On Trump’s Populist Characteristics: Trump Cannot Destroy the Resilient American Democracy
Prof. Michael Kazin of Georgetown University, is renowned historian and expert on American politics and social movements, December 2024.
Source: European Institute for Populism
In a compelling interview with ECPS, renowned historian Professor Michael Kazin explores the rise of right-wing populism as a “pathological symptom” of today’s political transformation. Citing Antonio Gramsci’s theory of “regime alternation,” Kazin analyzes Donald Trump’s presidency and highlights its far-reaching implications for American and global politics. Trump’s leadership style reflects the challenges of this transitional era by combining economic discontent with cultural conservatism to energize his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) supporters and to build ties with far-right leaders abroad. Kazin also envisions a progressive populism based on economic justice to counter these dynamics. In a comprehensive interview given to the European Centre for the Study of Populism (ECPS), Professor Michael Kazin, a renowned historian and scholar of American politics and social movements at Georgetown University, offers a thought-provoking analysis of right-wing populism under President Donald Trump.
Professor Kazin sees contemporary politics as a “transitional period” and cites Antonio Gramsci’s view that such periods often produce “pathological symptoms”, which he links to the rise of right-wing populism around the world. He explores how Trump’s leadership embodies this phenomenon and highlights its implications for domestic and international politics. In the interview, Professor Kazin delves into Trump’s unique ability to sustain a populist movement despite Trump’s focus on personal popularity over policy. Professor Kazin discusses how Trump galvanized his base by combining economic discontent with cultural conservatism, creating a powerful political force that continues to influence American political discourse. Professor Kazin criticized Trump’s governance style, calling his first administration “terrible” with ignorant policies and selfish behavior. However, he acknowledged that Trump’s movement, especially the MAGA base, has no similarity within the Democratic Party, which provides him with a solid foundation for unwavering support. Professor Kazin also examines the potential global ripple effects of a second Trump term, pointing to his alliances with leaders such as Viktor Orban and the admiration he has gained among right-wing populist movements in Europe. While Trump’s “America First” stance complicates international coalition-building, Professor Kazin believes his presidency could embolden far-right leaders around the world. However, he is cautiously optimistic, emphasizing the resilience of American democracy and the structural limits on Trump’s power.
Finally, Professor Kazin explores the broader dynamics of populism, contrasting left-wing and right-wing variants. He argues that left-wing populism, rooted in economic justice and social democracy, offers a constructive way forward. As the global demand for fair governance grows, Professor Kazin envisions the possibility of a resurgence of progressive populism that challenges elite power while addressing pressing issues such as economic inequality and climate change.
Populism in America: Will it bridge or deepen the differences?
Professor Kazin, thank you so much for joining us. I’ll jump right into the first question. In your book, The Persuasion of Populism, you discuss the development of populist rhetoric in the United States. What role does populism play in bridging or deepening the divide between cultural and economic resentments today?
Professor Michael Kazin: As you know, populism is both a language and as some say a governing philosophy. I focus on the language of populism in the history of the United States, but of course it also plays out in populism in other countries. Historically, I think in the United States there is a distinction between left-wing populism and right-wing populism. Left-wing populism tends to focus on the economic elites – the 1% versus the 99%, the robber barons, the plutocrats, the monopolists. There are many terms people use to criticize those with a lot of wealth and economic power. The goal of left-wing populists is to unite the majority of people, regardless of gender, race or nationality.
In contrast, right-wing populists in the United States (and to some extent in Europe) see “the people” as a broad middle stratum of the population, primarily native-born individuals, who are exploited and oppressed by two forces: a small elite at the top (including economic and cultural elites, sometimes seen as the controllers of the state, such as the European Union in Europe or the federal government in the United States) and a small but growing group at the bottom, usually composed of non-whites and immigrants.
Historically, this underclass has included Latinos, Asian Americans, and African Americans. More recently, undocumented or illegal immigrants have become a focus of attention. Right-wing populists argue that these groups are being used by the elite to depress wages and erode the culture cherished by the native-born middle class.
