Why everyone is embracing populism | The Gray Area

Summary

The episode examines why populism remains influential after a decade of upheaval and whether it is likely to fade. Noel King frames the discussion around a public mood of frustration, including high fuel and grocery costs, mortgage rates, and an unpopular war. The midterm results, the show argues, suggest that populism is not going away soon.

Atlantic writer Jonathan Chait defines populism as a politics that presents conflict as a simple contest between “the people” and a selfish elite. It typically promises clear solutions and identifies someone to blame, though who counts as “the people” can vary.

Chait says Donald Trump gained support by positioning himself against Republican leaders whose priorities—tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and foreign wars—did not match many voters’ preferences. Trump promised different priorities, even though his presentation was not always borne out in practice. In his first term, opposition from institutions and party figures helped him portray himself as an outsider being blocked. His greater success in exercising power in his second term makes that victim narrative harder to sustain.

Trump weakened the old Republican establishment, Chait argues, but did not displace the economic elite; instead, business leaders largely adapted to the new political order. The right also directs populist anger at socially progressive elites.

Chait sees Joe Biden as having adopted some populist arguments, particularly criticism of free-trade deals and promises to protect American workers. But he says populist policies such as tariffs can worsen inflation, and that Biden was slow to address inflation as a central problem.

Chait thinks populism may eventually recede if its policies fail to improve people’s lives. He points to Trump’s tariffs, imposed by executive order rather than through Congress, as policies a future administration could reverse, while cautioning that the movement’s future is uncertain.

Vox correspondent Eric Levitz offers a media-focused explanation for populism’s rise. Radio made it possible for politicians and broadcasters to speak directly into people’s homes, enabling figures such as Franklin D. Roosevelt to present themselves as champions of ordinary people. Radio’s many independent stations also let demagogues such as Father Charles Coughlin reach audiences after major networks dropped him.

Early television, by contrast, was dominated by a few costly networks that acted as gatekeepers. In a period of relative prosperity and political consensus, that concentrated media environment helped reinforce trust in institutions.

Cable television weakened the networks’ dominance, increasing competition for audiences and incentives for provocative, emotional political content. Social media has further lowered barriers: individuals can reach huge audiences without editors or network approval. Levitz says this environment rewards influencers who claim to possess hidden or forbidden knowledge, helping anti-establishment politics thrive.

Levitz suggests AI could, in some ways, create a more shared information environment because people across political divides use a small number of major chatbots, which often draw on similar mainstream sources. But he does not view AI as a solution: if it causes widespread job losses, anger could instead fuel a populist backlash against a new technology elite.

Presenters and contributors

• Noel King — host
• Jonathan Chait — guest, The Atlantic
• Eric Levitz — guest, Vox
• Miles Bryan
• Jolie Myers
• Gabrielle Donaghue
• David Tudder Shore
• Bridget Donegan