Understanding Populism

Democrats Can Do Better By Appealing to Populist Sentiments

Politics is about appealing to what’s popular. In fact, by definition, the winner of any legitimate election is the most popular, whether there is any underlying philopsophy, issue structure or policy proposals that drive segments of the vote. It’s about appealing to as many people as possible, for whatever reason. To put a fine point on it, the winners of any elections are de facto populists.

Now, a lot of the intelligentsia crowd, particularly in politics, like to think of politics differently. They focus on the policy aspects and the issues and say that when their side wins it’s because of that, and when the OTHER side wins its because of “populism.”Or alternatively, they look at a candidate’s policy proposals and see a lot of inconsistencies and hypocrisies and without any “ism” to fall back on to label them as, the candidate is thrown in the odd sock drawer of “populist.” Another gem is when they assume that populism is only about emotional responses to a candidate; people have no particular reason to vote the way they do, they just like candidate A over candidate B and because of that Candidate A is a populist. It’s a bit of a snobbish way of looking at it really.

All of which is to say that the elite look at people who vote for “populist” candidates as “dumb.” The term “populist” is usually employed in a derogatory manner as a snide comment or passive aggressive suggestion that its not enough of a higher order. Populists counter that with appeals to the masses with attacks on the “elite” whether the elite are economic, academic, media, or other influential people.

A perfect example of this are the Academy Awards. People were paying less and less attention to these every year because the Academy don’t typically reward films mass audiences like, rather they select films based more on artistry and cinematic prestige. To bring in more viewers, a few years back they expanded the Best Picture category to up to 10 films. That worked for awhile. Most films though that garner the largest box office are Marvel Films or other action oriented films (which are almost never nominated). Action (along with horror and comedies) are genres the Academy tends to disdain; they prefer more dramatic fare and period pieces with more artistic flourishes. This past year, the Academy front runners for Best Picture were Emilia Perez, The Brutalist, Anora and Conclave, none of which would be considered blockbusters. Anora, which actually won Best Picture, made only $20 million in the US, making it second only to CODA as the Best Picture winner with the inflation adjusted lowest box office total ever; CODA came out in 2020 amid the COVID epidemic. Meanwhile, a film like Avengers Endgame made $2.8 billion worldwide; it got only one Oscar nomination for Visual Effects. Avengers is typically seen as “mainstream populist fare.”¹

The same is applied to politics. People look at the working class as “dumb” and “unsophisticated.” They also make up the majority of people in the country so they mostly represent the mainstream of average American life, which is just plain, dull or unstylish. Instead of trendy restaurants and boutiques, they predomniantly eat fast food and shop at Wal Mart. Politicians who specifically target this crowd are often derided as “populists.” It doesn’t matter if its from the left or the right. Quite honestly, however, these are the people who decide elections.

Trump is not going to be mistaken for a policy maven or an elitist ever (despite the fact he wouldn’t spend more than 10 minutes with most who vote for him); even among the high class NY socialite class he’s always been a little frowned upon as classless. But his entire appeal stems from the popularity of his television show and public persona pre-2016, and poking at hot button issues GOP candidates have dog whistled and paid lip service to for years. For instance, Trump’s entire campaign, from the primaries to his appeal with the Republican base today, is solidly catering to populist themes, specifically, conservative populists. Dealing with immigration (in the harshest possible terms), global trade (whether it helps us or serves to our detriment) and cutting government (whether they know what they are cutting or not) are all things bandied about in Republican circles for decades. Trump merely exposed the lack of action previous GOP administrations gave them on those issues and instead followed through on them, constrained only by the courts and the decency outlined by popular opinion.² When people look at Trump and think the inmates have taken over the asylum, this is a major reason why.