Generally speaking, this is how left-wing and right-wing populism works in the United States, and there are similar examples in Europe. Currently in American politics, left-wing populists such as Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and other progressives within and outside the Democratic Party are working to emphasize the tradition of left-wing populism. However, left-wing populists face challenges because Democrats and progressives also prioritize cultural issues, such as more relaxed immigration policies, transgender rights, and racial equality. This puts some pressure on left-wing economic populists, who prefer to focus on issues such as corporate greed, wealth inequality, and combating the power of the rich, including Donald Trump .
As is well known on the right, Donald Trump represents a continuation of right-wing populism from the 19th century to the present day. Right-wing populists believe that the ” Hollywood elite ” or ” woke elite ” in universities and cultural institutions seeks to impose its values on the hardworking native-born majority. In addition, they claim that undocumented immigrants take jobs from native-born Americans, depress wages, and increase crime in cities. This is how the two traditions of left-wing and right-wing populism manifest themselves in contemporary American politics.
So how does populist language influence the policy priorities of modern American political parties, especially regarding economic inequality and social justice?
Professor Michael Kazin: Social justice is a difficult term to define. It has been used by both the left and the right throughout American history, so I will not discuss it for now. It is a long-standing issue in American politics in terms of economic inequality, but it has become a major concern for both right-wing and left-wing populists in particular since the Great Recession of 2008-2009. It has become increasingly of concern to progressive Democrats following the highly publicized but relatively small Occupy Wall Street movement of 2011-2012. Progressive Democrats argue that neoliberalism , which many argue has become the dominant ideology in American politics and economics since the 1970s, and particularly after the election of Ronald Reagan as president in 1980, has exacerbated economic inequality. Progressive Democrats support plans championed by Joe Biden that, despite limited success, would help unionize, extend child care benefits to all American families and implement other measures aimed at narrowing economic inequality.
On the other hand, conservative populists, including Donald Trump and J.D. Vance, believe that the main problem of economic inequality lies with corporations, which they claim are “too aggressive” and favor individuals with “politically correct” cultural politics over ordinary Americans. Some very conservative Republicans embrace an anti-corporate politics.
For example, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley supports the Teamsters Union, one of the largest labor unions in the U.S. In addition, some right-wing Catholic thinkers have drawn on the social justice tradition of the Catholic Church, citing papal encyclicals such as Rerum Novarum (1891), arguing that unions are essential to improving the lives of ordinary people and criticizing practices such as excessive rent and interest that harm workers and the poor.
This trend has given rise to a kind of “ Catholic populism ” that uses these religious principles to legitimize arguments against corporate power. An interesting book on this topic, Tyranny, Inc., written by a conservative journalist, criticizes corporate practices that harm workers, such as busting unions, charging exorbitant credit card interest rates, and denying health insurance. Populists on the right and left in the United States agree to some extent on reducing corporate power and supporting private sector unions. Currently, only 6% of private sector workers in the United States belong to unions, a historical low.
However, there are still major divisions between right-wing and left-wing populists, especially on cultural issues, which are deep-rooted and difficult to reconcile. For example, the debate over abortion—whether it is a fundamental right of women or tantamount to infanticide—has highlighted how cultural debates are often difficult to resolve and difficult to compromise.
Question: In one of your interviews, you argued that “if the political and economic elites in society, and other elites around the world, could more effectively implement their ideals, then populist rhetoric might be less popular.” What do you mean by “ the ideals of the political and economic elites ”?
Michael Kazin: Perhaps I should be more precise about the ideals of the states that these elites lead. In the United States and, to varying degrees, in Europe, the ideals professed include equality, democracy, majority rule, and a government that promotes the common welfare, as in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. These ideals are also reflected in other historical documents, such as the European Declaration of the Rights of Man. As a social democrat, I would say that if social democracy were more widely practiced and people were able to live a decent life in society, then populism might not be so popular.
