Populism in the Twenty First Century: An Old Foe Returns

A throng of several thousand sits in crowded bleachers at what is clearly a political rally. There is dead silence, but a feeling of anticipation can be felt pulsating through every individual in attendance. Suddenly, a man appears on the stage. He has the appearance of an ordinary middle-aged man, wearing a suit with a long red tie, but, upon seeing him, the crowd reacts ecstatically in a thunderous fervor of excitement. The crowd's reaction is comparable to seeing a famous athlete or actor rather than a politician. However, the instant the man begins to speak, the crowd falls into silence again. His voice commands respect from his thousands of listeners, yet he speaks little of policy or strategy. Instead, he relies on rallying the crowd with simple phrases that evoke emotion, portraying political problems as a matter of “us” versus “the elite,” and painting himself their only savior. This man is an example of a populist, and he is not alone in using these tactics. In the early twenty-first century, populism has gripped political discourse across the west, from the Americas to the farthest corners of eastern Europe, from Bolsonaro to Marine Le Pen. However, this phenomenon is not unique to today. Populist tactics have been used as far back as Andrew Jackson, and have regularly returned to politics around the world. By looking at past manifestations of populism, it becomes possible to assess the ideological nature of this phenomenon, which has made itself contemporaneously relevant. Although populism can be a means of uniting people against injustice, it is often too dangerous to seriously entertain. Societies that test the waters of populism, or even completely submerge themselves, are at great risk of tearing asunder political stability and wearing bare the social fabric as policy deviates from rationality and begins to draw cause from raw emotion and the personality of leaders entrusted with the will of the people.

Still, it is important to note that populism has proven to be beneficial in several instances. When Martin Luther King gathered two hundred thousand people at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and inspired them with “his dream,” he was wielding the sword of populism to rally the oppressed against the evils of segregation and legalized discrimination. When Churchill broadcast his speech to the British public about how Britain would “never surrender,” he initiated a populist plea to the British people who successfully united against the existential threat of Nazi Germany. These figures highlight the benefits that can be wrought from populism. Great evils, like racist discriminatory policies or a militaristic mad man  threatening to take over the world, evoke strong emotions from the public, and when a public figure is able to weaponize these feelings against said evil, positive change can be affected. However, populism’s reliance on emotional responses from the populace to bring about meaningful change is a risky gamble. More often than not, leaders who promise to right the wrongs present in a society devise solutions which are borne out of retribution and are shortsighted, and often prove to do more harm than good.

Weimar Germany is one example in which populism proved to be infinitely destructive. In the early 1920s, hyperinflation completely destroyed the German economy and, more importantly, made life in Germany unbearable. Basic necessities like food and heating became difficult to obtain and wages earned on one day would often become worthless on the next. Moreover, in the face of economic crisis, Germany began failing to make the World War I reparation payments imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. In response to this, French and Belgian troops crossed sovereign German borders to occupy the Ruhr coalfields in 1923, forcefully extracting payments from German factories and crushing all discontent, all while the Weimar government watched powerlessly. Germany was humiliated on the world stage, penniless and unable to preserve its sovereignty. To ordinary Germans, aware that Germany was one of the most powerful nations in the world only ten years prior, it was clear that Germany had become but a shadow of its former self. Eventually, the stock market crash of 1929 in the United States and the defaulting of American loans to Germany would prove to be the final blow to the frail German economy. Germans grew angry with the status quo of economic ruin and a weak national government. A fierce desire to return to some iteration of Germany’s glory days emerged, demanding change to the current system and vengeance on those responsible for its failure. The conditions allowing for virulent populism to infect its host were perfect. People no longer cared for meaningful policy; they only cared that their emotions be satisfied. They wanted the status quo to be completely uprooted and punishment for those who caused their suffering. However, they had no clear idea how to go about remaking German society or what a new Germany would look like. This indecisiveness over a clear solution and the overarching desire for emotional fulfillment opened the door for political organizations to use populists sentiments to their benefit. In Germany, this was the National Socialists Party, or the Nazis. The Nazi party promised people complete change, and made this clear through their symbols. Swastikas, brown military uniforms, and a Roman-style salute signified how the party desired to completely reorder German society. People, only desiring to be liberated from suffering, were mesmerized by these powerful, exotic and unifying symbols, and joined the party. Moreover, the Nazis played on the sentiment of revenge inherent in populist attitudes. People wanted someone to blame for their troubles of whom the Nazis were in no short supply. Jews, Bolsheviks, Romani, and other social and ethnic minorities were scapegoated as the perpetrators of Germany’s suffering during the Weimar Republic, and the very reason for Germany’s loss in World War I. In a sense, Nazism was like a hallucinogen to the German people. When consumed, it allowed the German people to shut off reality and have their populist cravings satisfied. Germans gravitated towards Nazism, not on the basis of an agreement with the specifics of the ideology, but because, like all populist movements, Nazism addressed the emotional concerns and discontent of the people. The consequences would be made clear in the years following. In 1933, Germans elected Adolf Hitler, head of the Nazi party, who would shortly make himself into a dictator. Over the next twelve years, Hitler waged war against the world, resulting in the death of some seven to eight million Germans, over ten percent of the total population of Germany, and tens of millions of more deaths across Europe and Africa. Beautiful German cities like Dresden, Hamburg, and Berlin were bombed to ruin, transforming once vibrant cities into piles of gray rubble. Perhaps the most tragic consequence of Hitler’s policies was his organized genocide of six million Jews, around two thirds of the European Jewish population^[1], and five million others who he deemed undesirable. The atrocities Hitler committed were not from the evil motivations of one man. Hitler himself was elected and Germans were aware of the concentration camps Hitler operated^[2]. Rather than a single isolated force of evil, Hitler and Nazism were symptoms. The German people wanted change. They wanted someone to blame for their struggles and cared little about the moral implications or the consequences which their actions would bring. To this end, the Nazis provided. In the Nazi’s rise to power, the consequences of populism are made most clear. When people act from the gut rather than the mind, rationality dies: any ideology which promises to act on their emotions is embraced. Horrible atrocities may be committed, wars waged, but in the end, as long as these actions fulfill their emotional purpose, the people will cheer.