Democrats on the other hand would be better served by tapping a little more into populism. The person they point to as populist is Bernie Sanders, but he’s really anything but. Sure, his messaging caters to populist themes, but his appeal is to the circles that are the least bit populist. Bernie is particularly popular with the far left, white college educated progressives, who tend to fall on the academically and socially elite level of the party spectrum. Sanders himself describes himself as a socialist, which at one point 125 years ago meant you were in favor of the common man, but in today’s political environment means you have more in line with a privileged class than Joe Schmo working stiff on the street.³ He constantly rails against “oligarchy” even though those same powers fund most of his and every other candidate for federal office's campaigns. Its an empty and hypocritical slogan, not a serious policy proposal. The protege of Sanders right now is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who basically regurgitates the same populist lines as Bernie. Let me ask you though, which of the two images below, the exact same messages, actually demonstrates populism more? (I’ll give you a hint: The Met Gala is about as anti-populism as it gets).

This disconnect between populist messages and populist identities, the idea that there even is such a thing as a “prada socialist” that is trendy on the left for instance, is the reason Democrats have such a hard time appealing to many lower middle income people. They don’t target the average American, they target trendsetters with meaningless bougey babble. So how should Democrats become a little more populist?

For starters, they can appeal to nationalist themes. There is a big opening right now for people wanting to feel good about their country again. Draping themselves in the US flag, getting rid of the hundreds of various issue-oriented flags and consolidating around the stars and stripes would show unity, patriotism and be a good start. They need to start talking with union members, farmers and lower middle class people again, focusing on issues and concerns that benefit their lives. In light of that, they have to stop catering to and organizing around college campuses. I get that college campuses are a huge place where Democrats organize and turn out voters, but there are some things that make college not representative of the larger portion of society. Colleges quite often are closed societies; many students rarely venture off campus or very far into the surrounding areas. Students are idealistic. Most are not starting families or in the workforce yet. They don’t understand the business world and how it works. Since most people work in the private sector, especially in small businesses, this skewed perspective doesn’t help much. Lastly, college students are privileged in a way most Americans are not. But what Democrats really fail to recognize is that there are substantially more who’s highest degree is high school rather than a B.A. or B.S..

Probably most importantly, they have to get away from their influencer craving trend fetish, the idea that something or someone is too old, too dull, too cliche, too common, too vanilla or too basic. Guess what, all of those things DEFINE mainsteam popular culture. I get that people want to get excited for the next big thing, but in truth what’s already popular is what gets elected. The amount of dislike for elected politicians who have to do elected politician things is palapable within this party, who would prefer their candidates excite and entertain over growing a winning coalition.⁴ Government is at it’s best when it’s at it’s dullest. No big waves, no huge outrages, no attention whatsoever. Younger voters are applying the same logic they use for buying clothes, what shows they watch and what trendy restaurants to go to with who they want as elected represenatives. They want their elected leaders to be marketed more like arthouse A24 films rather than candidates for office. Whatever MSNBC rails against in prime time gets all the attenion and the likes, not what promotes good, smart politics at a grassroots level. That means younger, no experience, better looking, exciting and vapid wins out over experienced, thoughtful, restrained and clever representatives who appeal to a broader (i.e., more boring) group of people in middle America and know how to get things done for their constiutuents. This is what is currently tripping up the Democratic Party.

As an example, after the announcement by Angie Craig that she was running for Tina Smith’s open Senate Seat, I looked on Reddit and the disdain for Craig was thick, including lots of progressives complaining “Not another Amy Klobuchar.” Klobuchar wins re-elections with over 55-60% of the vote each time, progressives should love the fact that she wins so easily in what is an otherwise purple-ish state. Klobuchar is older, and folksy, has represented Minnesota for a long time and wins over the populist portions of the electorate in Minnesota easily. She also does her job as Senator well, meaning she works with other Senators including those from the other party to get things done. If only Democrats could do that elsewhere. Craig, for her part has appealed to her district voters well, winning a swing district Minneapolis suburb consistently by appealing to suburban families, advocating for trade schools, downplaying identity politics and basically playing to the purple crowd. That’s how you win elections. You don’t have to be slick and savvy, you have to be smart and approachable. But who would the progressives prefer? One of the candidates who clicks boxes, throws haymakers on cable news and TikTok and toes a party line for their very blue district and supporters.

