 Godwin's Law. There, I said it myself. I don't want anybody to pretend like they did not see that coming. So one of the most popular hobbies for pundits, journalists, and political science experts in the months leading up to the 2016 US presidential election was trying to identify the reason that Donald Trump was pulling down such impressive numbers, despite the fact that in many obvious ways he was a highly unusual candidate. As usual, the truth is obviously more complex than that. He won for a whole bunch of very different reasons, many of which we simply will never know. But Trump's victory does mark another data point in a recent trend towards populism, a social and political strategy which according to many experts has become widespread. Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, the Swedish Democratic Party, the Brexit referendum, the Tea Party, the Spanish Pidamos Party, Greece's Golden Dawn movement, all of these have been described as manifestations of this populist trend. Populism is a term which describes political platforms that are tribal and anti-elitist, invoking some narrative of the common people versus the political ruling class. Who counts as the common people changes depending on which voter base is likely to be swayed, but who they're not is usually made abundantly clear. Populists paint themselves as fighting for the little guy against some uncaring or ineffective ruling elite who wield power from on high with no concern for the light of the everyday citizen. In exchange for the support of said citizens, populists promise to append the existing political order, sack or displace those elites, or worse, and give power back to the people. Picture someone leading a crowd that's carrying torches and pitchforks, that's populism in a nutshell. Now sometimes that's exactly what the doctor ordered. It's pretty much the basis for every single political revolt in human history. The people being ruled get fed up with the people ruling and then follow some charismatic leaders who promise to do better. And sometimes they actually do. However, there are some conditions that are necessary for that strategy to work, and they're not always closely tied to the quality of leadership. First, in order to sell this idea, one has to assert that things are seriously screwed up. It's hard to assert that the ruling elites or outsiders are responsible for the deplorable state of the nation if things are actually pretty OK. In many ways, this largely depends on where you are in a society and what you can be convinced counts as OK. Many analysts correlate successful populist campaigns to things like depressed economies or rapid cultural and social change, because things tend to suck a little bit more for some people in those situations. Although it's definitely true that governments can affect those things in significant ways, it's not always government's fault when they go screwy and storming the capital with pitchforks and torches isn't always the best way to fix them. Second, populists have to represent the current establishment as being somehow insufficient, either inept or ineffective or uncaring or, ideally, all three. This is usually pretty easy. Scapegoating the people in charge for our problems is kind of just a fact of life. Thanks, Obama. Third, populists suggest that drastic change is necessary to fix that government problem, that a strong outsider, someone who isn't a member of that elite, needs to get in there and shake things up to disrupt the status quo and in so doing, give the power back to the people. In short, what has two thumbs, unlimited executive power, and it's going to make everything better, this guy. Again, these things don't necessarily have to be true for a populist to gain support. It's just the general shape of the story that they have to sell. It's obviously easier in some situations than others. For example, populist fever hasn't really caught on in South America because a number of those countries did elect populists into office a little while back and nothing's gotten better. Fool the electorate once, shame on you. But let's talk a little about some of the undertones of populism, why its use is frequently derogatory and why very few people will admit that that's the strategy they're going for. Historically, an effective way to convince normal people that things are super bad and it's the government's fault is to play to more primal, less rational modes of thought, things like mob mentality, fear and anger. Most politicians will appeal to your emotions in one way or another. But frequently, populists will hammer on baser instincts to whip their constituents into frenzied indignation about the status quo. First, the scarier things are, the more clear and present the danger, the more pressing the need to unify under whatever sweeping changes the populist is promising. When you're trying to get a large group to demand your leadership over that of the establishment, it's really helpful to play up the desperate need for immediate action. If it looks like someone's driving your car over a cliff, your standards for who you'd rather have in the driver's seat get lower the closer you get to the edge. Second, nationalism serves as an effective tool for fanning the flames of discontent, contrasting some idealistic vision of the country's true glory with the realities of the difficulties that it's facing and painting the establishment as the primary barrier between them. It doesn't matter if that vision is actually feasible or sustainable. It's only meant to be something shiny that the people in charge won't let you have. How dare they? Third, tribal rhetoric is very useful for galvanizing supporters into the people the populists can claim to represent. It's kind of hard to get a mob going if everyone's thinking about how diverse they are and how they all want something slightly different from government, but give them a flag and some other to focus their attention. These simple rhetorical tools are devastatingly effective at binding and motivating a group of people to demand new leadership by any means necessary. But they have some, shall we say, problematic side effects? This guy wrote the book on populism, and he's a pretty good example of what happens when it goes bad. Now, these are just the unpleasant implications that linger about this broad category of political strategies. They're not requisite, and they shouldn't lead you to the conclusion that all populism is bad. I mean, we the people. But the growth of populist politics in several countries in Europe and the United States has a lot of smart people wondering what's driving it and where it's likely to end. Is fear of terrorist groups making inflammatory rhetoric more appealing to voters? Is economic stagnation and disruptive globalization making more people feel dissatisfied about the economy? Are a large number of progressive social reforms and an increase of immigration worldwide causing some sort of backlash among more traditionalist voters who feel threatened by those things? Is the measurable ineffectiveness of non-rich people on government policy causing widespread feelings of disenfranchisement? As with President Trump's success, these are not questions with simple answers. But knowing about populist politics and how they work might give you some insight to know when they're being used on you and the dangerous places that they might need. Why do you think populism has become popular in the last decade or so? Would you punch a Nazi in the face? Please leave a comment below and let me know what you think. Thank you very much for watching. Don't forget to blah, blah, subscribe, blah, share and don't stop thunking.