Meloni's English Ban: An analysis into Italian Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni's proposed legislation to fine foreign languages

In March of 2023 the party of Italian Prime Minister, Girogia Meloni, proposed introducing a new piece of legislation that would seek to address the growing issue of the dominance of the English language across Italy and the issue of Anglomania (the obsession with English customs), all in hopes of countering growing fears over the loss of Italian language and culture. The legislation proposes fines of up to 100,000 euros on public and private entities using foreign vocabulary in their official communications and requiring all company job titles to be spelled out in the official local language. 

Meloni’s new legislation seeks to address what her party sees as key cultural issues affecting Italian society. On the surface level, the legislation is an attack against EU integrationist policy and an attempt to promote Italian cultural power. Although this legislation may seem both amusing and bizarre from an outside lens, its implications, both politically and socially, could be tremendous. Only through placing this language ban in the context of Meloni’s immigration policies can we understand the greater intent; Meloni’s legislation is a direct threat towards Italy’s growing immigrant population, who often lack Italian language skills and can often only hope to communicate with Italian government officials in a shared second language, English. 

Italy’s changing image 

At its core, Meloni’s legislation reveals a growing fear and frustration brought on by fear over losing Italian cultural identity and frustration with the English language's dominance across all sectors. 

Like their fellow EU neighbors, Italy has struggled in recent decades to come to terms with its new multi-cultural identity, brought on by increases in immigration and participation in international communities and systems. Italy’s recent immigrant population is largely dominated by migrants and refugees from Eastern Europe and Northern Africa. Non-white Italians report a level of discrimination and isolation despite spending decades in the country. Michelle Ngonmo, a Black Italian fashion designer stated that “there is a real struggle between the people-of-color Italians and [white] Italian society. Asian Italians, Black Italians are really struggling to be accepted as Italians.”

The changing demographics of Italy reflect a country grappling with its newfound cultural identity. While many have embraced the tide of immigration as both a benefit and reality of globalization, Meloni’s political party has deliberately ignited anti-immigrant spirit. 

The Brother’s of Italy

Meloni leads the Brother’s of Italy party (Fratelli d'Italia), a nationalist and conservative far-right party that has its roots in neofascism. After co-founding the party in 2012, she led the party through a series of political victories, eventually emerging as the preeminent far-right party in Italy. 

Similar to other far-right parties across the continent, such as the National Rally in France or the UKIP party of the UK, the Brother’s of Italy embodies many populist values and policies, including anti-globalization efforts, xenophobia, and an emphasis on national unity and heritage. However, the Brother’s of Italy has deeper roots in historical notions of facism, tracing back to the first postwar Italian neo fascist party known as the Italian Social Movement (Movimento Sociale Italiano or MSI, which existed from 1946 to 1995) as well as the Salò Republic which was known for its Nazi-origins. The predecessors behind the Brother’s of Italy party reveal a political party that is steeped in decades of fascist theory. Meloni was a member of the MSI youth party in the early 90s that became known for its far-right magazine, Fare Fronte and adoption of French far-right ideals. Political upheaval and turmoil caused by political corruption scandals across Italian politics led to the end of the MSI in 1995, but elements of the party continued.

Meloni’s rise to power

The well known youth party transformed into Azione Giovani (Young Action) which was at this point associated with the Alleanza Nazionale (National Alliance party or AN) the successor of the MSI. Meloni held a position on the youth leadership committee which led her into politics. At age 19 she was filmed praising fascist dictator, Benito Mussolini, as an example of strong leadership in Italian politics. 

 She was elected as Councilor for the Province of Rome in 1998 which she held for four years. She continued to develop her political career by becoming the youngest Vice President to the Chamber of Deputies in 2006. Her experience in far-right youth organizations led her to become the Minister of Youth under the fourth Berlusconi government. Then in 2012, she founded the Brother’s of Italy party alongside fellow politicians, Ignazio La Russa and Guido Crosetto. Throughout Italy’s rocky political climate of the 90s and 2000s, Meloni positioned herself as a politician loyal to far-right causes, but also able to adapt to contemporary political climates. 

In a speech from 2021, Meloni identified her far-right values, saying, “Yes to the natural family, no to the LGBT lobby, yes to sexual identity, no to gender ideology... no to Islamist violence, yes to secure borders, no to mass migration... no to big international finance... no to the bureaucrats of Brussels!”

Meloni has routinely denied that her party has any connection with fascism; she has denounced Mussolini and his reign of fascist terror in speeches, citing Mussolini’s racial laws as one of the darkest points in Italian history. However, her latest proposed legislation to restrict the use of English and promote Italian reveals Meloni’s nationalistic approach to uniting the Italian people as well as a denial of Italy’s multiculturalism. 

