While populist politicians are certainly not a new thing, there remains a sense that the rise of social media has meant that their impact on democracy is greater today than it has been in the past. Research from UC Riverside highlights explores what factors underpin support for populist ideas and politicians.

The researchers quizzed over 1,700 US citizens to understand whether they supported populists because of their policies or out of loyalty to their party. The results suggest that the latter is more likely than the former, which the researchers believe helps shed light on why populist politicians have become so influential in recent years.

“A wave of populist leaders gained ground in many democratic nations in recent decades, and their electoral support grew in many countries, including Italy, Spain, Austria, Germany, and other nations in Europe, Asia, and Latin America,” they explain. “In the United States, Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election after a campaign filled with populist elements.”

Surge in popularity

The researchers define populism as a thin-centered ideology that consists of anti-elitism, a Manichean outlook, and people centrism. They believe that it can pose a danger to democracy when voters lack robust information or don’t spend the time to fully scrutinize the messages of those candidates.

The results show that people were most likely to support populist messaging when it came from “their” party. So Democrats were more likely to support messaging coming from Democrat candidates, and vice versa.

“The argument predicts that a Republican or Democrat voter opposes a populist or anti-populist message if it comes from a Democrat or Republican leader, but supports that same message if informed that it is supported by their Republican or Democrat leader,” the researchers explain.

In other words, support for populism is less because of any support for the policies themselves but more out of tribal loyalty to their particular party. It’s a situation that won’t change without concerted effort on the part of the electorate.

“Ideally, people should be more conscious, should pay more attention to what their leaders say,” the researchers conclude. “Much of this is contingent acceptance of political identities. There is a danger of party identity, of having blindfolded followers of leaders who can disregard democratic procedures.”