In France, centrist parties are trapped. Treating the populist National Rally as a pariah has failed to stop its growth. Conversely, treating it as a respectable political opponent has also boosted its popularity, creating a strategic dead-end for the mainstream.
Related Insights
The global rise of right-wing populism cannot be solely attributed to economic factors like inequality or job loss. Its prevalence in wealthy, low-inequality nations like Sweden and strong manufacturing countries like Germany proves the root cause is a deeper, more widespread cultural anxiety.
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.
A savvy political strategy involves forcing opponents to publicly address the most extreme statements from their ideological allies. This creates an impossible purity test. No answer is good enough for the fringe, and any attempt to placate them alienates the mainstream, effectively creating a schism that benefits the opposing party.
Centrist policies don't have to be boring. By framing sensible, evidence-based ideas as "radical," moderates can capture public imagination and compete with the loud fringes of the political spectrum, making effective governance more appealing and electorally viable.
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.
Leaders like France's Jordan Bardella are strategically cautious about publicly embracing Donald Trump. Despite ideological similarities and support from Trump's camp, Trump's deep unpopularity in Europe makes any open association a political liability for populists seeking mainstream appeal.
Mainstream German parties refuse to form coalitions with the far-right AfD. While this keeps the AfD from power, it also removes any incentive for them to moderate, potentially encouraging radicalization and leading to legislative gridlock among centrist parties.
In times of extreme polarization, the political middle is not a safe haven but a kill zone. Moderates are targeted by both sides because they have no tribe to defend them. The escalating cost of neutrality forces everyone to pick a side, eliminating compromise and accelerating conflict.
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.
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.