Contemporary fascism

Meloni’s political career has flirted with fascism from the beginning. We can witness it in her blatant statements of support for Mussolini as a young youth leader, but also in the inherent nature of her political positioning in parties rooted in fascism. Meloni’s critics are quick to call her a fascist or “fascist-adjacent” for her political remarks, her friendship with Hungary’s authoritarian leader, Viktor Orbán, and her ultraconservative values. Although these points are all valid and true, they do not actually threaten Meloni’s political standing or reputation, but instead allow her to counter the remarks and paint her opponents and critics as irrational left-wing radicals. Meloni simply has to deny her associations with fascism, something she has done on numerous occasions, such as during her pro-EU speech following her inauguration in which she also spoke out against Italy’s fascist past. International attention on Meloni’s fascist roots has shifted attention away from the real danger of her ultra-conservative politics, which intend to restore traditional Italian values and relies on tactics of alienation and discrimination.  

Anglomania 

Meloni has stated that her proposed legislation is an attempt to protect Italian national identity, which she sees as weakened by the dominance of English as the international language of business and politics. It is true that English has become the lingua franca of the world, dominating arenas such as international institutions, cultural interests, and educational institutions. However the bill does not only call for the ban of English but words from all foreign languages in businesses. The legislation also called for university classes that are “not specifically aimed at teaching a foreign language” should only be taught in Italian, thus preventing the likelihood of English-speaking classes taking precedence. Yet Meloni’s legislation makes it clear that her desire to protect Italy’s cultural heritage is rooted in populist and far-right xenophobia.

Foreign residents make up around 9% of Italy's population. Italy is also home to the third largest migrant population in Europe, following the migrant crisis of the past decade. The change in population has brought varying forms of anti-immigration sentiment. Meloni has been at the forefront of the movement during her political campaign and time in office. Her first act of anti-immigration legislation in November of 2022 attempted to prevent adult male asylum seekers from entering the country. Italy’s interior minister, Matteo Piantedosi, claimed that the reason behind this policy was that these people are “residual cargo,” unworthy of being rescued and Meloni referred to recent immigrants to Italy as “ethnic substitution,” implying that ethnic Italians are in danger simply from their population’s change in ethnic and racial diversity. 

Meloni’s proposed language ban must be understood in the context of her prior legislation and political  viewpoints; this is more than a critique of the dominance of the English language and the promotion of Italian culture. Meloni’s ban is a threat to all immigrants and foreign-born Italians as a sign of Italy’s growing preference for an homogenous ethnic population and anti-immigration policies.

Populism: A Way Forward?

The modern political landscape appears dominated by populist movements. Most recently, populism has been associated with the Trump administration, Brexit, anti-establishment, etc., but it seems that there is little time taken to sit down and think through where populism comes from, what its implications are, and if it is in fact inherently negative, as the media often paints it to be nowadays. The core definition of populism is that of a movement aimed at ordinary people with political parties and leaders focused on granting the wishes of the people. Therefore, it is meant to propel leaders that are best at appealing to and advocating for the masses and citizens that come from different walks of life. At its core, populism does not necessarily seem like the worst political approach possible; in fact, it seems quite intuitive to democracy. The problem comes when leaders misuse their populist appeal to control all aspects of the government and downplay the importance of stable political and economic systems, ultimately allowing for the country’s downfall. 

More recently, populism has also been associated with more nationalist and nativist tendencies of some areas of the world, most particularly the US and Europe, which adds on to the drawbacks of populist appeal. However, all of this does not mean that populism as an idea is at its core a “dirty word.” It should be important to instead analyze the development of modern populism and learn from previous mistakes thus enabling the intuitive and positive aspects of populism to shine. Some of these positive aspects are that populism indeed seems intuitive to democracy, populist leaders tend to shine light on a previously ignored group in society, at least historically, and populism may be a step towards more constructive and lasting solutions, enabling citizens from all walks of life to feel like true participants in their country. In order for these events to happen, however, it is important to acknowledge the need for the populist leader to avoid creating a cult of personality, and by extension, meddling with the country’s institutions that guarantee accountability and balanced functioning of society. 

