The world is facing a new generation of challenges that are of a different kind, degree, and dimension than those of the past. Many are borderless, including some that present existential risks to humanity. Many are interrelated, multiplying and magnifying their individual impact. Among these new challenges are climate change; pandemics and other health-related issues; conflict arising from the scarcity of food, water, and natural resources; human migration; and the political, economic, and social dislocations caused by what some see as the unfairness and injustice of the current global economic system. It’s increasingly clear to meet such systemic challenges the world will need an informed, sustained, and collaborative effort at every political and social level.
Unfortunately, the fear these challenges create, coupled with the anger many feel regarding the unfairness of the world’s economic system, has led some to deny these and other challenges even exist. They increasingly look instead for someone to blame or seek comfort behind the borders created by family, friends, community, state, and country. Many feel marginalized and powerless, and are turning once again to populist leaders. The populism they support is on the rise at a time when the world desperately needs solutions it cannot provide. The question of what can be done to defeat populism and find the solutions the world needs has become an urgent one.
Populism may be difficult for some to define, but increasingly populists share one salient characteristic–they exclude and divide. Such “exclusionary populism” normalizes intolerance, hatred, and anger, especially against those who practice different religions, are of non-majority races, or have heterodox political views. Populist “leaders” are “intrinsically disparaging of the weak and marginalized.” Their retrograde, self-interested, exclusionary approach to governance, the economy, and society, which often seeks to misinform and destroy the existing institutional structures that enable collective action, is inconsistent with the fact-based forward-looking cooperative efforts the world needs to address its shared, systemic challenges. Among these challenges is the need to reform its neoliberal economic system, which has led to global inequality and injustice.
Paradoxically, exclusionary populists aren’t interested in genuinely addressing income inequality. They often claim they’re for ordinary people when, in fact, they feel contempt for them. For example, in the case of the United States, former president Donald Trump has called his followers “basement dwellers.” Rather than do anything to make life better, populists simply tell their supporters what they want to hear—that the past can be recovered; that the world’s challenges aren’t real; and that “others,” especially immigrants or those with different religions, are to blame for their troubles. Populists have no plan for the future. They destroy, not create. Trump’s failure to fulfill his promise to build a wall to control the border, which is under pressure due to climate change, is an example of populist inaction. His opposition to the bipartisan bill that would have provided much-needed border management reform proved that he, like other exclusionary populists around the world, prefers crises to solutions.
The United States is struggling to overcome the uninformed, corrosive, divisive impact of exclusionary populism on its democracy. The failure to confront it successfully, and uphold the country’s democratic principles, would represent a significant departure from the nation’s historical foundations. The United States was created and evolved as a multi-ethnic nation based on the ideals of the Enlightenment, which posited the advantages of taking a secular, inclusive, and fact-based approach to opportunities and challenges. It has backstopped this approach with the rule of law, a free press, and the right to vote, leading to unprecedented participation, stability, and success.
That each of these is under attack by Trump, or that exclusionary populists around the world also are restricting voting rights and the free press, and eroding the rule of law, is not unanticipated. What was less expected, however, was that social media, increasingly supercharged by AI-driven algorithms, threatens to hijack the discourse needed to sustain democratic institutions and develop the solutions our societies need, diminishing the ability of individuals to talk with one another.
The United States’ history of confronting populism offers possible approaches that could be taken to overcoming it successfully today. One of the most notable examples was when the world was in the throes of the Great Depression and Europe was being threatened by fascism, a particularly virulent form of exclusionary populism. Many of the underlying challenges the world was facing then were different from those the world faces now. However, the populist forces that led to World War II were strikingly similar to those now afflicting our societies, as were the exclusionary and disinformation tactics they employed.
The 1920s created unprecedented income inequality in the United States, which is matched only by the present day. Thus, in 1929, only 1% of all Americans held 25% of the country’s wealth. This inequality, and the systemic economic unfairness that created it, was a significant contributing factor in causing and deepening the Great Depression. When unemployment soared, few Americans had the resources to ride out the storm. A similar disability exists now. Making matters worse, the Federal Government had fewer tools to respond to the crisis than it has now.
In spite of these deficits, President Herbert Hoover, rather than fashioning new governmental tools and reforming the financial system that had led to the depression, opposed governmental intervention and remained committed to the system even though it arguably had excluded and harmed many Americans. Thus, he provided aid to corporations, not to the American people. He also at least implicitly ascribed blame to immigrants and organized a repatriation program to send Mexicans, 60% of whom were birthright citizens, back to Mexico. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, signed during his administration, sharply increased tariffs on imports, causing countries to retaliate, deepening the depression at home and increasing nationalism and fascism abroad. Moreover, Hoover also dramatically curtailed his appearances before the press, thus limiting the information needed by Americans to understand the reasons for the economic downturn, and what the government was trying to do about it.
