Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Kevin Mayes's avatar

Moments ago I watched the JD Vance speech to the Munich security conference. Interestingly he said (paraphrased) 'the European political consensus (discourse?) leaves no room for alternatives of the Left or the Right', with which I concur- except the consensus is within the entire liberal-democratic world- not just the European. Its interesting that he includes 'the Left'- presumably for balance- It was a skillful oration regardless the content was mainly upholding the 'free speech' and electoral rights of the Ethno-nationalist parties of Europe. But what of the 'alternatives of the Left'?

The point I would make is that the public talking-points ( the terrifying private talking points are never spoken of outside of elite circles) of the Populist Right have never been suppressed throughout the era of the liberal consensus. There has always been a residuum of racism, misogyny, homophobia, & xenophobia in society, because these ideas don't take any intellectual work to maintain, rather they are like a persistent sub-clinical infection. For the same reasons, these ideas have been considered to exist outside the realm of normal political discourse, thus there was never any real attempt to suppress them, other than the notion that they would wither away over time as everyone's life got better.

But what of Left wing thought? There are two main traditions here: one of Nonconformist Christianity, the other of Historical Materialism. The first has been voided by secularism & usurped by an anti-biblical perversion of 'doing Satan's work in the name of Christ'. The second requires 'doing the work' of grounding in anthropology and history. This can be as superficial or as deep as the individual is capable or has time to engage with- nevertheless it has to be done because there is no equivalent to the bigotries of the populist Right except the fiction of the 'politics of envy' that serves the Right.

For probably the last 100 years, the various Socialist / Social Democratic parties around the world have operated on the level of 'trust us, we'll see you right'. The very last thing they want to contend with is to be squeezed from below by a politically educated and expectant working class. They also perceive that to engage in extra-parliamentary political activity de-legitimises their status as parliamentarians. Note, the Right has no such qualms.

So, Left political education has been long abandoned, leaving only 'indoctrination by immersion' in the tropes of capitalism & westernism. Thus, unlike the Right, which has been happy and able to re-engage & co-opt the bigotries that it previously sidelined, the Left has nothing to fall back on as a foil to the Rightwards move of the Right.

Expand full comment
John Baker's avatar

Thank you Grant, this is a thoughtful piece. I appreciate the effort to take populist voters seriously rather than dismiss them as irrational or manipulated. Your discussion of political trust is spot on —distrust isn’t just a problem for democracy, imo it’s a rational response when people feel unheard or disregarded. I also think you’re right that simply treating populist parties as pariahs hasn’t worked and may well be counterproductive. In liberal democracies, at the end of the day, the majority of voters decides. Effective minority action is engagement and persuasion, not attack.

I do wonder though if your article doesn’t miss something crucial. It presents right-populist movements largely as reactions to cultural or economic anxieties, but doesn’t consider whether these movements also have a coherent vision of governance. If the system isn’t delivering, why is the assumption that populists are merely venting frustration rather than making legitimate critiques?

The discussion of norm-breaking focuses heavily on figures like Trump and Berlusconi but doesn’t explore comparable norm shifts on the left—whether in lawfare, judicial activism, or policy overreach. If trust is declining, is it just because of populists, or is there a broader accountability failure in governance? Pretending that only one side has been playing fast and loose with democratic norms looks to me like a straightforward way to tank trust.

While I appreciate the caution against overplaying victimhood, dismissing concerns about affirmative action, gender roles, and political representation as “playing the victim card” risks overlooking the ways in which these policies actually affect people’s lives. It could be that what looks like grievance politics is simply the recognition of a real problem.

I think Less Certain is onto something - see “Waitangi Day, Te Pati Mãori and Nationalism In New Zealand” from 4 Feb. If populists succeed where establishment parties fail, maybe the real question isn’t “why are people voting for them?” but “why aren’t mainstream parties offering something better?”

Expand full comment
18 more comments...

No posts