Populism Reconsidered
“Charismatic rule has long been neglected and ridiculed. But apparently, it has deep roots and becomes a powerful stimulus once the proper psychological and social conditions are set. The Leader’s charismatic power is not a mere phantasm – none can doubt that millions believe in it,” declared German-Jewish political theorist Franz Neumann in 1942. Neumann was writing in a time of incredible upheaval and incredible political extremes. The 1930s and 40s was the age of despotism. The extraordinary circumstances of the Great Depression and post-WWI turmoil brought demagogues like Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin to power. This vision of fascism, of a charming leader beckoning on millions of followers, has been the boogeyman of liberal politics for almost a century. But this image, though frightening, is self-defeating and increasingly inaccurate. Today, the global economy is not as dire as it was in the 1930s and 40s. Although democracy is under attack in the established democracies of the West, there are more democracies and democratic movements in the world overall. If the political Left wants to beat the Far Right in the political battlegrounds to come, they must re-evaluate their assumptions about the causes of right-wing populism for the 21st Century.
The phenomenon described by Neumann is only partly applicable today. It’s common practice on the Left to label the Far Right “Nazi” or “fascist.” But the comparison, though not unjustified, prevents deeper discussion and does not assuage political polarization. Modern populists like Le Pen, Modi, and Netanyahu, though xenophobic and with little respect for democratic institutions, are a long way from the fascist leaders of the 1930s and 40s. The actions of dictators like Hitler and Stalin extended far beyond current anti-immigrant policies and isolationist economics into genocide and wars of conquest. Contemporary Far Right parties in Europe are isolationist, not expansionist. For example, the AfD and other Right-wing European parties oppose aid to Ukraine and international involvement. The Far Right has not swept Europe as was foretold. Instead, it has grown in popularity slowly; and, only after liberal parties had over a decade to try to win back support and failed.
Since his inauguration on 20 January, Donald Trump has done considerable damage to American democratic institutions. He is enabled by his inner circle of kleptocrats and sycophants. Trumpism is full of misogyny, racism, Christian nationalism, and an observable Neo-Nazi strain as Elon Musk’s Nazi salute shows. But fear of these ideologies should not cloud the Democrats’ perception of Trump supporters themselves. In 2016, Hillary Clinton said that “half of Trump’s supporters could fit into a basket of deplorables.” Though she later apologized, this gaffe represents a common attitude amongst Democrats-- that Trump supporters are racist, angry, white men. These MAGA trolls absolutely exist, but the reality is that in 2024, enough people from all sectors of society voted for Trump for him to become president. Polling has shown that most voters were just upset with inflation. Voting against the incumbent party when dissatisfied with the status quo is typical voter behavior. Democrats can blame racism and culture wars as the source of Trumpism. many legitimate grievances of working class, non-urban (usually white) Americans. Decades of de-industrialization and globalization hollowed out the American interior. And the push for “cheap labor” from both political parties and multinational corporations, has led to the loss of stable blue-collar jobs. While Trump’s trade tariffs will likely do more harm than good, they are a reckless attempt to reverse the loss of American manufacturing jobs to overseas. Another reason why the Democrats lost the election was HYPERLINK "https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/12/opinion/immigration-republicans-democrats-crisis.html"immigration. Opposing or wanting to limit immigration, whether legal or illegal, was taboo within Leftist circles and deemed “fascist.” Conversations about how an estimated 12 million (as of 2022) illegal immigrants might negatively affect the domestic labor market were taboo. In June 2024, New York Times opinion columnist Nicholas Kristof, though usually an advocate of immigration and asylum policies, challenged the typical immigrant worker narrative writing, “It’s often said that native-born Americans aren’t interested in the jobs that immigrants take, but that doesn’t tell the full story. Many native-born Americans may not be willing to toil in the fields or on a construction site for $12 an hour but perhaps would be for $25 an hour.” Opposing or wanting to limit immigration, whether legal or illegal, was taboo within liberal circles and deemed “fascist.” Conversations about how an estimated 12 million (as of 2022) illegal immigrants might negatively affect the domestic labor market were anathema. In June 2024 The New York Times opinion columnist Nicholas Kristof, though usually an advocate of immigration and asylum policies, backed Biden’s newer decisions to curb immigration and reform asylum policies. In an op-ed, he challenged the typical immigration and wages narrative from Democrats writing, “It’s often said that native-born Americans aren’t interested in the jobs that immigrants take, but that doesn’t tell the full story. Many native-born Americans may not be willing to toil in the fields or on a construction site for $12 an hour but perhaps would be for $25 an hour.” To win back the working class, Democrats will need to start asking themselves difficult questions and re-think their own popular narratives instead of blaming racism and culture wars as the cause of Trump’s victory.
The way for the Democrats to combat Trumpism and to ultimately enact their liberal policies on climate change, voting rights, and abortion, starts with actually winning elections. First, liberal politicians need to recognize the right of the entire electorate to legitimate political participation, as opposed to simply promoting the narrative of an unhinged, angry, “populist” mob supporting the undesirable candidate. Liberals’ distrust of charismatic leaders does them a disservice. While personality cults and deceitful politicians are dangerous, people still need likeable leaders to get behind. Kamala Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz, lacked the charisma that drew voters to Kennedy, Clinton, and Obama. Campaigning is about selling one’s vision and telling a story. Trump, with his loud antics and apocalyptic messaging, topped with his surviving an assassinating attempt, better spoke to prospective voter’s fears and concerns than Harris’s calm, professional demeanor, which appeared aloof and elitist. Lastly, the Democrats must shed their victimhood complex and start seeing themselves as winners. More than anything, voters want to be on the winning team.
I have met Trump supporters before. None of them said, “I want to live in a dictatorship,” or “Democracy doesn’t work.” In the 1930s and 40s, people genuinely believed that liberal democracy had failed, and that authoritarianism, whether communism or fascism, was the way forward. To beat fascism in the 21st Century, politicians should critically examine the causes for Right-wing “populism” instead of perpetuating the narrative of the charismatic strongman. To win in the future, the Democrats must first recognize the true causes of their defeat in 2024, instead of doubling down on purist identity politics. They need to find charismatic leaders of their own and develop messaging that speaks to the entire electorate. To beat the unstoppable fascist bogeyman that Franz Neuman described requires not believing in it oneself. Ring-wing populists, just like any other candidate, are beatable. Trump’s loss in 2020 and recent elections in India and Poland have proved that. Hopefully, it is not too late for the Democrats to get back on track. The fate of democracy in America demands it.
Image courtesy of Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons, ©2024. Some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
