The modern world has a complex relationship with the term “populism,” often seeing it as an unsavory, even hostile, buzzword to describe authoritarian regimes. In fact, the term populism is often used to describe an attitude toward politics and society characterized by anti-intellectualism, antiliberalism and, in certain cases, opposition to democracy altogether.
However, when a radical activist draws public attention, a political party previously dismissed as “fringe” receives unexpected support and citizens denounce their current leaders on social media, these occurrences cannot simply be chalked up to Kremlin bots, misinformation on TikTok and anti-intellectualism. Rather, they indicate a need for mainstream populism.
Although the term populism is highly contested, most dictionaries and standard definitions describe it as a political movement that serves the interests of ordinary people rather than the elite. But this phrase oversimplifies the concept. At its core, populism expresses the belief that politics should serve the majority and focus on the interests of the people, the masses whose labor creates and sustains the nation.
Hostility toward populism distracts both politicians and citizens from the realities of modern politics. Today’s leaders must work with and represent an unprecedentedly diverse society. Because of this, public political debate now includes people from many racial, religious and political backgrounds, and opinions differ sharply across generations and social classes.
The opposition to populism often situates itself on two pillars — exaggeration of idealism and misrepresentation regarding global examples. Regarding the first point of contention, opposition to populism is not limited to any single ideology. On both the left and the right, many centrist or moderate parties place excessive faith in institutions rather than in people. This attitude fosters a misguided elitism — the idea that ordinary voters can’t grasp complex laws and should just trust the establishment and avoid extremism, regardless of their grievances.
The second point relates more directly to global trends and their influence on domestic politics. Media outlets and even academic sources often use words like “populist” and “authoritarian” interchangeably to describe governments in China, Turkey or various political movements across Europe, creating a confusing association of populism with authoritarianism. In the context of European politics, specifically, the rise of anti-centrist movements in places like Romania and the Czech Republic is frequently portrayed as a slide toward anti-intellectualism or radicalism.
Far too much emphasis is given to labeling these movements as autocratic or fascist, while the underlying motivations that fuel them are often excluded from discourse. The economic and social realities of the public become an afterthought as the rise of populist rhetoric is boiled down to a “battle of soul” between pure liberalism and nasty extremism, when in reality, these conditions are the driving force of populism.
The exaggeration of idealism and misrepresentation of global examples are linked, and, taken together, result in the same disillusionment that undemocratic populism feeds on.
Modern politics is not a game of chess that the public is too uneducated to understand. Rather, it is a conversation that has simply become too exclusive and dismissive for the general public to be a part of. This stems from mainstream parties resorting to gatekeeping and backroom deals to select candidates who represent a party doctrine, rather than popular interests.
In the United States, the mainstream parties may base their media image on public interests. However, their actions, candidates and pursued policies often serve a class of elite individuals who will never be bothered by the concerns of the common citizens. True populism, unlike political chauvinism or sectarianism, is the means by which public demands inspire genuine progress and development for their country.
Thus, given modern political needs, politicians must prioritize listening to public issues and form their policies around these, especially supporting policies focused on welfare and personal liberties. The 2024 U.S. elections, for instance, frequently revolved around the “egg prices” argument, which contributed to a Republican victory last November. What happened to the economy since then is a subject for a different column, but we must recognize the power of rhetoric that is easy to grasp, relatable and believable.
Calling for change on behalf of the public, rather than clinging to fixed ideas or identities, is what truly draws attention to political causes. Listening to and responding to the public’s grievances prevents a shift toward radicalism in search of answers. Therefore, democratic populism should be embraced both as a method for pursuing future goals and ideals and as a way to bring the disillusioned public back into the conversation.
Deniz Gulay is a junior double-majoring in history and Russian.
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.