The Evolution of Populism: From Defining Term to Outdated Concept
In the 2010s, populism emerged as the defining word of the era, serving as a shorthand for insurgent parties that challenged the liberal centre across the globe. This term encapsulated a rhetorical style marked by indelible slogans, charismatic leaders, and a direct appeal to the people, often framing politics as a battle between us and them. However, as the political landscape has shifted dramatically in the 2020s, with the right gaining significant ground while the left struggles to recover from defeats, the utility of populism as a unifying label has diminished. Critics argue it is too vague, pejorative, or simply inadequate to explain the wildly diverging trajectories of these movements.
The Linguistic Focus of Populist Movements
One of the few confident assertions about populism is its intense focus on language. In the aftermath of the 2007-2009 great recession, electoral projects surged, rejecting traditional calls for unity and consensus in favour of sharp semantic distinctions. This highly rhetorical mode of politics thrived in an era where political expression was often confined to words rather than actions, such as social media fulminations and dinner-table debates, rather than strikes or street protests. Populism, to some extent, reflected an emptied-out political culture, with the decline of mass parties, trade unions, and other voluntary associations leaving few channels for activism. Outsider politicians, lacking popular bases, relied on soundbites to monopolise the attention economy and mobilise disenchanted voters.
Beyond Campaign Strategies: Governing Projects and Power Imbalances
While populism effectively summarised these electoral strategies, it proved less capable of delineating the governing ambitions of such leaders once in power. For instance, in the United States, Bernie Sanders aimed to harness the state to reactivate the labour movement and disempower corporations, representing a radical social democratic project. In contrast, Donald Trump and his allies sought to centralise authority in the executive and weaponise it against racialised groups, embodying a hardline neo-nationalism. By focusing solely on campaign methods, commentators often sidestepped deeper analyses of these divergent ends. Over the past decade, the right has continued to accrue power in countries like Italy, Finland, Slovakia, Hungary, Britain, and France, while the left has largely been marginalised. This imbalance highlights that when politics is reduced to discourse and sales pitches, the right often prevails, aided by partisan media dissemination.
The Post-Populist Era: Institutional Challenges and Strategic Choices
As the limits of the populist paradigm become clearer, the primary feature of contemporary politics is no longer underdog candidates using rhetorical tools to capture the state. Instead, it involves the left attempting to reconstitute itself after failures, while the right consolidates its successes. Socialists have realised that populism, as a practice, is insufficient to resist powerful institutions like state ministries, centrist parties, legacy media, business lobbies, and courts. Reactionaries, meanwhile, have learned they can win elections on populist platforms but must navigate relationships with these elite fortresses. Post-populists on both sides face a critical choice:
- Compromise: Risk assimilation by striking deals with traditional power blocs, as seen with Spain's Yolanda Díaz, who has attempted agreements with the centre-left and big business but faces limited leverage.
- Confrontation: Risk being overwhelmed by mounting direct challenges, exemplified by France's Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who preserves political independence but remains isolated against opponents.
Similarly, on the right, leaders like Italy's Giorgia Meloni pursue rapprochement with traditional elites, backtracking on risky policies, while figures like Trump adopt a more pugnacious strategy, assailing bureaucracies and ignoring judicial demands. Both left and right must decide between bargaining with elites or attempting to bulldoze them, yet the odds are uneven due to fundamental ideological differences.
Why the Right Holds an Advantage in Neoliberal Landscapes
The right finds it easier to navigate the choice between conciliation and confrontation because its goals align more closely with existing power structures. Socialists seek to upend the neoliberal consensus, challenging class, race, and gender hierarchies, which prompts greater resistance from institutions superintending the system. In contrast, neo-nationalists aim to entrench these hierarchies, meaning there is no fundamental misalignment of interests with elite institutions. Even if the right's most destabilising actions, such as attempts to steal elections, are blocked, these power centres can still be leveraged to advance their project. Progressives lack this luxury, facing obstacles whether they choose compromise or conflict.
Moving Beyond Populism to Grasp Contemporary Politics
Populism can no longer illuminate these trends, not merely due to its broad or loaded nature, but because it was more relevant to a specific period when upstarts used language games to break the electoral dominance of the centre. While such discourses persist, their importance has waned in a world where that dominance has shattered, and the contest between left and right populism has been decided in favour of the right. A better approach involves studying how both forces, from very different starting points, navigate the institutional landscape of neoliberalism. The left appears thwarted whether it opts for compromise or conflict, while the right marches onward by either means. Overturning this situation will be extraordinarily difficult, necessitating a focus on the substance of contemporary politics, not merely its style.
