Reactionism Is Not Populism

Understanding political movements is essential for building a human-centered politics

Beginning of autumn term, 2015, I was teaching two sections of Intro to U.S. Politics to British university students. After addressing housekeeping issues, I asked if there were any questions. In both sections, the first question was an earnest, trepidatious, “Do you think Trump could win?” Despite my surprise, my immediate reply was, “Unfortunately, yes, he definitely could, and he will if the Democrats don’t nominate Bernie Sanders.”

I don’t share this story to brag about my political prognostication skills, which otherwise are nonexistent, but to help frame the question of what populism is and isn’t. My explanations to my students about the dynamics of the 2016 presidential election are even more pertinent in today’s election cycles in multiple countries.

Elections Portrayed As a Cage Match

The corporate media loves to simplify election contests to a one-on-one battle, and a fight based on personalities, not issues. In 2015, the media seized on each U.S. party’s presidential nomination contest as being between the favored establishment candidate and the upstart candidate. Bush versus Trump and Clinton versus Sanders.

The political pundits talked, legitimately, about an anti-establishment mood in the nation, and they labeled Trump and Sanders as populists. This label had some legitimacy in that both Trump and Sanders were in opposition to the party establishment and drew most of their support from voters outside the party mainstream. The narrative that both Trump and Sanders were populists was so prevalent that first-year students on another continent had picked up on it.

But what did Trump and Sanders have in common aside from running against their party establishment? In March 2016, the New York Times published an article by Michael Kazin[1] asking how Trump and Sanders both could be considered populists when their policies were so different. The answer reflected many in the media and even in academia: They are both populists, despite their political differences, in that they both blamed the elites for society’s problems and appealed to the masses for support to fight the elites. Chantal Mouffe, for example, sees “Sanders as an example of a left-populist movement and Trump as a right-populist.”[2] But does being an anti-elite outsider who appeals to what Mouffe calls the “popular classes” define a candidate as a populist?

I say no; being a populist is more than grassroots popularity or running campaigns outside the political mainstream. However, my greater concern is that the label populist has come to be an overly broad and empty term and needs to be clarified. Recent right-wing political parties and movements in the United States and Europe have been called populist by the media and parts of academia. I argue that this designation is misleading and that it obscures the social and political issues involved. Kazin’s New York Times article admitted that “there was a time when ‘populist’ meant something more specific.” It is to that prior more specific meaning that I wish to return.

Two Very Different Types of Political Movements

I propose that there is a significant difference between two types of social movements and political parties that are often lumped together under the designation populist. My argument is to reserve the term populist for one type of social-political movement as distinct from another type of social-political movement that is populist only in outward appearance. I apply the underused term reactionary to describe right-wing social and political movements that are populist in appearance only. Examples of such political parties are the Austrian Freedom Party, France’s National Front, the Alternative for Germany party, Hungary’s Fidesz party, the Netherlands Party for Freedom, and Poland’s Law and Justice party.

I distinguish reactionary movements from truly populist movements such as Bernie Sanders’s Our Revolution, the U.K.’s Momentum, Spain’s Podemos, Greece’s Syrzia coalition, the Black Lives Matter movement in the United States, and the progenitors of the term populist — 19th century agrarian movements. The motivations, underlying ideologies, and aims are significantly different between populist and reactionary movements — enough to warrant the distinction in terminology that I propose.

Both types of social-political movements are struggles for recognition, but they significantly differ in what kind of recognition is sought and why. I define populist movements as those in which groups seek greater social, economic, and political recognition and inclusion for themselves and others. I define reactionist movements as those in which groups seek greater social and political distinction from others and for the recognition of other groups to be curtailed or denied.

What Spurs Reactionary Movements

Before I delve into this distinction in more detail, I wish to briefly address some of the reasons why reactionary movements are lumped in with populist movements. These reasons will help illuminate the issues that I am bringing forward. Scholars and the media have used populism to describe a party’s approach or strategy in promoting itself. Hans-Georg Betz gives a representative definition of populism as an “appeal to the allegedly superior common sense of the common people against the dominant cultural and political consensus.”[3] Betz argues that a right-wing populist party combines this approach of appealing to the common man (sexist language Betz’s, not mine) and his superior common sense with the right-wing opposition to social integration and an appeal to xenophobia if not overt racism.[4]

Definitions such as Betz’s cast populism as an anti-elitism movement of the plebeians against the ruling class. Agrarian movements fit this loose definition in that they saw their movements as defending the working class against a dominant elitist class of exploitative industrialists and government. Those movements and parties were not economically right-wing, however. What anti-government sentiments the current right-wing political parties have are less a matter of class antagonism or a campaign against a dominant consensus than they are the belief that the government is blind to perceived external threats to society.

