

In recent decades, a populist, authoritarian pandemic has been spreading across the world. Liberal institutions, fundamental to markets, democracy, and civil society have been weakened or started to crumble.

In the case of Europe, recent polls indicate that populist parties could top the vote share in many of the member states of the European Union at this year’s European Parliament elections. This could dramatically alter the Parliament’s political landscape, as well as the policies and institutions that support the common market, the rule of law, and individual liberties.

How can we explain this development and what can be done about it? How can liberals and classical liberals fight back against this threat to the free world? In a recent book, Reviving Classical Liberalism against Populism, I explore the defining characteristics of populism with the aim of making populism intelligible, recognizable, and contestable. Three characteristics stand out.

Not Just Simple-Minded Policies

First, in popular discourse and among economists, populism is often seen as a politics that appeals to the people by advocating unserious and ill-founded policies, offering simplistic answers to complex questions. Typical examples are promises of major increases in public spending and benefits at the same time as advocating tax cuts or promises to introduce protective tariffs to save jobs and failing industries.

These kinds of policies contribute to observed economic decline under populist rule. In a recent extensive historical study, an evaluation of 51 populist regimes from 1900 to 2020 was carried out, showing that populists underperform significantly. The study found that 15 years after the populist takeover, GDP per capita was 10% below the non-populist counterfactual and that income inequality did not fall. Put simply, populist rule has done lasting economic damage.

A Rhetorical Style

Second, in sociology and political science, populism is instead often characterized as a specific rhetorical style and discourse frame designed to mobilize the “deserving majority” (the “true people”) against allegedly corrupt, conspiring elites and the institutions they occupy. “Facts” and “news” are constructed and contrasted with the “lies” of opponents, or the “fake news” of the media.

The deliberate polarization of politics and society into an “us versus them” dichotomy is the means used to mobilize support, using narratives that “construct” the people and their different enemies. Populists aim to create a direct connection with their supporters, using mass meetings, television shows, and digital channels.

---

---

There are both left-wing and right-wing versions of this. Those on the left commonly blame “neoliberalism,” deregulation, privatization, and tax cuts for all kinds of economic and social problems. Those on the right instead blame liberalism more generally for undermining traditional family values, religion, and communities. In their narrative, it is untrammeled markets, “wokism,” LGBTQ rights, immigration, Islam, and other targets that are the enemies.

Populism can thus be seen as a “collectivistic identity politics” that may give a sense of belonging—to the nation, class, history, religion, or some other trait. It offers a worthy purpose and meaning, namely, to defend the people against enemies and threatening others, that is constructed by the populists themselves.

Autocratic Tendencies

Third, when populists get into power, the rhetorical discourse frames tend to be used to implement successive autocratic measures, such as limiting opposition through electoral manipulation, thwarting the free press, changing the constitution in their own favor, and circumscribing minority, civil, political, and economic rights.

This is what makes populism a genuine threat to democracy, free markets, and open society. This is also why the use of populist strategies by established democratic parties and actors may have long-term dangerous effects on our societies. Populists are thus usually not against electoral democracy per se, but rather at odds with liberal democracy. Since they believe they represent the “true people,” other people’s votes do not really count as legitimate. Consequently, they are hostile to the underlying values and principles of constitutionalism, pluralism, minority rights, and checks and balances.

Explaining Populism

There may be several factors underpinning the rise of populism. Changing economic and social conditions, such as globalization, failing welfare programs, crises, inequality, and immigration may certainly provide fertile ground for populists to promote their ideas. But by themselves, these changing conditions are insufficient to explain populism.

Instead, cultural factors relating to identity need to be considered. Humans may also have a latent authoritarian predisposition: our minds are psychologically designed for populist tribalism and righteousness, fostering polarization between groups and in society at large. Moreover, social media is highly conducive to the kind of polarized, anti-rational, post-fact, post-truth communication championed by populists. Algorithms and platforms have created methods for targeting misinformation and conspiracy theories to large audiences, creating echo chambers where populist beliefs are sustained.

But the key driver of populist success is the appeal of populist rhetoric and discursive framing. Left-wing and right-wing populists may even form a symbiotic relationship in this process, each promoting the polarization of society in a self-enforcing process.

Fighting Back

Populism is the opposite of classical liberalism. The world will not change for the better unless liberals start fighting back. Liberals must develop and revitalize their ideas, beliefs, and values, just as in previous times throughout history.

A first counterstrategy is to expose the deliberate strategies of polarization populists use to gain power and change society in an autocratic direction. While apparently attractive, it is reasonable to think that many supporters of populism are neither aware of the deliberate manipulation that lies behind the strategies used by populists, nor of the negative consequences that follow.

A second group of counterstrategies concerns the need to defend, develop, and improve liberal institutions and policies. Policy failures can and should be corrected. It is also necessary to improve liberal literacy, to explain how liberal institutions contribute to prosperity and welfare, as well as to community and virtue. It is far from intuitive to most people how the spontaneous orders of liberal societies work. A strong, limited, and decent state needs to be secured.

A third counterstrategy is to embrace and promote the less often emphasized dimension of classical liberalism, namely the spirit of liberalism. Rational arguments alone are unlikely to do the full job. Liberals must show why a liberal society provides the best conditions for individual self-development and meaning. Liberalism is not only about enrichment but also about emancipation and human flourishing.

Lastly, liberal statecraft should promote not only a liberal economy but also a civil and open society—and perhaps most importantly, the liberal spirit. This requires the ability to conquer the arena of ideas through the promotion of liberal policy entrepreneurs and investment in resources that can change institutions and policies. This must be a polycentric effort with the involvement of many different actors and policy entrepreneurs.

All of this will be difficult to achieve, but it is no doubt possible and has great potential for all of us. Indeed, the cost may be exceedingly high if we do not try.

An earlier version of this article originally appeared in the London School of Economics’ European Politics and Policy blog. It is reprinted here with permission.

Follow The UnPopulist on: X, Threads, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and Bluesky.