Why the Populist Right is Inherently Anti-Democracy

The important question is whether the ‘populist right’ can co-exist alongside liberals in a healthy democratic system. I honestly don't think they can.

Contrary to popular belief, the ‘populist right’ does not represent a set of policy commitments that is clearly different from pre-2016 conservatism, except on the one issue of immigration. Social conservatism, to the degree that it should actually be called reactionism, was a hallmark of many 20th century ‘fusionist’ conservative administrations. During the Bush-43 administration, there were very ugly culture wars around gay marriage. ‘Questions of collective identity’ were also clearly on the agenda during that time. Bush-era culture wars included everything from the Merry Christmas vs Seasons Greetings war, to the whole ‘debate’ about whether Islam was compatible with the West, to opposition to government services in Spanish and calls for English to be made America’s official language. On the other hand, protectionist trade policies appear to be specific to Trump, and there doesn’t appear to be a unified stance on trade policy among the ‘populist right’ globally (or even in the US Republican Party). Argentina’s Milei is actually very pro-free trade, and has actually reduced tariffs, for example. This leaves immigration restriction as the only substantial policy commitment that is truly a hallmark of the ‘populist right’ in every country.

What sets the ‘populist right’ apart from conventional conservatives is actually the way they do politics. The populist right relies on emotive messaging, rather than rational persuasion, to gain support. It enjoys exploiting existing problems, conflicts and frustrations, and attempts to extract the biggest political benefit from it, while ignoring the very real harms caused to society in terms of increased polarization and tribalism, and reduced rationality and mutual understanding. In other words, ‘populists’, in their ruthless pursuit of power, aren’t above tearing our social fabric apart and increasing hate and animosity in society in the process. I’ve seen this happen in real time, to my dismay, in areas of debate from immigration, to climate issues and LGBT issues, to COVID-era frustrations, and frankly I’ve had enough. And this certainly isn’t a Trump-only problem either. Many of the aforementioned issues were first made into battlegrounds by online influencers, and only later taken up by Trump. Moreover, all of Trump’s potential successors have demonstrated a willingness to continue this emotionally driven, negative-tribalism based mode of politics. The next ‘populist right’ leader might not exactly sound like Trump, but they will certainly be using a largely similar approach to playing the game of politics.

As a classical liberal, I see my work as about increasing mutual understanding, encouraging good faith rational conversation, and bringing about consensus as a result of that. The ‘populist right’ apparently wants the opposite of all this, because they enjoy having the problem heated and unresolved, so that they can extract political benefit from it. This, I think, makes the ‘populist right’ incompatible with democracy. A healthy democracy requires people to be able to have rational conversations, to come to an understanding about a shared reality, and to make informed decisions at the ballot box based on that. In a political landscape where the ‘populist right’ makes rational debate and informed decision making impossible, even if elections keep happening it would be a very ‘flawed democracy’, not the healthy kind of democracy we should all aspire to. And I strongly believe we should not settle for a future where the people who come after us have to live under a flawed democracy, just because we lack the will to call out and stand against the worst features of the ‘populist right’ when we still can. It would be as if the Allies suddenly sued for peace with Nazi Germany in 1943 just because they were sick of fighting. I think all of us would agree that it would be deeply irresponsible and tragic if that had happened.