A deep distrust of the bipartisan "neoliberal consensus" has made many young people receptive to any counter-narrative, whether from the left or right. This creates a powerful anti-establishment bloc that finds common ground in opposing the status quo, explaining the crossover appeal of populist figures.
Related Insights
When the economic system, particularly the housing market, makes it impossible for the youth to get ahead, it guarantees the rise of populism. Desperation leads them to vote for any promise of change, however destructive, such as socialist policies that ultimately collapse the economy.
Unlike previous generations who grew up believing liberal democracy was the final political form, Gen Z entered a world with no clear answers. This void, combined with infinite internet access, fueled a competitive explosion of fringe ideologies as they searched for new models.
The appeal of a populist leader lies in their rejection of traditional political norms. When the electorate feels betrayed by the established "political class," they gravitate toward figures whose rhetoric is a deliberate and stark contrast, signaling they are an outsider.
Scott Galloway argues the far right recognized the crisis facing young men before the left. While their solutions were regressive—blaming women and minorities—their early diagnosis of the problem created a political vacuum they successfully filled, attracting a disenchanted male demographic.
Populist figures don't create societal problems; they rise to power because existing economic and social issues create an environment where their message resonates. To solve the problem, you must address the underlying conditions, not just the leader who represents them.
Figures like Donald Trump don't create populist movements; they rise by capitalizing on pre-existing societal problems like economic despair. Focusing on removing the leader ignores the root causes that allowed them to gain power, ensuring another similar figure will eventually emerge.
The conventional wisdom that moderate candidates are more electable is a myth. Elections are won by turnout, not by appealing to the median voter. A polarizing figure who excites their base will often win by a larger margin than a moderate who fails to generate enthusiasm.
Political alignment is becoming secondary to economic frustration. Voters are responding to candidates who address rising costs, creating unpredictable alliances and fracturing established bases. This dynamic is swamping traditional ideology, forcing both parties to scramble for a new populist message centered on financial well-being.
In times of economic inequality, people are psychologically driven to vote for policies that punish a perceived enemy—like the wealthy or immigrants—rather than those that directly aid the poor. This powerful emotional desire for anger and a villain fuels populist leaders.
The psychological engine of populism is the zero-sum fallacy. It frames every issue—trade deficits, immigration, university admissions—as a win-lose scenario. This narrative, where one group's success must come at another's expense, fosters the protectionist and resentful attitudes that populist leaders exploit.
