The problem with populism: Anger feels good but isn’t an effective way to govern |
Populism is having a defining moment again, though it never really went away. This approach to politics surged after Donald Trump made his appearance on the stage in 2015, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in the Democratic primaries. The two candidacies helped to reshape both parties a decade ago, and this populist trend remains at the center of American politics. Everyone claims to be against “the system.” Everyone insists they are fighting “the elites.” And very few people seem interested in explaining what comes after the anger has spent itself.
Populism certainly is rhetorically effective and electorally useful. However, the problems come when anger itself becomes the organizing principle of politics, and distrust is no longer a starting point for reform but merely the point of the exercise.
One of populism’s most significant problems is not an ideology. It is almost entirely about feelings and mood. It has no coherent theory of markets and no settled view of government and its institutions. The late PJ O’Rourke called populism “a muddle — a political, economic, and moral dog’s breakfast.” It exists to identify enemies rather than resolve trade-offs. It promises vindication rather than governance. Its power comes from turning complex issues into moral dramas, with villains to be punished and systems to be wrecked.
This is not new. American politics has produced populist figures before, particularly during moments of institutional strain. In the 20th century, two strains stood out most clearly. Louisiana Sen. Huey Long represented economic populism, railing against concentrated wealth and promising redistribution through executive power. Alabama Gov. George Wallace embodied grievance populism, directing public anger toward the courts, bureaucrats, and the supposed elites who are deemed contemptuous of ordinary people. Both claimed to speak for “the people.” Both treated institutional limits as obstacles rather than safeguards. And both elevated resentment into a governing principle rather than a temporary corrective.
The appeal of that approach is easy to understand. The Great Recession broke something fundamental in the country’s relationship with authority. Banks and auto companies were rescued. Insurance companies were stabilized. Americans watched........