The Roots of Populism

Early populism is most often associated with post-WWII regimes of Latin America such as Peron in Argentina and Vargas in Brazil where leaders had a very direct relationship with the voters and grounded their career in promises to the citizenry. This type of approach grounded itself in flawed processes of modernization and the need of the masses to embrace a new system and a new link of trust with the political authority. Elites were no longer seen as trustworthy, and leaders that were more approachable, direct, and trust-provoking in the promised policy were necessitated. People such as Peron and Vargas were able to fulfill this void. However, in these early cases, there is already this notion of a cult of personality forming, one clear piece of evidence being that Peron’s wife bore significant influence on the political life of the state to the point that she took over the leadership at some point; although she appeared to have basic qualifications to lead and debatable successes in her role, this also showcases the trust that the people put in the entirety of the Peron family. “Peronismo'' remains a term that people use to refer to their political style, which also bears witness to the vitality and centrality the political movement has on one person, that person being Peron. Latin America itself, being the “cradle of populism” in the sense that its modern manifestations can be traced to originate from the region, also bears witness to other types of such politics centered around one charismatic leader, which is a key characteristic of populist leaders. “Chavismo” is one particularly prominent term meant to refer to the politics of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Populism is now evolving and becoming increasingly a buzzword in the worldwide political scene. Political figures such as Trump in the US, Boris Johnson in the UK, and even Putin in Russia are being assigned the title of a populist leader, which adds further dynamics and scope to populism as a term and a movement. 

Problematics of Populism

The origin of populism’s negative manifestations lies in the potency of the leader and centralization of power that may bear negative consequences. While this may not be at its core an intent of the populist movement and sentiment, a leader that is capable of charismatically moving the masses is also likely to be able to accumulate power, and, historically, leaders described as populist seem to have a natural drive to conserve and accumulate power. This results in a vacuum being left in a state after the leader’s death or change in leadership, which creates space for deterioration of political and social cohesion further weakening the core aspects allowing the society to function. Another consequence is high inflation rates as a result of the populist leader or party’s drive to fulfill the wishes and needs of the people. After all, the populist campaign is focused on the appeal to the voters en masse which means that, and especially so in left-wing populist movements, many wages increase, the investment rate gets magnified, and the populist political leadership after being selected is then called upon to fulfill these promises. In order to maintain support, populist governments have been known to make risky economic decisions tolerating quite grand public spending and refocusing or narrowing the economy in attempts to increase progress and provide jobs and satisfaction for the people that would over time result in catastrophic inflation and other economic outcomes. The recent developments in Venezuela, tied with populist origins in politics of Chavez and Maduro, bear witness to this the most. 

Another crucial reason for flaws within the populist approach is that, especially in more recent “western” examples, populism tends to be rather right-wing as opposed to traditionally left-wing, so populist leaders focus their appeal on specific societal groups, which often fall along race or ethnic lines, creating divisive, hateful rhetoric and deteriorating social cohesion instead of building it up by promoting inclusion of the marginalized and better cooperation. This is a grave issue and one that certainly should not be ignored when considering the potential of populism. It should also be noted that this turn of events which painted modern populism in such a divisive light is very paradoxical to the promise of the populist agenda to ease the struggle of society’s underappreciated citizens and bring about further inclusion of the marginalized to the society by questioning and reconstructing existing elitist framework. The reason is that while putting faith in the mass vote and focusing on wide appeal would attract diverse audiences, the masses can either be mostly supportive or disapproving of some core issues, such as very popularly in modern times, the issue of migration. This means that if xenophobic sentiment already nestled within the country’s demographic and social composition, a populist leader would just further extend this problem. 

The Benefits of Populism 

However, there are many reasons why populism is, after all, not seen in a completely negative light. While the drawbacks certainly are there and remain very unpredictable and dangerous, it also holds true that there are certain positive aspects. One is the very heart of the populist movement which is the appeal to the “ordinary” people. This has the potential to promote democratic values and function as populist leaders turn their attention to people on the ground and listen to the popular demands. Even in cases where a populist administration saw the eventual economic demise of the country, as with the case of Venezuela, leaders such as Chavez were able to appeal to rural and indigenous communities that previously never gained much attention from the political leadership. Populism thus has the potential to move politics beyond the Ivory Tower and the elite and to the people that actually make up the majority of the state communities and are waiting to finally see their demands met. While this does not automatically mean that these demands will indeed be met, that they will be met without graver consequences, or that there will ultimately be political turmoil and abuse of power, it also poses a foundation to creating a more inclusive society and one in which the political leadership listens to demands of the top. 

