Populism: Tyranny of the Majority - Part 1

Political populism is an inherent threat to liberal democracy

Populism has been one of the key undercurrents of the 2024 US Presidential campaign. Former President Trump has routinely been called a populist. Meanwhile, Vice President Harris is getting both cheered and derided for her supposed economic populism. Populism seems to be simultaneously the resurgent ideology of the downtrodden “little guy” and an existential threat to democracy and freedom. The problem with much of the discussion is that the word “populism” means different things to different people while also undergoing major definitional scope creep. Before we can judge the merits of populism, we need to be clear about what it is.

I will unpack populism in a two-part series of posts. This first post will dive into political populism and the second will explore economic populism. In doing so, I will make the case that we have gotten too sloppy with the term - in both cases - and why the core, underlying tenets of populism make it an unwise, if not dangerous, ideology that should be kept out of our political and economic culture.

***

One of the core reasons for confusion around the term populism is that it is used interchangeably in both political and economic applications. And while there is a consistent thread that links the two concepts together, they are very different. In this post, I will focus on political populism, which, in many ways, is the simpler, yet more dangerous form of populism. 

Political populism is notoriously difficult to define, although the world of political philosophy has generally agreed upon a definition put forth by Cas Mudde, a professor at the University of Georgia and a co-author of Populism: A Very Short Introduction. He argues that it is an ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two antagonistic groups, “the corrupt elite” and “the pure people” whose will should essentially be unrestrained. Populists claim that they alone represent the whole people, while “the elite” illegitimately represent “special interests.”

Being anti-elite is not inherently problematic. Many, if not all, politicians have embraced some form of anti-elitism, but the second half of that definition - the unrestrained will of the people - is where things can go terribly wrong. 

In an interview with New York Times columnist, David Brooks, former Trump aide, Steve Bannon, described the populist MAGA movement by saying:

We’re not reasonable. We’re unreasonable because we’re fighting for a republic. And we’re never going to be reasonable until we get what we achieve. We’re not looking to compromise. We’re looking to win.

He goes on to say that the goals of a second Trump term should be to “totally and completely destroy your opponent.” He hopes that the administration will “hit [the justice department] with a blowtorch.”

This is the essence of political populism: an uncompromising, illiberal pursuit of power on behalf of “the people.” It is the tyranny of the elected majority - and it is in direct violation of America’s founding values.

In Federalist Paper 10, James Madison, the “father of the constitution,” explains that defending against this threat is one of the core goals of the Constitution:

When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. 

James Madison is saying that the biggest risk to a system governed by majority rule is that the majority might trample on the rights of individuals and political minorities. That is why we should think of liberal democracy, not just as “majority wins” but also as an intentional set of restraints on the ruling majority to protect the rights and interests of everyone else.

Political populists trample on these restraints. They pursue electoral majorities to legitimize their path to power but then, once in power, undermine liberal Democracy by bending all the institutions to their will, dismissing the procedural safeguards that protect the rights of anyone else. Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt describe this trajectory in This is how democracies die:

This is how elected autocrats subvert democracy – packing and “weaponizing” the courts and other neutral agencies, buying off the media and the private sector (or bullying them into silence) and rewriting the rules of politics to tilt the playing field against opponents. The tragic paradox of the electoral route to authoritarianism is that democracy’s assassins use the very institutions of democracy – gradually, subtly, and even legally – to kill it.

It is not just theory. Viktor Orban, the Prime Minister of Hungary, explicitly rejects liberal democracy and its multiculturalism and pluralism. He proposes Christian Democracy as an alternative: "Christian democracy is not liberal...It is illiberal, if you like.” He continues: "We are facing a big moment: we are saying goodbye not simply to liberal democracy ... but to the 1968 elite,” referencing a global wave of multiculturalism a half century ago.

It is not a coincidence that former President Trump routinely holds up Viktor Orban as a model of leadership, saying: “There’s nobody that’s better, smarter or a better leader than Viktor Orbán. He’s fantastic,” and that he is “one of the most respected men. They call him a strong man. He is a tough person, smart.” Mr. Trump likes Prime Minister Orbán because of his illiberal, strong man tactics.

Mr. Trump and his MAGA movement are hewing concerningly closely to the populism playbook. They delegitimize their opponents, claim that they represent the true will of the people, and show little regard for democratic safeguards.  

Mr. Trump has declared American carnage, claimed that political opponents are trying to “destroy” his supporters, promised to “drain the swamp,” tried to overturn a free and fair election, and suggested that terminating the Constitution and being a dictator for a day may be necessary to achieve the will of the people. Our Democratic institutions are strong and should be able to resist the worst of his populism, but it is the populist playbook - and it is a threat to American government. 

This is why we need to be more careful about the word populism in political contexts. It is not simply a grassroots movement to promote the interests of everyday Americans. If that was all it was, it could simply be called “democracy.” Instead, the ideology insidiously uses the legitimacy of electoral majorities and moral outrage of “the people” against “the elites” to justify illiberal uses of power. At its core, it is a “danger,” as James Madison says, that must be resisted in order to preserve the true “spirit and form of popular government.”