Last week I wrote about Zohran Mamdani, an…. unorthodox… primary candidate in the New York mayoral race. Since then, Mamdani has won. Whether or not this win was due to New York’s ranked choice voting system is open to debate. I read two statistical analyses of the effect of RCV on the primary, and each claimed the system unfairly threw the election, but since neither report agreed on who benefitted nor did either show me its math, I have no idea it either is correct.
And it’s beside the point. What’s really important is that economic populism looks like it is here to stay.
Which, of course, triggers the question, “What is economic populism?” Economic populism is a political and economic approach that emphasizes the needs and interests of the "common people" over those of elites, of large corporations, or of financial institutions. It often includes policies aimed at reducing inequality, at protecting domestic jobs, and at expanding government support for working- and middle-class citizens.
Water, salt, oxygen, caffeine, vitamin A, and acetaminophen are all more or less good for you… And all of them in large doses will kill you. Economic populism is exactly like that.
America has had several brushes with economic populism—FDR’s New Deal, any policy proposed by Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, and several of the economic proposals of President Trump are good examples. In and of themselves, these policies are not bad things: remember, too, that economic populism isn’t strictly left or right-wing, but is a style of economic politics that can appear across the spectrum. Left-wing politicians focus on wealth redistribution, unions, healthcare, and taxation while right-wing politicians focus on tariffs, nationalism, and national job protection.
Economically, these measures lead to inflation, loss of jobs, and a shortage of the goods subject to the price controls. The real danger lies in the political costs. Economic populism starts off like a potluck dinner with a promising host. “Come one, come all!” cries the candidate. “Free healthcare! Low rent! Jobs that pay actual money! And pie for dessert!” It’s music to the ears of anyone who’s been burned by recession or inflation, or who just got screwed over by the local cable company.
And honestly? It’s hard not to cheer. Economic populism is often a genuine human response to real pain. If wages are stagnant, factories are shuttered, and billionaires are launching themselves into orbit, while you’re still trying to afford putting braces on your kid’s teeth, when a leader steps up and says, “Let’s take care of the people, not the elites,” it’s tempting to shout “Hallelujah!” and hand them the keys to the car.
But here’s the thing: sometimes the person you gave the keys to not only drives you home... they change the locks, reset the GPS, and push your saintly old grandma out the window.
This leader gets elected on the promise that they’ll take on “the system.” And, at first? They do, as they slash bureaucratic red tape, defund the police, pass spending bills, and make Wall Street sweat a little. People cheer. Approval ratings soar. The pigeons get off the park statues long enough to salute.
But soon, the populist leader realizes something uncomfortable: governing is harder than campaigning, and the realities of economics soon show you that numbers are too sharp to juggle.
When inflation creeps up or foreign investors get nervous, economic populists often find a convenient answer—just blame the “usual suspects”. These include the media (“fake news!”), the judiciary (“corrupt judges!”), or the Federal Reserve (“saboteurs with calculators!”). Instead of saying, “We need to fine-tune our policies,” the populist says, “We would’ve been perfect if it weren’t for those meddling institutions!”
This is where the slide begins, because, now, the leader isn’t just fighting inequality—they’re fighting accountability.
Next comes the DIY phase—attempts to fix the system. But these measures are not designed to make it better, but to make it easier to control. The courts? “Far too slow or biased.” Better pack them with friends. Election laws? “Too biased.” Better replace them. Independent media? “Unpatriotic.” Better buy them out or shut them down. Civil service? “Uncooperative.” Better fire the lot and hire cousin Jimmy.
All of it is justified under the banner of “protecting the people’s will.” The populist starts governing not for all citizens, but for “real” citizens (i.e., their base). And dissent inevitably becomes treason. This, of course, is much easier if you have state-owned and controlled media.
By this point, the original economic populist dream—to create a more just economy—is buried under red flags and loyalty oaths. Inflation is inevitably climbing. Business investment has fled. The budget may be bloated from all the free pie served by insolent civil servants. But instead of changing course, the populist doubles down: more controls, more slogans, more enemies, and more free programs to be paid for by taxing what remains of the wealthy.
What has happened? The inevitable. All too easily, economic populism turns to authoritarian populism—where power is centralized, dissent is punished, and freedom is optional.
By now, citizens realize they’ve traded bread and butter policies for bread and circus politics. There might still be subsidies and slogans, but transparency is gone. The economy wobbles. Institutions weaken. And the charismatic leader who once promised fairness now rules by decree.
While some try to resist, others say, “Well, at least they’re not the other guys.” But deep down, everyone knows: the system’s not the same.
Well, since I’ve given you the sermon, I might as well reveal the moral of the story.
Economic populism doesn’t necessarily go authoritarian, but it usually does. There are populist policies that uplift the working class without burning down the courthouse. But if the leader you elect blames the courts, or says all economic woe is the fault of the rich, or promises services that are magically free—you may not be on the road to fairness. You might be on the shortcut to autocracy, instead.
So enjoy the pie and cheer for the underdog—but keep an eye on the locks. And if your grandma mysteriously vanishes from the passenger seat… it’s time to grab the wheel.
One last note, Dear Reader: I was not talking about the other political party, I was talking about yours.
No comments:
Post a Comment