Furthermore, populist regimes have at times been very successful in their implementation of revolutionary policies with wide appeal. Populism has evolved to match the reality of the neoliberal market and is now focusing its appeal on stronger and more efficient social programs. The recent Pink Tide populism seen across various countries in Latin America has seen a turn away from neoliberal policies and provided, or at least began to provide, a viable alternative. These states are not necessarily as rigid and overly controlling as previous examples of populist regimes, but they have come to realize their position as a negotiator between policy and the people, and as a consequence have developed to become more fluid and responsive to the citizenry. These are some ideals highly desired of the political leadership in order to move the country and democracy forward. 

A Way Forward

Populism certainly has the potential to contribute to the creation of authoritarian and xenophobic modus operandi on a state level, but this may be more connected to the way that societal institutions already in place allow such populist sentiment to flourish. If the existing institutions already allow for a lack of accountability and unfair centralization of power, it is easier for charismatic leaders to spiral out of control and assume too much power with too little accountability, resulting in a dictatorial scenario. If institutions that are in place as populist leaders are ascending to their role allow for creation of a cult of personality and do not strongly protect balanced distribution of power or ensure protection of minority rights for example, then damage is likely to happen in terms of social cohesion and the protection of minorities or those of contrary opinion. This means that ultimately there would be less potential for a healthy democracy. 

This does not mean that populism should or even can be fully abandoned. Instead, as populist movements do not seem to wane but rather evolve, it may be better to embrace positive aspects of populism and look for ways to put mechanisms in place that would support and nurture the positive aspects of populism, such as emphasizing the focus on the actual people. On the other hand, negative aspects should be prevented from manifesting, such as the overtaking of power by the president and the ruling party or protection of only specific portions of citizens. In a world so often tortured by negative outcomes of neoliberalism such as environmental damage, worker exploitation, and ever-present expansion of corporations with monopolistic tendencies, nurturing the connection between the political top and the people that actually make up the country and are the majority may be just what is needed to bypass these elitist and exploitative tendencies of the modern world. 

A thorough way to begin ensuring that positive aspects of populism are amplified while negative aspects are addressed and contained is to: 1) ensure constitutional protection of freedoms such as freedom of expression, the press, political opinion etc., 2) ensure constitutional protection of minorities, 3) ensure clearly defined and unamendable division of powers that would control the president and the ruling party from overpowering the rest of society, 4) make space for civic education that would ensure that the “ordinary” citizens to whom the populist appeal is targeted are voting with conscience and sufficient knowledge and understanding of the implications of the policies, and 5) ensure, even constitutionally, a strong, diverse, and inclusive economy, preventing the president from single-handedly changing economic policies while also allowing the president to call upon these values of inclusion and diversity in order to promote the will of the citizenry. Such measures would limit the power of the president while simultaneously respecting the will of those that make up the state and are often overlooked or unheard as they would ensure checks and balances, protections, and space available to promote social cohesion and a healthy democracy and economy, meaning a populist government would not mean the end to civil liberties or the destruction of minorities. 

The Future of Filipino Freedoms: Addressing Democracy and Human Rights in the Philippines Halfway Through President Duterte’s Term

The Philippines, the oldest democracy in Southeast Asia, is continuing to move toward authoritarianism and populism under President Rodrigo Duterte. From attacks on press freedom to extrajudicial killings across the country that have left communities caught in the crossfire, actions taken by President Duterte and his administration have affected society on multiple levels. In putting forward a July 2019 resolution condemning the president’s actions against drugs and traffickers that has left thousands of citizens dead, the United Nations (UN) is sending a clear message opposing the “anti-drug campaign” currently taking place in the Philippines. Going into its third year, this campaign has evolved into a drug war that has affected all areas of the country and society. 

The passing of this resolution comes at a critical point in the Duterte administration, but without a clear plan to slow down or stop the drug war, there is still more work that could be done by the international community in order to turn their condemnation into effective action. By increasing pressure on the Duterte administration and empowering local politicians and organization working to end the gruesome drug war, the international community would ensure that the president can no longer repress criticism or avoid the many negative repercussions that his policies have brought.

Context to the Crisis: Threats to Freedoms under President Duterte

Several politicians and activists condemning the ongoing drug war have faced threats and/or actions that have brought the nation back into the spotlight. Attacks on the press and on freedom of speech have been some of the most notable and widely condemned. One of the most prominent cases of this involves Maria Ressa, editor of Rappler, an online news outlet that regularly publishes criticism of Duterte. 

President Duterte also clashes with opposition politicians, holding no restraint in retaliatory action for their criticism. Senator Leila de Lima was among the first to face this; a member of the opposition Liberal Party, she has criticized Duterte since his tenure as mayor of the southern city of Davao, prompting President Duterte’s administration bring forth dubious drug charges that led to her imprisonment. Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” With this in mind, Senator de Lima, still actively involved in policy and political life from behind bars, has had this freedom stolen by a president unfazed by the consequences of his actions to his nation’s democratic foundation.

