How is it possible that 60 million Americans intend to vote for Donald Trump? And what explains the success of leaders who are clearly unfit to govern, even in countries with well-established democratic institutions? This is a protest vote, fueled by both economic and cultural resentment, as well as significant misinformation spread through social media. But the real unifying factor is immigration, a topic traditional parties are often reluctant to address.
There is a question that, not without apprehension, is on the minds of many observing the U.S. presidential campaign from this side of the Atlantic: how can over 60 million Americans — nearly half of the potential electorate — be prepared to vote for Donald Trump?
This is a former president who incited a crowd to storm Parliament in an attempt to overturn the popular vote, who has multiple convictions for fraud and defamation, and who is involved in countless scandals. His close associates (from H.R. McMaster to John Bolton) and 91 family members, friends, world leaders, party colleagues, and business associates, interviewed by The New York Times, did not hesitate to label him “unfit for duty,” “self-serving,” “manipulable,” “unstable,” “a dictator fan,” “a threat to democracy,” “unable to distinguish truth from lies,” “a national security risk,” “untrustworthy,” and “racist.”
Even those unfamiliar with Trump personally cannot ignore that he insults not only opponents but also disabled members of his own family, that he has never renounced QAnon (the extremist right-wing group) and its wild conspiracy theories. He avoided the Vietnam War for trivial reasons, refused to honor soldiers who died in the Normandy landings, and held a campaign rally at Arlington Cemetery, dishonoring military casualties. Trump has used systematically racist rhetoric toward Muslims and Mexicans and has promoted absurd fake news, from claims that immigrants eat dogs and cats to allegations that Ukrainian servers hacked his site and demanded Volodymyr Zelensky identify the owner of this imaginary server. We could go on, but experts on U.S. presidential campaigns have already addressed these points in this issue of eco.
Trump Is Not Alone
Trump is not the only politician worldwide who systematically violates the written and unwritten rules of civil coexistence. Many others exist globally. Even in well-established democracies, some unscrupulous politicians resort to verbal violence, stirring crowds against institutions that uphold a balance of powers. The latest arrival is Herbert Kickl in Austria, who extols “Viennese blood” and denounces “Moroccan thieves.” They are commonly called populists because, in their rhetoric, they pit the people — viewed as a monolithic entity — against an equally monolithic and corrupt elite, from which they exclude themselves even if they are billionaires with wealth far from self-made. As documented in the first issue of eco, Trump even squandered the fortune built by his father.
Some argue that beyond populists’ words, what matters is what they do once in power. In this issue, we document, through rigorous counterfactual analyses (i.e., attempts to determine what would have happened at that historical moment had they not come to power), how populists in office worsen citizens’ well-being by reducing per capita income and often pushing their countries to the brink of collapse, with high inflation, unemployment, and unsustainable public debt. They have also weakened or even overthrown democratic institutions, fostering authoritarian tendencies and, in some cases, creating outright dictatorships. Latin America offers numerous lessons, having experienced three waves of populist leaders.
It is hard to conceive that citizens would willingly become poorer and, with the weakening of democratic institutions, relinquish their freedom to choose their leaders, especially amid a strong demand for state protection. Yet there has never been a historical moment when populist leaders and parties have achieved as much success as they do today. In Europe, they hold power in the Netherlands, form part of coalitions in Italy and Sweden, influence politics from the outside in France, and command massive majorities in eastern German states. How is this possible? This is a particularly important question in a year when nearly 50 countries, representing 4 billion people, are heading to the polls.
Three Possible Explanations
In this issue of eco, we propose three explanations:
- The anger of those who feel economically “abandoned.”
- Misinformation amplified by social media.
- A deficit in representation of values held by much of the electorate.
Let’s examine each in brief.
Economic Resentment
The populist vote is often a “vote against,” a protest and anger vote rather than a “vote for.” As documented by American sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild, Tea Party activists and Trump voters are concentrated among the most desperate fringes of the United States. They feel economically discriminated against and marginalized in the labor market and in access to public services. This frustration is directed at anyone representing the establishment, regardless of political affiliation, often leading to a rejection of even populist leaders once they are in power. This discontent has its roots in the deindustrialization and inequalities exacerbated by globalization and is deeply rooted among those impacted by the major crises of the new millennium. Theoretically, these populations would have much to gain from redistributive policies. Yet paradoxically, it is not the demand for such policies that drives their vote. Trump, like many populists who have come to power, cut taxes for the wealthiest, unlike Joe Biden and previous Democratic presidents who supported the middle and lower classes. And the tariffs Trump emphasized in his platform disproportionately harm vulnerable populations, as explained in this issue of eco. This vote is driven mainly by resentment rather than rational calculation. The same anger leads people to blame those in power for issues beyond their control, from environmental degradation to the pandemic and global inflation, or perhaps out of frustration over governments’ inability to manage these global challenges.
Cultural Resentment
Focus groups organized by Arlie Russell Hochschild reveal that this sense of marginalization extends beyond material conditions to encompass values — opinions on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, gender roles, and ethnic or racial differences. Large segments of the electorate feel wholly unrepresented by the universalism of civil rights, preferring the preservation of local traditions and the long-held values of their communities. In other words, populism may be a form of backlash against a political class that has progressively lost touch with the conservatism and localism of a significant, if not majority, portion of the population. On these issues, traditional parties often avoid taking a stance, allowing their elected representatives to vote according to conscience. This creates a vacuum into which populist propaganda easily steps.
Misinformation
Social media has played a central role in fueling discontent. Platforms like Twitter primarily host negative messages and facilitate the rhetoric of those who are “against” rather than “for.” They amplify both economic and cultural resentment while diminishing the role of traditional media, which can better filter false information and shape public opinion. On paper, social media offers more freedom of expression than traditional media, and this freedom is accessible to all, including those without access to traditional media or the resources to amplify their voices. However, this freedom of expression often turns into a license to spread misinformation, promote blatant falsehoods, and sow hatred and fear, distorting electoral outcomes. This misinformation is deliberately spread by populist leaders who retweet fake news and act as its amplifiers, exposing our democracies to the risk of interference from authoritarian regimes.
It’s Immigration, Stupid
Each of these explanations holds a degree of truth, and they are not mutually exclusive. Economic and cultural resentment reinforce each other, and social media amplifies their effects. But these explanations lack a key ingredient: salience, the focus that draws public attention to populist rhetoric. The sentiments captured by populists would likely remain latent in parts of the electorate if there were no single issue to mobilize them.
It’s not difficult to identify what this issue is. Just look at the tweets of populist leaders in the United States, Europe, and Australia. By far, the most dominant theme is immigration. Immigration serves as an easy scapegoat to channel fears and anger: as a threat to national sovereignty, as an import of criminals, as a drain on public resources, and as an affront to local traditions. Traditional parties often shy away from discussing it, seeing it as a minefield. Objectively, it is: how can they counter the powerful imagery of border walls, naval blockades, and deportations? But avoiding the issue leaves populist propaganda unchecked, hiding its weaknesses and contradictions. Demographic decline, for example, makes immigration indispensable in countries with falling birth rates. Securing borders — including through partial outsourcing — while respecting human rights, selecting who can enter, and fostering the integration and assimilation of those already present could be more reassuring. This approach best ensures public order and preserves national identities.
Just as Clinton’s campaign strategist John Carville argued that “It’s the economy, stupid” was the key to electoral outcomes, we believe that immigration is the real unifying factor in the populist vote. Unlike many traditional party leaders, we won’t shy away from discussing immigration on these pages.
