The foundations of the global political landscape are shifting.
A growing disdain for establishment politics and socioeconomic strife has given way to a global wave of populist sentiment that has opened the door to the rise of Donald Trump, Britain’s vote to leave the European Union and a general air of an “us versus them” struggle between the everyman and wealthy elites.
Britain’s impending departure from the EU, spurred in part by fears of terrorism’s spread via migrants and refugees and strong support for protectionist economic policy, is proof this populist hysteria exists outside of the United States.
It’s much bigger than Trump and Brexit. These things cannot exist without the strong, unequivocal support of voters and decision makers.
In theory, some populist movements can serve admirable purposes, like checking establishment powers. However, in reality, many tend to stretch far beyond what they appear to intend to achieve.
Historically speaking, the fascist regimes of Hitler and Stalin could not have succeeded without the populist waves that preceded them. This isn’t to engage in comparing Trump to history’s vilest despots, but parallels clearly exist.
History’s fascist leaders and the products of today’s populism, including Trump and the Philippines’ president and self-proclaimed womanizer Rodrigo Duterte, have won support with scare tactics and by crafting an “us versus them” narrative.
It’s relatively easy for populist movements — which tend to gravitate to strong, charismatic and often incendiary leaders — to take a different shape once they reach power.
Historian Peter Fritzche posited “the Nazis expressed the populist yearnings of middle-class constituents,” but, under the guise of strong emotional appeal, were able to institute an incredibly oppressive regime.
Populist surges in the past have, at times, succeeded in keeping the establishment in check. Following the 2008 financial crisis, the Occupy movement swiftly brought attention to Washington’s ties and favorable treatment toward Wall Street.
However, problems occur when populist surges become excessively partisan as they are propelled by highly emotional rhetoric. When stubborn ideological agendas come into play, it’s easy to focus on the notion of “us versus them” rather than trying to reach the most equitable solution possible.
Rather than simply advocating for more protectionist policy, Trump’s brand of politics remains intent on painting Mexico as the root of all of our problems and vilifying everyone who dares speak out, like Gonzalo Curiel, the Hispanic judge presiding over the Trump University case, or Elizabeth Warren, an outspoken Trump critic.
This type of populist furor accomplishes little. Instead, it tries to create enemy leaders that can mobilize the masses against to further their agenda.
Today’s global politics can be characterized by feelings of xenophobia, strong desire to slow the wheels of globalization through economic protectionism and perceived inequality between socioeconomic groups, all traits of populist movements in the past.
It’s fair to turn to populism as a means to protest the status quo, but it’s crucial to recognize and refute the large role intolerance and scapegoating play in most populist surges.
dkilcull@umail.iu.edu
@daniel_kilc