In 2018, the Supreme Court of the Philippines voted 8-6 to oust Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno on charges regarding her reporting of personal wealth. Sereno was one of the most prominent critics of Duterte and the constitutionality of his “drug war” since its beginnings in 2016. Seen as another politically motivated action against his opponents, this molding of the court system to favor the president is deeply concerning. 

The UN Resolution and Reactions

The resolution, put forward by Iceland and backed by 18 other nations, calls for the prevention of extrajudicial killings, UN oversight, and continued dialogue surrounding the issue once conclusions are made from the initial report to be presented at the 44th session of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). 

President Duterte reacted swiftly and negatively to the results of the vote. He has gone so far as to question maintenance of relations with the signatories on the resolution, particularly Iceland. Other senators supported the president, either arguing that the resolution amounts to foreign interference in a domestic issue, or simply dismissing it. The drug war has enjoyed support from a large majority of Filipinos, and President Duterte maintains approval ratings that are some of the highest for any Filipino president. While the UNHRC has joined the growing number of foreign governments and international organizations openly criticizing the drug war, the majority of domestic politicians are dismissive and oblivious to their concerns.

Earlier in the year, Duterte ordered the withdrawal of the country from the International Criminal Court (ICC) over preliminary investigations and increased pressure from the institution regarding the extrajudicial killings and broader “drug war” he had initiated under his presidency. However, although the resolution calls for similar investigations regarding those same issues, withdrawal from the UNHRC is unlikely. According to a tweet by Foreign Secretary Teodoro Locsin, the Philippines is “in UNHRC as a pedagogical duty to teach Europeans moral manners.” 

Vice President Leni Robredo of the opposition party has supported the resolution and welcomed further action from the UN regarding the drug war. Manuelito Luna, the head of the Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission, countered the vice president, calling her support for the resolution a “betrayal of public trust” and advocating for her impeachment. But the vice president is right; the UN resolution is one of the most significant measures that the international community has taken in condemning the actions of President Duterte and the drug war he is leading. By passing the resolution, the 18 signatories showed their support not only for a comprehensive investigation on anti-drug practices, but for the safety and protection of all Filipinos.

What Could Come Next?

President Duterte has three more years until the end of his term, and sustained condemnation from governments, as well as international and non-governmental organizations, are the best courses of action in order to ensure lasting, effective resistance to his continuously dangerous policies. The outlook for those who continue to vocalize opposition to the president’s actions in the drug war is bleak, but the timing of the UNHRC resolution and its findings could become a catalyst for change. The Council must adopt more resolutions regarding different human rights issues currently faced by the Philippines as a result of actions taken by President Duterte in the time between now and June 2020. The vote on the July 2019 resolution was fairly spread out, with only 18 of the 47 members voting in favor of the resolution. With 15 abstentions and 14 votes against it, barely getting the votes required to pass the resolution isn’t enough with an escalating situation such as this. Increased discussion and awareness of the drug war on an influential platform like the UNHRC will be essential. 

Vice President Robredo has previously dismissed calls to run against Duterte during the next presidential elections in 2022, but she has proven fearless in criticizing the president on human rights issues in the past. As the second half of the Duterte administration begins, she and other opposition figures will need to galvanize their supporters and possible candidates if they stand a chance at defeating President Duterte and other leaders sympathetic to his policies and actions.The Liberal Party has already begun appealing to opposition candidates, including Vice President Robredo, who have been threatened or suppressed by the Duterte administration. Although it is early in the election season, activists and politicians vocal against the drug war are now able to strengthen their cases with the recent actions of the UNHRC and other international organizations that share their same argument: that the drug war and extrajudicial killings need to end, and a shift back to safety and the protection of democratic freedoms must begin. 

As the second half of President Duterte’s term begins, many uncertainties remain. His popularity is solid, and in the recent Senate elections, senators who aligned themselves with Dutere completely wiped out the main opposition coalition, Otso Diretso. The criticism from the UNHRC resolution has reflected larger issues in the Philippines regarding national sovereignty, moves away from relations with Western nations, and concerns around safety. Whether it be the threats to press freedom, the forced silencing of opposition leaders, or related issues, the UNHRC is in a place to take an even stronger stance against the Philippines, a member of the Council, albeit one moving further and further from its core values. Defending the rights of all Filipinos is an issue that goes beyond Philippine borders, and any future action taken must reflect that. 