Mislabeling Reactionary Movements

A focus on antagonism against the current governmental elite has created confusion between right-wing ideological reactionism and true populism. An example of this is Cas Mudde’s book on so-called populist radical right-wing parties. Mudde identifies the core concept of right-wing parties as “nativism,” which he defines as an ideology that holds that states should be inhabited exclusively by members of the native group (the nation) and that nonnative elements (persons and ideas) are fundamentally threatening to the homogeneous nation-state.[5] I think this definition of right-wing parties is on the mark because it identifies that the fundamental opposition of these parties is to groups of people who are deemed to be outsiders.

I disagree with Mudde about his definition of what makes a party populist. He says that populism is an ideology that “considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, the ‘pure people’ versus the ‘corrupt elite.’”[6] Mudde’s definition is similar to Ernesto Laclau’s conception of populism as the drawing of a border between the legitimate populace and the elites.[7] Mudde combines his two definitions — antagonism toward nonnative elements and antagonism toward a “corrupt elite” — into his definition of a populist right-wing party.

My objection to Mudde’s combination is that, in most instances, the “corrupt elite” and nonnative elements are different targets. There are parties that combine these elements when their rhetoric alleges that a nonnative power has taken over the government and must be ousted. This is the exception, however. Reactionary parties’ primary target is nonnative elements because their core motivation is that they must defend the homeland and its social structures from nonnative elements that come from outside the social structure and corrupt the purity of the homeland and their homeworld. This is the heart of reactionary movements — a xenophobia about immigrants and subaltern people who are deemed to be outside proper social structures.

What Spurs Populist Movements

In contrast, populist parties’ primary target is the corrupt elite and the social structure because their core motivation is to fight the corruption and injustice inherent in the existing social structures. This is the heart of populist movements — a conviction that the threat comes from within the social structure.

Reactionaries see themselves as native insiders (the properly privileged in social status more than in economic status) whose homeland is being corrupted by nonnative outsiders. Populists see themselves as outsiders in economic and social status being excluded and oppressed by the corrupt elite insiders.

The differences between populist and reactionary movements can be summarized in terms of social recognition. What populist movements have in common is a demand for recognition of their rights to greater economic and political justice. People in populist movements seek to be recognized as deserving equal or fair legal rights or social status. The agrarian social movements and progressive political parties in late 19th century America sought greater political involvement and social and economic reforms. Populist movements and parties today seek basically the same things, though the parameters have changed as technology and society have changed. People in populist movements have antagonism toward the elite class and commonly believe that the economy, and perhaps society in general, is rigged against them.

People in reactionary movements also seek recognition of their legal and social status but as a distinct and privileged status over that of people in other social groups. What separates reactionary movements from social movements of people who seek recognition of their distinct cultural identity is that the reactionaries’ demand that specific other groups not receive legal and social recognition. Demands to restrict immigration and cultural diversity or to repeal other progressive social reforms are forms of reactionism — literally reactions against diversity and change.

More than being anti-elitist, reactionary movements are at their core anti-pluralist and antagonistic toward segments of society they deem unworthy of recognition. This is close to Mudde’s definition of right-wing parties as nativist, but again, I disagree with his definition of right-wing populism as a combination of antagonism toward nonnatives and a corrupt elite. That reactionary parties are not currently in power and therefore in opposition to the current political majority does not make them populist. Reactionary parties don’t always make allegations that the elites are corrupt; and, when they do, it is often in terms of the government being weak in dealing with nonnative threats to the homeland.

Why the Distinction Is Important

This is why the distinction in terms of targets of recognition is important. Both truly populist and reactionary parties are out of power and are consequently both in opposition to the current political majority and are actively appealing to the public for more support. But if these parties gained power, the differences between them would become very clear. If a reactionary party gained power, its members would act to restrict legal and social recognition of immigrants, minorities, and other subaltern peoples. If a populist party gained power, its members would act to increase legal and social recognition of at least some subaltern peoples. Reactionary parties seek to shut down social discourse and reverse course on pluralism and diversity. A party can be considered truly populist only if it seeks for and practices increased social discourse, pluralism, and diversity.

