Populism and Anti-Populism

It has become a cliché in academia to refer to populism as a contested topic, with competing definitions trying to make sense of the notoriously slippery concept. Nevertheless, a growing consensus has emerged to define populism as a politics that pits “the people” against “the elite.” As such, this term can take on both left-wing and right-wing ideological content. Where left-wing populists tend to position “people” against “elite” in socioeconomic terms, right-wing populists chastise elites for ignoring the cultural grievances of “the left behind” or “white working class.” Right-wing populism, then, promotes an exclusive politics, in contrast to inclusive left-wing populism.

Anti-populism, however, ignores these ideological differences. For anti-populists, all populist politics is a threat to democracy. Liberal political theorist Jan-Werner Müller and Blairite acolyte Yascha Mounk, for example, warn political elites of the danger of divisive rhetoric. They give short shrift to the notion that left-wing populism could reflect a legitimate response to growing wealth inequality. As others have noted, anti-populism poses a greater threat to democracy than the populism it opposes. Not only does it engage in lazy horseshoe theory, presenting the Left and the Right as equally threatening to sensible centrism, it also aspires to a politics without “the people.” For anti-populists, the unwashed masses cannot be trusted with the complexities of government. Instead, politics should be the domain of experts, unimpeded by the whims of the lower orders.

No Longer the Party of Protest

What makes Starmer’s evocation of “populism” in his conference speech so striking is that there doesn’t appear to be much populism left to oppose. Very few populists remain present in the British political scene. Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn have both been defeated, and the Brexit settlement appears secure for now. An exception here may be Farage and his far-right Reform UK party, yet his politics is characterized by nationalism far more than populism.

As political theorist Jonathan Dean has pointed out, however, anti-populists don’t actually need populists to oppose. Instead, they label all perceived threats to the status quo as dangerously “populist,” using a deliberately vague term. For Starmer and his outriders, “populism” is a useful slur to throw at his political rivals to delegitimize them.

This could not be clearer than in Starmer’s recent conference speech, where the term “populist” was used to insulate his austerity program from criticism. When describing populism as “the politics of easy answers,” Starmer presented all those who oppose his plans to slash the Winter Fuel Payment (which helps pensioners pay their energy bills) as fantasists. If one argues that there are other ways to address the supposed £22 billion “black hole” in the public finances, such as by increasing taxes on the wealthy, well, that’s simply “populism.”

Beyond portraying his austerity plan as sensible and realistic, Starmer is also keen to paint “populism” as being about style over substance: “the politics of noisy performance.” As a pro-Palestinian protester was dragged from the conference hall during the prime minister’s speech, the Labour leader could only chuckle in response. “This guy’s obviously got a pass from the 2019 conference,” he quipped back, in a likely preprepared line.

Ever since 2021, Starmer has distanced himself from his left-wing predecessor Corbyn, largely to curry favor with Britain’s hostile right-wing press. While he served in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet for nearly four years, albeit uncomfortably, he has sought to portray Corbynism as both dangerous and impotent. From anti-austerity demands to pro-Palestinian action, “populism,” for Starmer, is mere noise: “student politics,” rather than the hard work of government. Being “back in the service of working people” (a grouping preferred over “working class”) for Starmer and co. means chastising these calls for justice as noisy “populism.”

Not All “Populists” Are Made Equal

A further curiosity of the Labour leadership’s anti-populism is the legitimacy they confer upon different demands. While the pro-Palestine movement is supposedly boisterous “populism,” this government is far more sympathetic toward the reactionary elements within the British polity. At the conference in Liverpool, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper made it apparent that although Labour condemns the racist riots that plagued the UK in the summer, such “disorder” should not “silence a serious debate on migration.”

This completely disregards how discourse on migration from political elites poured fuel on the fire. Former prime minister Rishi Sunak’s call to “stop the boats” of migrants and refugees on the English Channel was echoed by the far-right thugs who attempted to burn down hotels housing asylum seekers. Starmer’s government has done little to break from its predecessor, equally promising to stop the boats and further militarize the border via a new Border Security Command. By reassuring the right-wing press that the government will remain tough on migration, even in light of the racist riots, Labour continues to provide mainstream support for far-right ideas.

For Starmer, the demands of the young, those counted as minorities, and the poor are illegitimate “populism” — these people want something for nothing and don’t understand the tough choices governments have to make. Yet calls for more extreme policing of migration are positioned as entirely reasonable. Starmer and other middle-class elites imagine this is what the “white working class,” “left-behind,” or “Red Wall” want. Clearly, this fails to account for the fact that the better-off hold far more reactionary views than their working-class counterparts. Nevertheless, this fantasy of a backward working class sustains the increasingly authoritarian bent of Starmerism at the expense of those who carried them into power, hoping for the “real change” that was repeatedly promised.

Politics Without the People

At the heart of Starmer’s anti-populism lies a deep hypocrisy. The prime minister regularly commits the very sins of which so-called “populists” are often accused. While pundits decry the rise of “post-truth populism,” Starmer denies that he said Israel had the right to starve Gaza of water and electricity, regardless of the evidence to the contrary. Media and academic elites portray populism as a form of demagoguery, yet Starmer continues to show a deeply authoritarian streak, both in the management of his party and through his hard-line stance on law and order.

“Populists” are also regularly accused of making promises they can’t keep. At the same time, Starmer has broken nearly every pledge he made to the Labour Party membership during the 2020 leadership election. It’s true that he has yet to be held to account on these matters by his allies in the press. When the victims of your misdeeds are the Labour left and the pro-Palestine movement, the British establishment’s “liberal values” quickly go out the window.

Outside the Westminster bubble, however, the honeymoon period after Starmer’s landslide election victory has been short-lived. His approval ratings have sunk to a new low and the government remains beset by corruption scandals. Yet when challenged on his taking of freebies from wealthy doners, the prime minister appeared incredulous, refusing to recognize the electorate’s indignation.

Ultimately, this is what the Starmer project’s anti-populism boils down to. “The people” and their outrage are always subordinate to the politics of “tough choices.” If the government continues down the road of further austerity, however, the prime minister may find himself opposed by a genuine “populist” competitor, not merely one he has confected.