Ending the drug war outright will be an uphill battle, especially when it enjoys the support from the public, and its effects are minimized by the government. However, this resolution is a major step toward holding the Philippine government accountable, and it shows that the international community is stepping in for all the right reasons.

“This Sure Sounds Familiar…” Populism and the Cyclical Decline of Political Parties

It is the summer preceding the presidential election, and the United States is a nation of mass discontent. Many citizens feel that they are being deceived and swindled by the elite of society and the businesses meant to hold the economy together. The justice system appears rigged to favor the few rather than protect the many and regions all over the country are being impacted by waves of battered and distressed immigrants—immigrants that often have had limited education, do not come from countries that strictly favor English, and who practice religions that decidedly differ from the Christian principles many Americans consider ‘tradition’. This influx of immigrants also comes at a time when the nation’s economy is not particularly thriving, and many deal with upheaval and unemployment in their workplaces, whether from expanding population versus demand, or from technological change.

That summer, to be specific, is of approximately 1854.

In the decade span of 1845 to 1855, the United States felt the influx of thousands of European immigrants—immigrants that were often poor, uneducated, and very Catholic in a relatively Protestant nation—as well as the global turning tides of the slavery debate on the economic stage. The response to this change, more immediately than the Civil War, was the evolution of political theatre. Amongst all of this societal turmoil, after all, the U.S. saw the final breaths of the Whig Party, and the rapid formation of its populist replacement: The Know Nothing Party.

The Know-Nothings were a short-lived party that had national popularity but tangible power in Massachusetts. It advocated for nativist ideologies, anti-immigration, and anti-Catholicism, and its membership was for Protestant men only. Historian Tyler Anbinder noted in his Nativism and Slavery that the Know Nothing’s success relied not only upon the conditions of society at the time, but the collapse of the Whig Party, which had suffered internalized weakening and factionalism over the last several years, and in particular damage over the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

The 1840s saw a massive and continual influx of Irish immigrants in particular, fleeing their country out of fear, hope for employment, and starvation. When they arrived in America, they found a largely Protestant nation that resented their masses and their devotion to the Pope; Irish stereotypes ranged from laziness and alcoholism at best, to primitive clan-behavior and subhuman existence at worst. The name, Know Nothing, came from the melodramatic practice of the earliest party foundations: the Order of the Star Spangled Banner, which was founded to resist Catholic immigration, encouraged members asked about the order to reply that they “know nothing” of the cause.

The Know Nothing Party did not survive long, and although familiarity with the name is common, the ability to list the beliefs of the party is more difficult. Once the Know Nothing movement disintegrated, the Republican Party formed in its wake, took Abraham Lincoln as its leader, and the nation dove into a brutal and bloody civil war. Did the Know Nothing movement cause the war, or even qualify as a variable cause? No, not necessarily. Things are always more complicated than that, and the Know Nothings were not terribly successful on the national stage—they simply gave a platform for people to voice their discontents, however xenophobic or radical they may have been. The trouble with populist ideologies taking form as political parties rests in the inherent broadness of the issue: populism is a movement based upon mobilizing the power of a perceived oppressed majority against an oppressive few.is, essentially, to represent the populace, and to oppose the strong will of the elite few.

Abstract notions of populism seem promising. The complication is that a politician who declares themselves a ‘populist’ has told their audience very little about their specific policy proposals. Although populist rhetoric and policies are often left leaning of the nation’s middle-ground voting position, strong economic structure is often lacking in favor of economic policies fueled by societal-based resolutions. In the context of macroeconomics, Rudiger Dornbush and Sebastian Edwards summarize this issue neatly:

Populist regimes have historically tried to deal with income inequality problems through the use of overly expansive macroeconomic policies. These policies, which have relied on deficit financing, generalized controls, and a disregard for basic economic equilibria, have almost unavoidably resulted in major macroeconomic crises that have ended up hurting the poorer segments of society.

The Republican Party, somewhat affectionately known as the GOP, is in a minor crisis. The current 2016 election has seen the party nomination of Donald Trump, a businessman, television personality, and now—politician. He is known for his bombastic speeches, broad and sweeping statements, and controversial opinions on women and minorities. He is, generally: anti-Muslim, anti-immigration, and pro-middle and lower classes. His popularity is evidenced by his nomination; but why? Curiously, perceived authenticity tends to reign supreme.