Predictably, Hoover’s approach didn’t work. His failure opened the door to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who understood the real cause of the crisis was not the Mexicans Hoover deported. FDR saw the depression as a global problem that required action by multiple domestic and global stakeholders. He cited the need to have an “enlightened international outlook” and take action to achieve the “greatest good to the greatest number of Americans.” He also stressed the interdependence of Americans, and the need for the country to be a “good neighbor” to the world.
FDR adopted a two-fold approach to the challenge: first, unlike Hoover, he established a robust, personal, and direct conversation with the American people; and second, he created new organizations and programs to reform the existing economic system. Both enhanced interaction among the American people and their representatives through shared experience and information.
Roosevelt began speaking directly to the American people even before he was elected. Thus, he became the first presidential nominee of either party to accept his nomination in person. In remarks broadcast to the nation, he called for restoring “America to its own people.” He made a point of being inclusive, even making a distinction between the leadership of the Republican Party and those who had supported it in the past. FDR posited that the welfare of a nation depends upon what the “great mass of its people wish and need,” and “whether or not they are getting it.” But he also realized the American people were “united in a single economic problem.” Thus, he decried the “selfishness” of many Americans.
After his election, he continued his conversation with the people, beginning with his 1933 Inaugural Address, in which he famously said Americans had “nothing to fear but fear itself.” He maintained this direct approach during the entire term of his presidency, educating Americans about the challenges the country was facing, and the actions he was taking. These conversations came to be called “Fireside Chats.”
The chats began only eight days after FDR took office, and set the pattern for what was to come. In the first chat, which focused on the banking crisis, the president explained “what has been done… why it was done, and what the next steps are going to be.” He spoke plainly, using words all would understand. The 30 chats during his presidency quelled fears and rumors by personally sharing information in a venue that was immediate, physical,and verifiable. He also made it clear the challenges required risks to be taken, and a longer-term view to be adopted. The chats have been credited with helping keep FDR’s popularity high, insulating him from partisan political criticism.
FDR also believed the action taken needed to be inclusive and offer something new. Thus, he reformed and expanded the Federal government, designing and implementing scores of new agencies and programs to give Americans left behind a “New Deal.” In doing so, he positioned Americans to work together to create the country’s future. Programs such as the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Works Progress Administration, and the Civilian Works Administration were the result. He also created Social Security, a financial safety for older Americans.
Importantly, FDR’s approach did not exclude, unlike those who opposed him. His opposition included the leadership of the Republican Party; the U.S. Supreme Court, which was controlled by a conservative bloc of Justices known as the “Four Horsemen,” and which consistently struck down New Deal legislation; and the “America First Committee,” a precursor to Trump’s “MAGA” movement. Some, or all of them, proved to be anti-immigrant, anti-war, protectionist, and broadly resistant to the reforms needed to provide direct help to the most disadvantaged Americans.
Leaders since FDR rarely have spoken as directly and consistently to their constituents as he did. Fewer still have proposed legislation designed to reform systemic flaws in the country’s economic and political systems. Leaders may have believed that by playing it safe, they would be less politically vulnerable. However, the leaders’ increased vulnerability to attacks in the absence of strong public engagement demonstrates a misunderstanding of political dynamics – a fact that FDR astutely recognized. The current political crisis has made clear the necessity for leaders to learn from these lessons and act to tell people the truth; help them understand the risks societies are facing, and the actions being proposed to meet them; unite them; and be prepared to take the chances needed to manage the current crisis, including by cooperating with other countries.
Implementing these measures will take considerable effort. Exclusionary populists will continue to exploit the peoples’ fears by providing what they freely admit are “alternative” facts, including in sunless venues frequented by people who already support them. Yet, following populists into their non-factual funhouses is unlikely to provide people with the accurate information they need to solve the shared problems they have. Only direct communication can effectively address the issue.
Examples of such direct, fact-based communications would be versions of or variations on FDR’s “Fireside Chats,” including regular presidential addresses; televised discussions with representatives of the American people, including town halls, appearances on news programs and late-night entertainment; appearances in state legislatures; speeches at business conventions; and televised and private conversations with local political, community and religious leaders. Tweeting and connecting on social media cannot get it done. They cannot establish the connection and trust needed to marshal public opinion to a shared purpose.
Building such direct, tangible lines of communication is only a part of the solution. It also will be necessary to develop a new generation of flexible, collaborative organizations and programs designed to address the shortcomings of the current political and economic systems, and enhance direct interactions among the American people, especially the young. The New Deal legislation amplified such interactions. The airports, bridges, roads, and other infrastructure Americans built through the Works Progress Administration, and the conservation work done under the auspices of the Civilian Conservation Corps, were the result.
