The Trouble With Populism
Populism can come in many forms, from MAGA to moral crusades
This essay was originally published at polispandit.com.
When society finds itself in crisis, populism often pops up from its underground burrow. It’s less of a political philosophy and more of a rhetorical strategy. The populist claims that he represents “the people” against “the elites.” The trouble with populism is that it reduces politics to a morality play, pitting these elites against the righteous masses.
In that environment, purity trumps compromise. Spectacle blinds coalition building. Outrage becomes energy.
Whether it’s “kill the woke mind virus” or “eat the rich”, populism can appear on either end of the political spectrum. So long as it can channel resentment against elites and promise purity in exchange, populism is apolitical.
We’ve witnessed this phenomenon throughout history. Whether in Juan Perón’s Argentina (1940s-50s), where genuine worker grievances morphed into mass support and a cult of personality that hollowed out democratic norms. Or on the far right, Benito Mussolini’s Italy (1920s-40s). Mussolini mobilized resentment from WWI veterans, workers, and nationalists to take back the soul of Italy with populist theatrics that eventually turned into fascism.
History shows us that populism never dies. It simply waits for the next crisis to anoint a new savior.
Welcome to 2025 America. We are witnessing a resurgence of populist rhetoric on both the right and left. Donald Trump won the 2024 presidential election largely through populism targeting liberal elites and their handling of the economy. Similarly, Zohran Mamdani won New York City’s 2025 mayoral election by pitting “the people” against cruel corporations and asset owners.
Despite being very different politicians, Trump and Mamdani are two sides of the same populist coin. In both cases, the populist rhetoric will likely fail “the people” it’s attempting to save from an evil villain. That is, until, populism retreats to its burrow.
Trump was the first to weaponize America’s affordability crisis through populism
Trump’s anti-establishment populist rhetoric is designed to weaponize identity, nostalgia of a mythic past, and grievance. It’s not enough for Trump’s base to resent liberals. Trump wants to weaponize that resentment, which makes his brand of populism so risky for democracy. It’s a deliberate emotional engine that keeps his base in a permanent state of grievance against perceived liberal elites, liberal media, and the liberal deep state. And don’t forget immigrants.
Destroy them and restore your dignity. That’s the populist message he sends. And we are already seeing its effects some ten months into his presidency.
ICE raids that violate basic constitutional liberties. Tariffs imposed through questionable emergency powers (the Supreme Court will let us know soon).
Populism has helped create a cult of personality around Trump, allowing him to effectively operate with impunity. He can enrich himself and his family through opaque (often crypto) ventures while still appearing as a man of the people. And he’s allowed to give tax breaks to billionaires so long as he maintains constant populist conflict.
This is one of the core challenges of populism. It’s great for campaigning and powering the emotional engine of conflict. It’s terrible for governing because it disincentivizes solutions. Trump can’t afford to solve problems completely because then his movement’s energy loses populist steam.
As we saw on January 6th, anti-elite populism can quickly transform into anti-institutionalism. Courts, media, and even elections themselves no longer become guaranteed. The logical endpoint on the right is to define democracy purely in terms of loyalty to a leader. This same loyalty exists on the left, but instead of grievance, Zohran Mamdani uses moral populism.
Zohran Mamdani hitched onto Trump’s affordability populism, but added a caboose of moral purity
For Mamdani, politics is less about competing interests. It’s not even about conservatives out to get you. It’s about right and wrong.
Mamdani defines people through virtue. The average New Yorkers trying to make it. Tenants. Transit riders. Working class people.
Against these virtuous people are the faceless villains. Landlords. Corporations. The rich.
It’s the mirror image of Trump’s “us vs. them” populism, although the moral coordinates are vastly different.
Mamdani’s risk is subtler than Trump’s bull-in-the-democratic-china-shop approach. His appeal instead is like a bright flare; a moral light that burns hot but fades quickly once the work of governing begins. And the risk is that his bright appeal can be corrosive in its conviction.
Nowhere is this risk more apparent than in discussions with Mamdani’s most ardent supporters. They generally claim a moral monopoly. They believe they represent “the good.” Anyone who questions the feasibility or pragmatism of his proposals – from free buses to government-run grocery stores – risks being labeled as indifferent to suffering or worse, complicit.
Mamdani’s populism uses language different from Trump’s brand, but the ultimate risks share the same DNA. Where Trump seethes, Mamdani soars. Listen to Mamdani’s rhetoric closely the next time you hear him. It’s infused with moral narrative; this idea that decency itself demands radical transformation.
Mamdani doesn’t talk about compromises or budgets. He talks about “justice delayed.” In this context, any compromise becomes a moral failure. Any small positive change appears like cowardice.
This moral absolutism is intoxicating. It appeals to conscience. But what many of Mamdani’s supporters don’t realize now is that this populism creates the same democratic tension as Trump’s version.
Disagreement becomes a moral defect rather than a legitimate difference in perspective.
Which is precisely why – as a New Yorker – I don’t expect his administration to amount to much. It’s more focused on moral signaling than practical reform. As with Trump, populism makes for great campaign messaging, but almost always results in horrible governance.
The real trouble with populism
Whether it’s reducing politics to fights against liberal elites or the morally corrupt, the trouble with populism remains the same. Regardless of its ideological flavor – Republican, Democrat, or otherwise.
It delegitimizes good faith opposition. Anyone who disagrees is either corrupt or heartless. Which is why the Republican-controlled Congress bows to Trump’s every desire and why Mamdani’s supporters swarm anyone making even the slightest critiques about his proposed policies.
Populism erodes the middle ground that’s crucial for democracy to function. While democracy suffers, populism thrives on discontent. Any degree of success must breed new enemies.
The irony is that whether it’s MAGA or Mamdani, populism promises to return power to the people. But what it usually does is replace one kind of elite with another. All while convincing us that performance art and shouting at each other across an empty public square is good governance.
Populism always promises rebirth but lives off decay. It burrows into every crisis, feeding on resentment until the soil of democracy itself gives way.
I am from Minnesota, where populists like Hubert Humphrey and Paul Wellstone worked effectively and built coalitions across the state, where Arne Carlson and Elmer Anderson could work with people of different parties. There are dangers with populism, but there are huge opportunities too. That's where checks and balances come in.
A must read for American voters.