Notions of authenticity are key to populist success, as the masses are receptive to those who are believed to be identifiable and proactive. This is, according to Bram Spruyt, Gil Keppens, and Filip Van Droogenbroeck, “the ‘people centrism’ component in populism—that is, the representation of the people as a pure and homogenous group whose will should be the crucial reference for politicians—is the element that theoretically distinguishes populism from mere political discontent […] populism remains a politics of hope, that is, the hope that where established parties and elites have failed, ordinary folks, common sense, and the politicians who give them a voice can find solutions.” Furthermore, in a fellow World Mind publication, Jeremy Clement also expands on American Populism regarding Trump, in particular comparing him to George Wallace: “The claims of both are generally not supported with evidence, but that is not the point. The speech sounds good and feeds into the idea of the common, struggling, working man fighting against an unfair system that does not respect his values.” The authenticity that Donald Trump possesses, presumably, is his ability to rouse hope in people based on the desired images many have of what America is—American exceptionalism, indeed.

American historian Andrew J. Bacevich emphasizes the broken nature of how the U.S. views itself. In an article for Politico breaking down the crisis with Russia, he tackles the notions of American exceptionalism and how the problematic nature of these self-assumptions has hindered the U.S.’s competence. He writes:

The events we are commanded to remember are those that happened during the period 1933-1945. In geographic terms, we can be even more specific: They occurred in the space bounded by London, where stiff upper lips withstood the Blitz, and Auschwitz, where countless Jews were murdered. But the true epicenter was Munich, site of the great betrayal from which the horrors were said to follow. Events prior to or after that period—1914 or 2003, for example—or events occurring beyond that expanse—you know, like Vietnam—don’t count for much.

The bitter satire of Bacevich’s article is rather forgivable. This comes from a man who regards American exceptionalism as a sort of religion, one that has severely narrowed the perspective of Americans and compromised the strength and capability of the nation—the people are more preoccupied with perceived entitlements to grandeur than to continually earning high regard. American exceptionalism exists within a very peculiar universe: the 1950s were golden, everyone was happy, and things have only gone downhill from there. Likely mental images of stereotypical grandparents reminiscing on the ‘good old days’ have been conjured by this point. For Trump, American exceptionalism is the ambrosia and nectar of his entire campaign.

Donald Trump is a candidate thriving on populist ideologies in America, but the very passion fueling him is also enabling the potential for a collapse of the Republican Party of which he is the candidate. There is a desire to return to the ‘good old days,’ a notion that rejects the realities of history—but it is a reminiscence that Trump encourages: ‘Make America Great Again!’ cries the businessman’s campaign. What once may have been a melodramatic concern is now fair game: Donald Trump is the candidate of the GOP, yes, but he is hardly representative of the party—whether one considers the primary platform or its factional offshoots, such as the Tea Party. The man could easily run as a third-party candidate and likely endure little competition for voters with a separate GOP presidential candidate. The trouble is that Trump is not a Republican: he is a man who has chosen to enter American politics on his own terms.

There are several months to go before the U.S. engages with what may be one of its most important presidential elections in decades—it could, quite literally, change the course of American household politics. Although Trump is hardly friendly with many Republicans, he has recently won endorsements from several major faces, such as Paul Ryan and Chris Christie. However, there is a deeper meaning implicated in these endorsements: party insecurity. In the 1840s, the Whig Party of the United States endured several fractures that eventually sank the entire Party—the mass voting populace no longer unified in its identification with Whig platform values. Today, the same may be happening for the Republican Party; Republican voters find themselves across a broad spectrum, some finding themselves in polarized positions at the far end of the spectrum and too often at the derogatory butt of many liberal media jokes. These jokes do not harm those in the far end, though; the damage is often felt more often by centrist Republicans who are all-too-conscious of the public eye and misconceptions. The result, however, is the same: increasingly irreversible divisions within the Party, impacting both voter optimism and campaign numbers.

What is important to note here is that the Whig Party did not fall in a month. It is likely that the Republican Party will continue to persist as well; Trump is a wild card, but the future hinges on more than one man. Populism compromises the future of the GOP, as it questions the capacity of the Party to connect with U.S. citizens and encourages further political divisions and ideas on reformation. The Know Nothing Party did not last long in its most tangible form, but its values would reverberate across the country for nearly a century. It is difficult to argue that Donald Trump’s dream of a wall will not hold the same impact, both for immigrants and Muslims, as well as for the stability of the floundering conservative Party that has played host to so much of the groundwork for these attitudes.

