The dangers of comparing every political event to Donald Trump.
The dangers of comparing every political event to Donald Trump.
Populist Revolutions: Unraveling the Similarities and Differences
A PATTERN is emerging in political journalism. Whenever something can be construed as a rejection of the establishment, or a win for authoritarianism, or a triumph for swaggering, braces-twanging bombast—or some other shift the writer does not like—the subject is ascribed to a global Trump-ite revolution. Often this comes without nuance. Take this week, for example. Various election results and campaigns have been compared to the rise of President-elect Donald Trump, fueling the narrative of a global populist wave on the verge of toppling the elite order. While there are undoubtedly similarities between these forces, it is important to delve deeper and explore the differences that make each movement unique in its own right.
The Similarities: Uniting Forces of Change
A populist, nationalist wave is undeniably sweeping the West. This wave is fueled by a complex blend of factors including the economic crisis, globalisation, automation, immigration, stagnant wages, social media, and a less deferential culture. Each instance of this shift spurs on the next, creating a domino effect of populist movements across different countries. Examples of this phenomenon include Trump’s election victory, Britain’s vote for Brexit, the rise of hard-right parties such as the Sweden Democrats and Alternative for Germany, as well as the movements like Pegida and the Tea Party. Important ideological and demographic traits unite these movements, reflecting the growing discontent of ordinary people with their self-serving rulers.
The Overlooked Differences: Narratives of Local Realities
While the focus has predominantly been on the similarities among these populist movements, it is equally important to acknowledge their differences. These differences, rooted in local contexts, offer a more nuanced understanding of these movements and challenge the simplistic notion of a sweeping wave of change. For instance, the failures of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the flaws in the anti-Brexit movement in the UK, the arguments against Mr Renzi’s constitutional reforms in Italy, and UKIP’s dysfunction and Farage’s inability to win a parliamentary seat all indicate that these populist movements are not always as dynamic or all-encompassing as they may seem.
The Complex Narrative: Exploring the Local Tales
Examining the specifics of each country’s political landscape reveals that these populist movements have deep-rooted histories. Marine Le Pen’s potential success in the French election next year, for example, has been mirrored by her father in 2002. Norbert Hofer’s chances of winning the Austrian presidency are seen as groundbreaking, but his party has long been an established force in the country’s politics. Similarly, Italy’s “Trump of its own” can be traced back to an anarchic tradition that predates both the US election and Trump’s birth. The post-communist nationalism in countries like Hungary and Poland is not a recent phenomenon but has its roots in the pre-Berlin Wall era.
Debunking Simplistic Explanations
Contrary to the notion that the “liberal elite” fails to understand the driving forces behind these populist movements, the reality is more complex. The success of Trump and his counterparts in Sweden, as well as the support for Angela Merkel in Germany, despite the challenges of immigration, shatter the idea that the struggles faced by hard-up strivers are limited to a particular demographic. Moreover, the simplistic narrative that all hard-up strivers in America who happen not to be white voted for Trump ignores the fact that the majority of them voted for Hillary Clinton. These complexities in people’s motivations and voting patterns fly in the face of a one-size-fits-all theory of global Trumpism.
- Britain should focus on earning Donald Trump’s respect, not s...
- Brexit Max confirmed by Theresa May
- Article 50 ruling foreshadows UK’s constitutional storm.
Embracing the Comparisons: Populist Clinging to the Trump Archetype
Despite the discrepancies and limitations associated with comparing populist movements to Trump, many of these movements embrace the comparisons and draw inspiration from his success. Mr. Nuttall’s “put the great back in Great Britain” echoes Trump’s “make America great again,” and both Le Pen and Hofer celebrated Brexit and Trump’s victory. This affinity for Trumpism stems from the ability of these comparisons to simplify complex local circumstances, minimize difficult questions, and imply that any given populist force automatically has its finger on the pulse of international events. By failing to acknowledge the differences between these movements, commentators inadvertently provide legitimacy and support to the forces of authoritarianism.
Conclusion: Balancing Similarities and Differences
While there are certainly similarities among populist movements across different countries, it is crucial to provide a comprehensive understanding that includes the differences between these movements. By drawing attention solely to the similarities, commentators risk oversimplifying a complex narrative and reinforcing the beliefs of forces that may not necessarily represent the best interests of the population. Recognizing the nuances and intricacies within each movement allows for a more accurate portrayal of their dynamics and challenges the notion of a monolithic global revolution. As we explore the influences and channels of communication that drive these movements, it is essential to maintain a balanced view that acknowledges both the similarities and differences for a more holistic understanding of the political landscape.
