What is populism?

Imagine a political movement that transcends the traditional left-right spectrum, unified not by a specific economic plan, but by the conviction that the "real people" have been betrayed by a "corrupt elite." This is the essence of populism: it is less a set of policies and more a moralistic framework for viewing the world. To understand populism at a university level, we must look past the headlines and toward the definition provided by political scientist [Cas Mudde](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cas_Mudde). He characterizes populism as a **thin-centered ideology**. Unlike "thick" ideologies such as Marxism or Liberalism—which offer comprehensive views on social organization, economics, and ethics—populism is a skeletal structure. It focuses almost exclusively on the relationship between two antagonistic groups. > "Populism is an ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, 'the pure people' versus 'the corrupt elite,' and which argues that politics should be an expression of the *volonté générale* (general will) of the people." — Cas Mudde, [The Populist Radical Right: A Reader](https://www.routledge.com/The-Populist-Radical-Right-A-Reader/Mudde/p/book/9780415518864) ### The Anti-Pluralist Core A common mistake is to equate populism with "popular" policies or mere demagoguery. However, as [Jan-Werner Müller](https://politics.princeton.edu/people/jan-werner-muller) argues in his seminal work *What is Populism?*, the defining feature of populism is its **anti-pluralism**. Populists do not simply claim to represent a majority; they claim they are the *only* ones who represent the *authentic* people. This leads to several distinct behaviors: - **Exclusionary Logic:** If the populist represents the "real people," then anyone who disagrees must, by definition, not belong to "the people." This labels opponents as "enemies of the state" or "illegitimate." - **Moral Monopolization:** Politics is no longer a negotiation between competing interests; it becomes a moral struggle between virtue (the people) and vice (the elite). - **Institutional Friction:** Because populists believe they possess a direct mandate from the people, they often view independent institutions—such as the judiciary, the free press, or central banks—as obstacles to be dismantled. ### Populism as a Political Strategy Beyond ideology, populism functions as a **performative style**. Political theorist [Ernesto Laclau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Laclau) argued that populism uses "empty signifiers"—broad slogans like "take back control" or "hope"—that allow diverse groups with different grievances to project their hopes onto a single leader. Whether it is the left-wing populism of Evo Morales in Bolivia or the right-wing populism of Viktor Orbán in Hungary, the mechanism remains the same: the construction of a "people" through the identification of a common enemy. Ultimately, populism is a symptom of a perceived failure in representative democracy. It arises when citizens feel that the "thick" ideologies of the establishment no longer speak to their lived reality, leaving a vacuum that only a moralistic, "thin" ideology can fill.

If a political category is so elastic that it can simultaneously describe a socialist revolutionary in the Andes, a neoliberal billionaire in New York, and a nationalist isolationist in Budapest, we must ask: does it actually describe a coherent worldview, or have we mistaken a successful marketing strategy for a philosophy? While the "thin-centered ideology" framework is popular, many scholars argue that labeling populism an "ideology" at all is a category error. ### The Strategic Critique: Power Over Principles Critics like [Kurt Weyland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Weyland) argue that populism is not a set of beliefs, but a **political strategy**. In this view, populism is a specific method of seeking and exercising power characterized by a personalistic leader who bypasses established institutions to reach a mass of unorganized followers. Unlike ideologies, which provide a roadmap for governance, the populist strategy is purely instrumental. A leader may adopt "populist" rhetoric to dismantle a rival elite, only to abandon those same "people" once power is consolidated. > "Populism is a political strategy through which a personalistic leader seeks or exercises government power based on direct, unmediated, uninstitutionalized support from large numbers of mostly unorganized followers." — Kurt Weyland, [Clarifying a Contested Concept](https://www.jstor.org/stable/422412) ### The Performative Style Other theorists, such as [Benjamin Moffitt](https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=25574), suggest that populism is better understood as a **political style**. This perspective posits that populism is a "way of doing politics" that relies on the performance of crisis, the use of "bad manners" (to prove one is not part of the polished elite), and the constant identification of enemies. If populism were an ideology, we would expect a degree of consistency in its policy prescriptions. Instead, we see a **chameleonic adaptability**. As [Rogers Brubaker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Brubaker) notes, populism is a "discursive and stylistic repertoire" that can be mapped onto almost any existing "thick" ideology. It is the *container*, not the *content*. ### The Problem of Parasitism The most damning evidence against the "ideology" label is populism's inherent parasitism. Every historical instance of populism has required a "host" ideology to function: - **Left-populism** relies on socialist critiques of capitalism. - **Right-populism** relies on nativist or ethno-nationalist theories of the state. Without these hosts, populism provides no theory of the state, no economic model, and no plan for social organization. It possesses no "positive" program, only a "negative" one (the opposition to the elite). By calling it a "thin-centered ideology," we may be over-intellectualizing what is essentially a **logic of mobilization**. If populism is an ideology, it is one that disappears the moment the leader enters the palace and begins the mundane, bureaucratic work of actual governance.

Imagine a master key that claims to unlock any door but contains no blueprint for what lies behind them. To call populism an ideology—even a "thin" one—is to credit it with a degree of intellectual substance it arguably lacks. If a political tool can be wielded with equal efficacy by a billionaire property mogul and a socialist firebrand, we are not looking at a philosophy, but at a **political technology**. ### The Strategic Logic of Personalism The most potent critique of the ideological label comes from [Kurt Weyland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Weyland), who argues that populism is a **political strategy**. In this framework, populism is a specific technique for winning and exercising power that relies on the **unmediated bond** between a personalistic leader and their followers. Unlike traditional ideologies that build institutional structures like labor unions or party bureaucracies, the populist strategy deliberately bypasses or destroys these "intermediary bodies." This is not about a worldview; it is about a power dynamic. > "Populism is a political strategy through which a personalistic leader seeks or exercises government power based on direct, unmediated, uninstitutionalized support from large numbers of mostly unorganized followers." — Kurt Weyland, [Clarifying a Contested Concept](https://www.jstor.org/stable/422412) By treating populism as a strategy, we explain its **chameleonic volatility**. A leader can pivot from protectionist economics to neoliberal deregulation overnight without "betraying" an ideology, because the only consistent principle is the maintenance of the leader-follower bond against a designated enemy. ### The Spectacle of "Bad Manners" Beyond strategy, populism functions as a **performative style**. [Benjamin Moffitt](https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=25574) suggests that in the age of 24-hour media, populism is a way of "doing" politics that emphasizes the **performance of crisis**. Populists do not just respond to crises; they actively manufacture them to justify their role as the only capable "savior." This style relies on three key performances: 1. **The Appeal to "The People":** Using coarse, "authentic" language to signal a rejection of the polished elite. 2. **The Performance of Crisis:** Framing every political disagreement as an existential threat to the nation. 3. **Bad Manners:** Deliberately violating diplomatic or parliamentary norms to prove they are not "part of the system." ### The Parasitic Necessity The strongest evidence that populism is a vessel rather than a core belief system is its **parasitic nature**. Populism cannot exist in a vacuum; it requires a "host" ideology to provide it with policy content. Without a host, populism has no theory of taxation, no stance on environmental regulation, and no vision for foreign trade. - **Right-wing populism** grafts onto **nativism** to define "the people" ethnically. - **Left-wing populism** grafts onto **socialism** to define "the people" economically. By viewing populism as a **repertoire of mobilization** rather than a set of ideas, we see it for what it truly is: a high-octane delivery system for whatever grievance—thick or thin—is currently vibrating through the electorate. When the leader enters the palace, the "ideology" often evaporates, replaced by the pragmatic, often authoritarian, mechanics of staying in power.