For example, from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s, despite the many challenges facing the United States, it was generally a prosperous period. Unions were very strong, Social Security extended to almost every working American, and health insurance was available to the elderly and the poor. During this period, populist rhetoric was not particularly influential, and populist movements were relatively mild. Although major social movements occurred, such as the Black Freedom Movement, these movements mainly advocated for the inclusion of oppressed minorities in American life rather than claiming to represent the vast majority of the people. Of course, there were radical elements in some movements, but they were not mainstream. In my recent book, What It Takes to Win: A History of the Democratic Party, I argue that “ moral capitalism ” (a phrase I borrowed from a historian) is the Democratic Party’s governing promise for many years. The Democratic Party is the majority party, and most Americans, including working-class citizens, believe that things are getting better. When people believe that their lives are getting better, it’s hard for populist leaders and movements to gain support.
Trump’s leadership style is Characterized by self-interest and controversy
Question: In one of your articles, you described Donald Trump’s first administration as ” one of the worst presidents and administrations ever .” What factors led you to define the Trump administration as the worst?
Professor Michael Kazin: Of course, “bad” is an emotionally charged word, and I am merely expressing my own preference here. Academic objectivity is impossible in this case. I could also talk about the reasons why he won again last November, but first, let me focus on answering this question. As a leader, I think Trump is primarily concerned with his own popularity and is not particularly interested in policy. He wants to be in the spotlight at all times and will not support any ideal or policy unless it benefits him. He is also unwilling to take risks, especially when it comes to policy decisions, and I think this was evident in his first term and will probably be the case in his second term as well – of course, we will just have to wait and see. Trump’s personal behavior also feeds into this character. He was indeed accused of what in many countries would be considered rape, although he was not convicted of rape and instead defamed his accusers. His comments on immigration and what he called “shithole countries” etc. are reflective of his character. Personally, I find him to be a pretty despicable person – I would not want to associate with him, nor would I want anyone I know to associate with him. Still, Trump administration has been more cautious than I thought it would be, in part because he still leads a party that includes more traditional, cautious members. Many business executives and traditional Republicans have influenced his policies. For example, he has several traditional Republicans in his cabinet, and for most of his term, the speaker of the House was Paul Ryan, a liberal Republican from the Reagan era who was focused on cutting the size of government rather than pushing an anti-immigration crusade.
Trump administration’s main achievement is consistent with the long-standing conservative Republican agenda: tax cuts, especially tax cuts for wealthier Americans, although all Americans will get some form of tax cut. This is also what Ronald Reagan might have done. In that sense, while his administration could be bad, it was worse than I expected. However, Trump’s rhetoric and actions on immigration are deeply problematic. His attempt to build a wall on the southern border wasted a lot of money and was ultimately easily circumvented. This showed not only that he had no idea about policy, but also that he lacked any real concern. I still think Trump is a bad leader in the sense that , unlike other American presidents, Trump, as the leader of the most powerful country in the world, has little interest in the actual running of the country unless it directly benefits him personally.
You argue that “Like most followers of left-wing egalitarian politics, I believe that the only path to this future (a more equal, greener society) is through a populist agenda for jobs, income, health care, and other material necessities, while transitioning to a sustainable economy.” What exactly do you mean by “populist agenda”?
Professor Michael Kazin: I mean, really majority programs that benefit the majority of people. When governments are popular, they usually do that. In that sense, “popular” and “populist” can overlap, although they are not always synonymous. As I mentioned before, I think honest social democracy, or what I call “moral capitalism” in the US, is the best approach. These programs include subsidized housing, well-managed universal health care with good working conditions for health workers, unions that protect most people from abuse in the workplace, and, crucially, a positive transition to a sustainable economy — because without it, the whole world is in trouble.
Now, using the word “populism” may seem to go against my definition of populism, which in American history refers primarily to a discourse or rhetoric. But I don’t buy into the simplistic view that “populism is bad, liberalism is good.” As I write in my book The Persuasion of Populism, populism can be a way for ordinary people and the movements that aim to represent them to highlight the gap between society’s professed ideals and the actual performance of its elites, whether that be cultural, political, or economic. Populism can play a very positive role, pointing out these shortcomings and returning to society’s ideals, including those rooted in religion, such as charity and comfort for the suffering. It does not necessarily call for a radically different society, as socialism does – although socialists can also adopt populist rhetoric. Instead, it appeals to the ideals of existing society and challenges elites to live up to them.