The New Face of American Populism

The rhetoric surrounding Presidential elections and politics in the U.S. has evolved in some ways, devolved in some ways, and stayed the same in other ways as time has gone on. Populist rhetoric, used notably George Wallace in the 1960’s in opposition to the civil rights movement, has taken a new form today. While most candidates in this present election appeal to populist attitudes and use populist arguments in some form, one candidate in particular has a brand of populism that fits traditionally with that of the 19th Century U.S. People’s Party and that of George Wallace in the 1960’s. Donald Trump has used familiar techniques to push his way to the top of the Republican field. These techniques are eerily similar to those used in the past, but that have also evolved into something new that is unique to Trump and American politics in this era.

It is important to note exactly what “populism” is in this context and why it is relevant to discussion of political discourse today. When the word populism is used it is usually used pejoratively. The phrase has dozens of meanings depending on its context. In this context however, populism refers to a specific type of political tactic. The essence of populism has several different layers. In general it relates to the pitting of an evil elite group of society against the good common man. Populism also has underlying principles among them being; a rejection of the rule of law but the belief in the moral preferences of the majority as absolute, a belief in the honest labor of the producers of society and a negative view of those who do not fit this work ethic, and a belief in the revitalization of national ideals (i.e. Making America Great Again).

There are certain dangers associated with this type of speech. Above all is the tendency of populist speech to degrade proper civil discourse. It tends to focus more on becoming in tune with common citizen ideals instead of focusing on what is beneficial for the country as a whole or what is the best policy. Populist rhetoric tends to fuel emotions rather than reason. The populism today of Mr. Trump has these undertones in common with the populism of George Wallace in the 60’s, showing a continuing trend of effective populist tactics.

Trump’s and Wallace’s Populism

When discussing policy and political ideas, the constitution is only mentioned by Trump and Wallace when it suits them. To them, the most important staple of democracy is majority rule, the beliefs of the common man. Thought like this tends to favor the views of the majority over the rights of minorities. Take for example Trump’s calls for the surveillance of the Muslim population, or Wallace’s calls for “segregation forever” despite previous Supreme Court rulings and the rights of those effected by segregation.

The sanctity of the working man, or the producers of society, is held by both leaders. Wallace used the tax system as a means to pit the working class against the poor/lower classes. He explained how the tax system stripped the working class of their hard earned money and was used to feed to poor. Similarly, Trump takes a stand against undocumented immigration on the grounds that American citizens are forced to pay tax dollars to undocumented immigrants and the grounds that immigrants entering the U.S. could burden the welfare system. The claims of both are generally not supported with evidence, but that is not the point. The speech sounds good and feeds into the idea of the common, struggling, working man fighting against an unfair system that does not respect his values.

These two leaders have another more ominous commonality between their rhetoric. As discussed before, populist rhetoric does not usually examine the affects and usefulness of policies, but how well they fit into the structural model of the populist’s version of how society is doing. This type of thought requires scapegoats to use as a means of transferring blame. When a policy needs to be put in place but has no real function, a scapegoat is needed. For example Trump needed to offer a policy of Muslim surveillance, so the stories of the Muslim community in New Jersey celebrating the fall of the world trade center were invented. Just as when Wallace needed to implement segregationist polices for political purposes myths about the negative effects of integration were circulated. Furthermore both leaders used the threat of violence and the plight of protesters to further their agenda. Wallace rallies contained violence against counter protesters and used the mocking of protesters as a means of communicating with supporters. Today we see the same atmosphere of violence surrounding Trump rallies and the same contempt for protesters, which takes away from the process of true discourse surrounding policies and ideas.

Where Trump Diverges From Traditional Populism

Trump undoubtedly has his own brand of politics. Very few politicians communicate the way he does and his type of campaigning has completely changed the way American political discourse is carried out. Regarding his brand of populism, he differs in some ways from past populists.

Most notably is Trumps image as a billionaire. Trump not only is a billionaire, but he flaunts this trait while still claiming to be a man of the common people. This is interesting because it breaks with previous tradition. Normally a populist would want to be viewed as one of the people they are representing. However, in Trumps brand of populism he is able to connect with the common man yet still flaunt his elitism. This is likely due to his pull yourself up by your own bootstraps ethic. Meaning that he is viewed as a common man who just happened to work hard enough to become wealthy.

Secondly Trump has changed the intellectual nature of political discourse. Populists in the past although they did not necessary use logic and reason to choose policies, they did lace their rhetoric with pseudo-intellectual talk that glossed over the nature of their speech. With Trump he does not use this tactic. His speeches are filled with one-liners, contradictions, and no clear political philosophy. This could be an anomaly with Trump, or it could be indicating a change in the nature of the American voter. Social media, twitter, and headline news has made us hungry for quick information without regard for analysis of the issues at hand. Perhaps, Trumps rhetoric is just a manifestation of the decline in the public’s desire for proper civil discourse.