Which is a long way of saying Democrats have to tap into populism better. They need to realize it’s not about catering to what they think is right, or popular with their base or what academia says is the way things should be; it’s about a broad based popularity, appealing across the spectrum of the electorate, speaking to everyone to make the tent bigger and solidifying governing majorities. That means holding their nose, getting out of their ivory towers and chatting with the smallfolk, instead of criticizing everything they do or say. Most people are over the age of 30, so complaining by saying “OK Boomer” doesn’t help. Most people don’t have college degrees, so whining about your student loans isn’t a plus. Half of all people in America are men, and close to a majority of people are white, so ripping on those groups in any way (something far too many take far too much glee in) is counterproductive. And for those that think that can’t be done without hurting other groups, I’d just say this image says it all:

For as much as Democrats dislike Trump, he does have one thing right; he has his finger on the general pulse of mainstream American culture, or is at least closer to it than Democrats currently are. He’s done some damage to that with some of the actions he’s taken since re-election that Democrats can capitalize on; they need to take advantage of that.

They just have to find their inner populist.

PurpleAmerica’s Cultural Corner

Populism does play out in different ways and one of the most recognizable is how populism is regularly disdained. Things start out as trendy and cool, but at some point become mainstream and passe and discarded as old hat. It’s at that point people become far more criticial and exaggerate the flaws of such things.

What’s genuinely interesting though is how after time passes those things come back again with a certain retro appeal. People look at them with new eyes and realize the joy they brought the first time around. You see this a lot with music for instance. Clothes are another area where this is common. These items become the norm or standard of mainstream culture.

Another way populism plays out is by taking very genre-specific specialty items and making them more appealing for a mass audience. This also happens particularly in music, where more niche genre types of music are changed by formula (usually putting it into a more appealing key and watering down the more edgy aspects) and sung by a more appealing singer or band to be made into “pop music.”

PurpleAmerica’s Obscure Fact of the Day

Huey Long, the populist Governor of Louisiana in the 1930s, ran a program called "Share Our Wealth" that proposed radical wealth redistribution—including capping personal fortunes at $50 million (later revised to $5–8 million) and providing a guaranteed family income, free college education, and pensions for the elderly.

What makes this especially obscure is that Long's plan was so popular he posed a serious potential challenge to FDR's reelection in 1936, before his assassination in 1935. Some historians argue that FDR accelerated aspects of the New Deal specifically to undercut Long's populist appeal, showing how populist threats can influence mainstream policy even without winning power.

PurpleAmerica’s Final Word on the Subject

When it comes to pop culture and populism, I have but one thing to say:

“Won’t you take me to Funkytown?!”

LIKE WHAT YOU SEE? MAKE SURE TO SUBSCRIBE AND SHARE!!!

Footnotes and Fun Stuff

1. I’ll add that the whole reason for expanding the Best Picture nominees to 10 were based on comic book movie “The Dark Knight” being snubbed on account it was a comic book movie. Regardless, many genuinely believed it was a timely, thoughful movie and deserved at least a nomination as one of the best 5 films of the year.

2. I’ll add that this wasn’t wise. As popular as they were to the GOP base, most GOP elites recognized these positions as contrary to American interests in one way or another, and either watered down proposals or never followed through on them altogether. Now as we see the end result of these positions as fiascos, it MAY be sinking into the base to relent on some of these positions.

3. Bernie Sanders went to the communist Soviet Union in 1988 and praised it. That puts him more in line with Tucker Carlson than the US mainstream. He’s claimed that trip that he took as a Vermont mayor greatly developed his worldview.

4. The choice of Tim Walz as VP for Kamala Harris over Josh Shapiro is a good example. Dems needed to secure Pennsylvania to win, and instead chose a person who was “blowing up on social media” in the weeks leading up to the decision for calling Trump and Republicans “weird.”