The term 'populism' has outlived its usefulness and obscures the real dynamics of contemporary politics

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/oliver-eagleton. "‘Populism’: we used to know what it meant. Now the defining word of our era has lost its meaning | Oliver Eagleton | The Guardian." February 18, 2026. www.theguardian.com

The Gist

The author argues that 'populism' was a useful term to describe the political outsiders of the 2010s, but now it's outdated because the right has won and consolidated power while the left has been sidelined. Instead of focusing on rhetorical styles, we should analyze how different political forces try to work with or against existing power structures.

Conclusion

The term 'populism' is no longer adequate to analyze contemporary politics and should be replaced with frameworks that examine how left and right forces navigate institutional power structures

Premises

  1. Populism was useful in the 2010s to describe insurgent rhetorical strategies that challenged the liberal center through direct appeals to 'the people'
  2. The political landscape has fundamentally changed since the 2010s, with the right consolidating power while the left has been largely marginalized
  3. The contest between left and right populism has been decisively won by the right, making the populist framework obsolete
  4. Both left and right now face the same strategic choice: compromise with traditional elites or confront them directly
  5. The right has structural advantages in both electoral competition and institutional navigation because their goals align with existing power structures
  6. The left's transformative agenda faces greater institutional resistance than the right's hierarchy-preserving program
  7. Current political analysis should focus on how forces navigate neoliberal institutions rather than their rhetorical styles

Assumptions

View this argument on LogicFirst.ai