That is why I believe that populism has an important role to play in building a decent society. Unlike some critics, such as Jan Werner Müller, who believe that populism always fuels movements that lead to authoritarian leaders, I believe that populism does not have to play such a role. While it is true that in some parts of Europe we see leaders with authoritarian tendencies come to power or fall from power, I believe that left-wing populism can play an important and constructive role.
Trump’s second term: The future of populist politics in the United States and beyond
How do you explain Donald Trump’s reelection as president, given his open and aggressive embracing of populist policies in the United States and around the world? Furthermore, how will his administration reshape the populist narrative at home, particularly by linking economic discontent with cultural conservatism?
Professor Michael Kazin: That’s obviously an important question that we won’t be able to really answer until a few years into his tenure. Let me take the first part of your question. You may have read, and your audience may have heard and read, many analyses of why Trump won. The most important reason for his victory—and generally the reason for any sitting president in this country (and probably other countries) to be removed from office—is that most Americans believe that a Biden or Biden-Harris administration is not doing a good job of governing. This perception is based on several factors, including inflation, a more open immigration policy than most Americans prefer, and what I believe to be Biden’s own poor communication skills. Biden had average communication skills when he was young, but in recent years, his ability to sell his platform has become very poor. I think if Americans knew more about these platforms, some of them might be very popular, but they don’t.
This election was actually very close. For example, if the 232,000 voters in three key states, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, had voted differently, with slightly more voters in Pennsylvania than in the other two states, Harris would have been elected, even though she won fewer popular votes than Trump. As everyone watching this election knows, we don’t have a national popular vote in this country. We have state-by-state elections to decide who’s president. Trump, on the other hand, is a charismatic figure. While he doesn’t have the support of a majority of Americans, a significant portion — perhaps 30 percent — is firmly behind him. He has a movement called Make America Great Again (MAGA), and the Democrats have nothing comparable to it. Even though the Democrats have more voters on the ground, Trump has more solid support.
As a result, Trump won a bit more votes than he did in 2016, about 2 million more popular votes. However, Harris won 10 million to 11 million fewer votes than Biden in 2020. Trump’s victory was largely due to many Democrats deciding not to vote. They were unhappy with the Biden-Harris administration’s performance, but Trump didn’t have enough motivation for them to come out and vote against him. Now, on what Trump will do in terms of reshaping the populist narrative — let me go back to the second part of your question…
How capable is his government of reshaping the populist narrative in USA?
Michael Kazin: Well, again, it depends on how well Trump performs, right? It’s a matter of chance – how he performs as president in his second term. Trump is a better politician than a policymaker, so he will certainly try to maintain support from both traditional Republicans and the cultural populists within his coalition. On the traditional side, Trump will try to hold on to corporate Republicans — who generally favor lower taxes, less regulation and smaller government — as well as cultural populists who want to slash legal and illegal immigration and oppose transgender rights and some gay rights. Trump will likely try to strengthen U.S. manufacturing and push for more products to be produced domestically. However, this will be a challenge given that U.S. manufacturing ultimately relies heavily on components from around the world. It will be very difficult to reduce this dependency and produce these components domestically that are currently cheaper elsewhere. Nonetheless, he will likely pay attention to this issue verbally.
As always, a lot depends on the state of the economy, government scandals, and the results of the midterm elections. There is a good chance that the Democrats will take back the House in 2026. If that happens, what Trump wants to achieve can only be achieved through executive action. While some of these actions may be popular, others may not resonate with the public. Moreover, the 2028 presidential campaign will overshadow the final years of Trump’s presidency. In fact, the campaign is likely to begin before the results of the 2026 midterm elections are fully known. This means that Trump may have only two years to achieve his goals, including working to satisfy the demands of both traditional and cultural populists in his coalition.
Trump’s Return Can Shake but Cannot not destroy American democracy
In terms of the resilience of American democracy, how worried are you about a second term of the Trump administration? Some experts claim that if Trump is re-elected, American democracy will not survive. What do you think?