Volunteerism also should be encouraged, and perhaps made mandatory. Internationally, the benefits of multi-lateral organizations, including the United Nations and its various agencies, and the rules, institutions, and procedures regulating global activities such as trade and the international monetary system, should be recognized and improved, not disparaged for perceived domestic political benefit or fictitious attacks on sovereignty, as has so often been offered up by Republicans.
Exclusionary populists pick winners and losers by putting their fingers on the scales of society. Yet, there will be no winners if the world continues down the exclusionary, uninformed path populism proscribes. The good news is that there’s reason to hope people want to act collectively and effectively. Recognizing the negative impacts of loneliness and isolation could provide the incentives needed to open more direct, robust, informed, inclusive and forward-looking conversations with our leaders, and with one another. If such conversations are created, the United States, and the world, will defeat populism once again.
Reference
Diamond, L. Stanford Diamond Democracy, “When Does Populism Become a Threat to Democracy”,
November 3-4, 2017.
https://diamond-democracy.stanford.edu/speaking/speeches/when-does-populism-become-threat-democracy
Cox, M, “Understanding the Global Rise of Populism”, LSE IDEAS, May 31, 2017.https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/Assets/Documents/updates/LSE-IDEAS-Understanding-Global-Rise-of-Populism.pdf
European Center for Populism Studies, “Exclusionary Populism”.https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/exclusionary-populism/
Pogue, J. “The Senator Warning Democrats of a Crisis Unfolding Beneath Their Noses,” New York Timeshttps://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/19/opinion/chris-murphy-democrats.html, August 19, 2024.
Meade, E. “Epistemic Injustice, The Far Right and the Hidden Ubiquity of Neoliberalism”, Centre for Global Education, Policy & Practice, Issue 38, Spring 2024. https://www.developmenteducationreview.com/issue/issue-38/epistemic-injustice-far-right-and-hidden-ubiquity-neoliberalism
Levin, S. “Trump calls his supporters ‘basement dwellers’, says former press secretary”, The Guardian, August 20, 2024.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/20/republican-trump-dnc-speakers
Zakaria, F., “2023 could be the year that exposes populism for the sham that it is”, The Washington Post, January 5, 2023. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/05/populists-2023-policies-poor-governance/
Blitzer, J. “How Climate Change is Fuelling the U.S. Border Crisis”, The New Yorker, April 4, 2019. https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/how-climate-change-is-fuelling-the-us-border-crisis
Kapur, S., Thorp, F., “Republicans kill border bill in a sign of Trump’s strength and McConnell’s waning influence”, NBC News, February 7, 2024. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-kill-border-bill-sign-trumps-strength-mcconnells-waning-in-rcna137477
PBS, History Detectives, “1930s High Society”.https://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/1930s-high-society/index.html
Shue, S., Epperson, S., “70% of Americans are feeling stressed, new CNBC survey finds, CNBC Your Money,
April 11, 2023. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/11/70percent-of-americans-feel-financially-stressed-new-cnbc-survey-finds.html
Kennedy, D., “Don’t Blame Hoover”, Stanford Magazine, January/February 1999. https://stanfordmag.org/contents/don-t-blame-hoover
“Herbert Hoover on the Great Depression and New Deal, 1931-1933”, History Resources, The Gilder Lehman Institute of American History. https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/herbert-hoover-great-depression-and-new-deal-1931–1933
Rice, J., “Hoover’s cautionary tale: The businessman president”, Forest Park Review, June 19, 2018. https://www.forestparkreview.com/2018/06/19/hoovers-cautionary-tale-the-businessman-president/
Kenton, W., “What Is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act? History, Effect and Reaction”, Investopedia, May 23, 2024. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smoot-hawley-tariff-act.asp
Roosevelt, F.D., “Address Accepting the Presidential Nomination at the Democratic National Convention”, July 2, 1932, The American Presidency Project. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-accepting-the-presidential-nomination-the-democratic-national-convention-chicago-1
Roosevelt, F.D., “Inaugural Address”, March 4, 1933, The American Presidency Project. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/inaugural-address-8
Roosevelt, F.D., “Fireside Chat on Banking”, March 12, 1933, The American Presidency Project. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/fireside-chat-banking
“America First Committee”, Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/America-First-Committee
Carden, D.L., “To Save Democracy, America Needs a Mandatory Public Service Program”, FP, October 31, 2021. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/31/us-democracy-mandatory-public-service-program-political-divides/
vanden Heuvel, K., “What’s with the GOP’s absurd fear of all things U.N.?”, The Washington Post, December 11, 2012. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gops-absurd-fear-of-all-things-un/2012/12/10/c8b5a50a-42e2-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story.htmlhttps://www.fletcherforum.org/home/7/26/2024/loneliness-in-america-is-a-foreign-policy-issue
Carden, D.L., “Loneliness in America is a Foreign Policy Issue”, The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, July 26, 2024.