Going back to the question of whether Trump and Sanders are both populists, the difference in their policies shows that they are not, despite both running campaigns outside the political mainstream. To quote just one example from each: Trump promised, and acted quickly when in power, to withdraw recognition of Muslims by inflicting a travel ban; Sanders promised that among the first things he would do as president would be to work to provide a path to citizenship for immigrants.

Another crucial difference between populism and reactionism is their positions on hegemonic structures. Both populist and reactionist movements may have anti-establishment sentiments, but populism seeks to dismantle hierarchical social structures, whereas reactionism seeks to reaffirm previous hierarchical social divisions.

Right-wing movements and parties are conservative in that their goal is to conserve traditional social hierarchies. Reactionary movements are a subset of right-wing movements in which those involved feel that the proper traditional social hierarchies have been lost and need to be restored. Reactionary movements do not seek to move social boundaries to encompass more people but to exclude more people. Populist movements are diametrically opposed to the right-wing on this, believing that existing social, economic, and political hierarchies are unjust and need to be dismantled. Populist movements seek to move social boundaries to include more people in legal and social recognition.

Because reactionary movements are not seeking to negate traditional power structures, they can be used by and even aligned with elements of the social and political elites. This is why Trump, a billionaire, can head a reactionary movement on a platform of anti-non-nativism while openly pursuing economic policies that do not favor the people from whom he seeks votes. The economic and political elite can engage in a supply-side politics, offering a message that appeals to and enhances a sense of aggrievement and fear of the presence of immigrants and of social changes.

The elites can supply rhetoric that cultivates distrust and antagonism toward politicians who “allow” social changes to occur and therefore are part of the threat that needs to be eliminated. The political and economic elites would probably prefer established political candidates, but they could create and harness reactionary parties without necessarily jeopardizing the existing economic hierarchies that favor them. In contrast, a member of the wealthy elite could head a populist movement but would have to enact a platform that favors popular classes, perhaps against his or her own economic interests.

Two Different Worldviews — Two Very Different Results

The differences between the two types of movements in how they see themselves and what they see as the target of their opposition are significant enough that lumping them together under one label is inaccurate. Both populism and reactionism are characterized by an Us-versus-Them attitude, but qualitatively and normatively, both the Us and the Them are constituted differently. Populism is defined by a motivation to increase social recognition in response to a perceived threat that comes from within the existing social structure and seeks to dismantle that structure.

Reactionism is defined by a motivation to deny social recognition to others on the basis of a perceived external threat to a preferred social hierarchy and seeks to reassert that hierarchy. Populism seeks greater social inclusion and dialogue, whereas reactionism seeks greater social exclusion and restriction of dialogue. The reactionist/populist distinction clarifies the nature and goals of social and political movements and social conflict. Being clear on the distinction between reactionary and populist movements and parties gives us tools to critique claims of social aggrievement, truth and falsity in political campaigns, and the exercise and sources of political power.

Most importantly, the distinction I am making is essential for social theory and a human-centered politics. The currently prevailing definition of populism risks lumping together all social movements that are in opposition to the status quo which leads to condemning truly populist movements as being as dangerous as reactionary movements, squelching attempts by the popular classes to improve their lives through struggling for recognition and social dialogue.

[1] Kazin, Michael, “How Can Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders Both Be ‘Populist’?” New York Times. March 22, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/magazine/how-can-donald-trump-and-bernie-sanders-both-be-populist.html.

[2] Shahid, Waleed, “America in Populist Times: An Interview With Chantal Mouffe,” The Nation. https://www.thenation.com/article/america-in-populist-times-an-interview-with-chantal-mouffe/.

[3] Betz, Hans-Georg, “The Two Faces of Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe,” The Review of Politics, Vol. 55, №4 (Autumn, 1993), 663–685.

[4] Betz, 415.

[5] Mudde, Cas, 2007. Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 19.

[6] Mudde, 23.

[7] Laclau, Ernesto, 2007. On Populist Reason. New York: Verso.