Professor Michael Kazin: Here I disagree with some on the left. I do not think that American democracy faces serious problems. I think that Trump’s reelection and his return to power next month will shake — and has already shaken — American democracy.
First, even though Republicans control Congress, seats are still fairly evenly split between the two parties. Many large states, such as New York, California, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Illinois, are governed by Democrats, and most of them have Democratic majorities in their legislatures. These state governments could take action and bring cases to court to challenge some of Trump’s policies.
Civil society in the United States remains relatively strong. Important nongovernmental organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are likely to file lawsuits against some of Trump’s actions, especially those related to immigration. For example, if he tried to deport children born in the United States to immigrant parents (who are U.S. citizens by birth), the ACLU and other organizations would intervene. Although there has been some dormancy and fatigue in left-wing grassroots organizing since the election, there are still some important groups on the left, including unions like the American Federation of Teachers and the United Auto Workers. These organizations support Kamala Harris and will mobilize against the Trump administration. Trump’s ability to act depends, as always, on his popularity. If his popularity remains constant, he will have greater freedom to pursue his agenda. However, the court system will still act as a check on his power. While the Supreme Court leans conservative, with Trump appointing three justices during his first term, other courts are more balanced, with lower courts presided over by progressive or liberal judges. I expect chaos and unrest, but this does not necessarily mean that democratic institutions are in existential danger.
One area of concern is Trump’s apparent eagerness to sue media organizations he disagrees with. For example, Trump sued ABC News over a comment made by anchor George Stephanopoulos, and ABC settled for millions of dollars. Trump may take similar legal action against other media organizations, especially traditional organizations like the New York Times and the Washington Post, and the major networks. While this may scare off some of these organizations, he can’t silence the internet or stop people from organizing protests. The USA military served as a check on him during his first term, notably during the 2020 protests. It is likely to play a similar role this time around. Even if he expresses a desire to suppress peaceful demonstrations, he is unlikely to ask the military to do so. I wouldn’t say I’m optimistic, but I’m hopeful. Also, as I mentioned before, he only has four years in office, and probably only two years to effectively implement policies. So, I’m not as fearful as some people I know.
Implications for global Populism and Far-right alliances All Over the World
Although the success of the liberal EU, right-wing populism continues to rise in Europe. What impact do you think populist parties and movements will have globally as Trump begins his second term? Will his presidency encourage far-right leaders abroad and promote new alliances between far-right populist governments?
Professor Michael Kazin: Of course, that is very likely. It is well known that Trump has a close relationship with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. Orban was invited to national conservative conferences, and one of the conferences was even held in Budapest, which I think was the first time an American conservative organization hosted a conference abroad. Obviously, the leaders of right-wing populist parties, including the French National Rally (RN), were very happy about Trump’s re-election. The same may be true for right-wing populist parties and movements across the European continent. At the same time, an emphasis on “America First” and skepticism of European institutions such as the EU or NATO will make it difficult for Trump to form any strong coalition for action with European leaders.
Structurally and historically, I think we are in a period of transition. My friend Gary Gerstel, in his recent excellent book, describes the end of the neoliberal order, which in many ways has ended, in some places completely. As the Italian Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci said, in such transitional periods, “ many pathological symptoms emerge .” Right-wing populism, in my opinion, is one of those pathological symptoms.
However, as demands grow for the state to provide a decent life for the majority of its citizens, and for the government to actually meet those demands, I think there could be a resurgence of left-wing populism or social democracy, even if it is not labeled as such. People will demand that the government deliver on its promises to raise the living standards of the majority, preferably in partnership with private capital. I take some comfort in the fact that Trump’s term is only four years. He cannot be re-elected without a constitutional amendment, which is very difficult to achieve in the United States, much more difficult than in many other countries. Furthermore, most Americans who support Trump are not particularly keen on alliances between the United States and other countries. They would prefer that the United States remain independent and not participate in such alliances, especially when they believe that these alliances are costly. So, we will just have to wait and see.