As Democrats rush to sneakily, yet officially, lock in the Biden-Harris ticket, Republicans appear more unified than ever behind Trump and Vance. In anticipation of this becoming the final match up for the 2024 White House, I find it prudent to put some of the prevailing juxtapositions of the tickets aside in order to talk about something equally important. Yes, this is an election that pits tyranny against democracy and progressive ideals versus traditional values. However, this election is also, simply put, an election of the popular versus the unpopular.
Although disliked by many Americans, it is undeniable that Trump is extremely popular with a large portion of them. They wear clothes promoting his personal “MAGA” agenda and they flock to his rallies. When he lost the presidency in 2020, some of his followers even stormed the capital, hoping to somehow keep him in power. As of writing, Trump has a 41.5% favorability rating.
Joe Biden, on the other hand, does not have “storm the capital” energy. Democratic party members, editorial boards, and newly founded political action groups are all calling on Biden to step down. As of writing, Joe Biden has a 38.6% favorability rating.
When we look at the vice presidents of both candidates, it seems to be a similar story. JD Vance has a vocal opposition. But he also wrote a New York Times best seller that was popular across the political spectrum. He was also an early opponent adopter of MAGAism, and now that he has been hand selected by Trump as the MAGA apparent, he enjoys a similar cult following (and don’t forget about his beard). In contrast, Kamala Harris is so unpopular, many in her own party do not want her at the top of the ticket should Biden, again also unpopular, step aside.
Again, this is an election between the popular and the unpopular, or between the populists and the unpopulists (?) This leads into the main question we must consider, since when was being popular so bad?
Within the last decade, there has been a “dangerous rise of populism” across the globe. These “new” Populists, scapegoat refugees, damage trading systems and consolidate power. However, none of these terms are inherently populist, in fact, they all sound much more like nationalism and tyranny. Yes, the new “populist” parties and candidates often push this agenda, but it is flat out wrong to say that is what makes them populist.
Populism is the will of the people, and it is often juxtaposed with the idea of a small ruling or “elite” class. In this regard, Donald Trump is about as good of an example as you can find. If you’ve ever been to a Trump rally, you’ve heard shouts of “drain the swamp” and “lock her up” from many in attendance. This is the audible embodiment of the masses who feel as though they are up against an elite class.
For any present day candidate or party, it is essential to distill this true meaning of populism and tap into it. Populism is on the rise, the voice of the masses is prevailing… and that isn’t inherently dangerous. However, what is dangerous, is that the only parties who realize this are nationalistic and authoritarian.
The Democratic Party has been a key part of the rise of Populism in America, but not in a self serving way. Populism parties and candidates need a foil, an elite class to pit up against the will of the people, and the Democrats have been happy to play this role over the past decade. As opposed to finding the source of Trump’s popularity and trying to appeal to the masses in a similar way, Democrats describe all things Trump as dangerous and “populist”. If one thing will make you appear as an elite ruling class, it would be persecuting a populist candidate who threatens your grip on power.
As it became more and more apparent that people wanted change and populism was on the rise, Democrats’ actions continued to be more and more out of touch. In 2016, the Democrats (and their superdelegates) nominated Hilary Clinton, former first lady, senator and secretary of state. In 2020, the Democrats put forth Joe Biden, who served in the U.S. senate for 36 years, then was vice-president for 8 years. Republicans, on the other hand, nominated Donald Trump, someone who had not only never served in public office, but promoted, with words and actions, those believing in a deep-state run government.
Now, I am not arguing that the Democrats should have co-opted Qanon… but they could have put forth candidates who people were excited about as opposed to candidates who worked their way up to the top of the establishment. Bernie Sanders didn’t win the nomination in 2016 or 2020, and wouldn’t win in 2024… but he had the following and appeal that Democrats need more of. In large part, his following comes from his policies (Unsurprisingly, JD Vance believes “The people on the left… whose politics I’m open to — it’s the Bernie Bros”). However, it’s no surprise that the democratic establishment treated him and his populism as a threat to the establishment, similar to how they view Trump. Again, he is not the candidate for the current moment. But as opposed to ostracizing him, democrats should be learning from him and emulating parts of his message.
So, where does this leave us? Well, maybe nowhere. It’s too late to curate a candidate who combines the popularity traits of Bernie with the establishment policies of Biden (pay attention Newsom). And, if Biden decides to stay in the race, or even if Biden drops out and Democrats push Kamala up to the top of the ticket; this will still be an election of the people versus the establishment and the popular versus the unpopular. But, if Democrats opt for the open convention option, then maybe, just maybe, they can appear as a party open to change, willing to heed to the popular opinions of the masses as opposed to continuously promoting from within. And if they can portray that image (and combine it with the enthusiasm an open convention would bring), they may just be able to win this election.