The presidency of Andrew Jackson showcases another means by which populism can infect a society. Andrew Jackson was the epitome of a people’s man. He was born in 1767 from Scots-Irish immigrant parents, and in having a rough upbringing as an orphan, his rise to success was completely his own, relying on no one but himself. He rose through the ranks of the US army, proving himself to be a talented general, and when he destroyed the British in the Battle of New Orleans during The War of 1812, he achieved national recognition. When he ran for president in 1828, he utilized political campaigning, a first in American history. He connected with his supporters, portraying his interests and theirs as equivalents, and subsequently dominated the field, crushing incumbent John Quincy Adams, who was seen as an incoherent aristocrat. Jackson represented a different kind of populism than that seen in Germany a hundred years later. Rather than an ideology satisfying the people’s desires, Jackson made himself the embodiment of the people. In government, Jackson acted to this persona. When white settlers wanted the land which the Cherokee Nation owned, he kicked the Natives out. Despite opposition from his own Supreme Court, Jackson was focused on the interests of his constituents and compelled the Cherokee to relocate to the territory of Oklahoma in a forced migration which became known as the Trail of Tears. Acting on populist sentiment, Jackson was willing to undermine his own governmental bodies. Additionally, when Jackson dissolved National Bank, which he deemed to be a body meant to serve only the elite, he liquidated its funds into pet banks which were often connected to Jackson personally or in allegiance with the Democratic Party, Jackson’s party. Jackson’s personal favoritisms, however, would prove to be consequential. In 1837, a financial panic hit the United States. Jackson’s pet banks, incompetent and lacking coordination, began printing money in mass quantities, plunging the economy into a complete recession for seven years. Although Jackson was elected because he represented the interests of the common man rather than wealthy aristocrats, his policy was inextricable from his personality, causing monumentally negative consequences. Jackson’s divisive presidency and personality imbued politics also ushered in political divisions among the populace, with new parties like the Whigs being created by Jackson’s political opponents with the sole purpose of being anti-Jackson. The American political discourse devolved into a war between Jacksonians and anti-Jacksonians. When people feel discontent with the present state of affairs, they elect populist leaders who they believe will address their grievances, embody their principles, and fight for their cause. However, when the will of the people is delegated to the authority of one man, the personality of that man is also bound to affect policy. Personal nepotism, unbridled impulses, and despised rivalries are bound to shape policy which in turn undermine political and economic stability. Perhaps of greatest consequence is that these populist leaders are transformed from presenting themselves as representatives of the people into personalities in which all the grievances and beliefs of the people coalesce. These populist leaders become cult leaders. In putting their many supporters under their complete purview, political struggles between government actors become social struggles between people, and social harmony is lost.

Populism is a multifaceted ideology. While it has been used as a mechanism of change during humanity’s darkest hours, it bears significant risks. Whether in Weimar Germany or the 19th century United States, populism more often than not bears horrible consequences. Blinded by emotions or corrupted by the personality of power-hungry leaders, there is no telling what populism may exact from the societies in which it thrusts its deadly fangs. So, perhaps, when the man suited in sartorial flair walks on stage, his red tie hanging against his white shirt, his wispy yellow hair blowing in the wind, and his mouth spewing the most vile rhetoric promising to right everyone's wrongs, there is reason to be concerned. Perhaps after seeing people worship him, his mantra, his persona, and even his name, rather than his policies (of which he may have little), there is even reason to be fearful.

Works Cited

Aiginger, Karl. “Populism: Root Causes, Power Grabbing and Counter Strategy.” Intereconomics, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, 2020, www.intereconomics.eu/contents/year/2020/number/1/article/populism-root-causes-power-grabbing-and-counter-strategy.html.

Ezard, John. “Germans Knew of Holocaust Horror about Death Camps.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 17 Feb. 2001, www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/feb/17/johnezard.

“Jewish Population of Europe in 1933: Population Data by Country.” United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/jewish-population-of-europe-in-1933-population-data-by-country. Accessed 29 Nov. 2023.