| 15 mins read
Anya Pearson interviews Professor Cas Mudde, a Dutch political scientist who focuses on political extremism and populism in Europe and the United States. Mudde is the Stanley Wade Shelton UGAF professor of international affairs at the University of Georgia, and author of The Far Right Today.
Why did you become interested in populism?
Well, I would like to redefine that as: ‘Why did I become interested in the far right?’ I think that has to do with the fact that I grew up in the Netherlands in the 1970s-1980s. Much of our culture was defined by the Second World War. Although we had virtually no far right to speak of, there was a constant sense of threat and I found that very fascinating.
The reason that I worked academically on it is actually much more mundane. I was a mediocre student and I wanted to do a PhD, but I would never have gotten a scholarship had I not done it on the far right. At that point in the 90s, there was a large public interest in the far right – I could get paid to write op eds – but academia was uninterested in it, and much of political science didn't consider it important. So while it brought me into the discipline, it also brought me to its margins.
My interest in populism came around the time of the Great Recession. We saw protest movements that had some type of discourse in common with the far right, but were clearly not far right, like Podemos and so on. Populism was the term that captured both. I found a collaboration with Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, but largely stopped working on populism once I published my little book because I felt that it was not the right term for most of our contemporary discussion – so I returned to the far right.
How do you now feel about being famous for knowing about the far right?
I actually live a pretty isolated life, in a small town in the middle of nowhere in the US. No one knows who I am. I don't travel much. I never go to big conferences. I remember 10 years ago, I was back in Europe and a group of students wanted to be in a picture with me. And it was such a bizarre experience. I felt really uncomfortable!
I wouldn't necessarily say fame, but success is pleasant, and I enjoy being cited. But when I do media, I'm a merchant of misery. When I come to the local radio station, they know that something is bad. It's hard to study the far right today, and it wasn't when I was young. I would literally read like 10 hours a day of far-right propaganda and it wouldn't affect me at all, because they were completely marginal. Now I can't even watch 15 minutes of Fox News, because they're in power.
How have your own views on the far right changed over the years?
A good question. First of all, I've never been particularly interested in the far right as such. What always fascinated me was their role in the broader political system and in society. I don't think the far right is fundamentally a different beast today than it was before, but the mainstream is very different.
I've always spoken out about authoritarian tendencies within mainstream parties. We saw that strongly after 9//11 but also with regard to the Bosnian refugee crisis of 1992 and other moments. A lot of mainstream parties don't particularly respect minority rights, but I honestly thought that there was a basic belief in liberal democracy.
Of course, I knew that when people get drunk, they get racist, right? But I never really understood what we’re seeing now: that a lot of people, while they support democracy, are also okay with taking away basic rights of “other people”, as long as they profit from certain policies. I underestimated the complete opportunism and transactionalism that defines mainstream politics today.
How would you redesign the core institutions of liberal democracy in order to protect it?
I'm not much of an institutionalist. I've seen every single institution being hailed as a barrier to the far right, as well as being criticized as an enabler – such as proportional representation, direct democracy and deliberative democracy. A lot of these initiatives come from people like us, who are highly educated, who have the means to be busy with politics. When push comes to shove, it is a very small, selective group of people who participate in most of these “democratic innovation” projects and they are mostly those who are already profiting from the existing system.
But they also often overpromise. Take referendums. Quite often the most important issues are excluded, like tax, immigration, the death penalty, things like that. You say: “Look, we trust you. We give you the power”. But all the things that people want to decide on, they're not allowed to. In that sense, Brexit was really an exception.
But for me, the problem is not within the institutions. The problem is within the people within the institutions, and particularly those that pretend to be liberal democratic. A lot of our solutions are focused on the idea that the far right shouldn't be far right. But why shouldn't they be? They believe in it. I want Christian Democrats not to be far right; Social Democrats not to be far right. We should focus much more on that.
You’ve argued that populism can only be defeated by repoliticising politics. How do I do that?
First, never go for “There Is No Alternative” politics, which was very strong in the Remain camp. Leave said: “Take our country back”, which is active. Remain said: “The alternative is worse, or there is no alternative”. Very passive. I speak as a Eurosceptic; I don't think the EU is a phenomenal institution and if we could start all over again, I would create a very different institution. But you make the argument for it and you don't shy away from the fact that there are costs involved. You don't act as if the EU is perfect.
What is important is that you make clear to whomever you talk to that there are choices. That is what populists – for lack of a better term – are very good at. They create a discourse that empowers. The liberal discourse says: “You can’t do that, that’s stupid”. Clearly, that's not motivating.
What institution would you invent instead of the EU?
I strongly feel that a neoliberal logic has developed that empowers the business community over trade unions, for example. Of course, it's always been a compromise, but I also feel that the political narrative hasn't grown with the institutional power. The Euro was only sold as: “You won't have to exchange your money anymore when you go on holiday”. But obviously, the discourse should have been: “We're now one big market, and you no longer hold the power over exchange rates. And yes, Germany is dominant, but you also profit from Germany's strength”. But, concretely, one specific thing is that I would make the European Parliament a truly European legislature, with one European district.
I think democratic politicians should be more open and honest towards the population. If you don't believe that the people make the right choices, then you shouldn't be a democrat. Elites think about democracy in a very regulated form, where the adults decide where the kids can play (and can not play). While not saying that the people are always right, my main support for democracy is based on the fact that I don't trust elites either. I think that people are not just waiting for the simple solution, but that they are waiting to be empowered. At the moment, that comes from people like Trump. The vast majority of his voters knows that he can’t do everything, but at least he gives them the feeling that they are an active participant in their fate.
Do you think anybody's getting it right? What country should a country like Britain look to as a good example of how to cope with the challenges of populism?
No, I don't think any country gets it right. I do know that the UK gets it awfully wrong. Even the Netherlands is not as bad as the UK. Starmer is doing what the Democratic establishment here [in the USA] does, and what a lot of Social Democratic parties in Europe do: they have convinced themselves that “the people” are the potential voters for the far right. So they are only busy with immigration and with “wokeness”. As a consequence, they're neglecting the vast majority of the population.
I think that's a direct consequence of the fact that they don't have a vision. Starmer governs to a certain extent as Blair did, but without the optimism. What they have in common is this type of pragmatism, this idea that ideologies are a thing of the past. My former prime minister, Mark Rutte, famously said: “If you want vision, go to the eye doctor. I'm solving problems”. But politics is largely about defining problems, not just solving them.
If you already give in to the fact that multiculturalism has failed, then obviously you're going to have to either introduce assimilative politics or control the border. And no one will do that to the extent of the far right. That's not to say that you shouldn't talk about those things, but this idea that because immigration is the top issue in a poll, that this is some kind of authentic, organic view, rather than a construction of media and political attention, is so naïve.
The far right understands agenda setting. Obviously, the media is heavily complicit, and mainstream parties are largely complicit too. Why don't they emphasize other issues? Because they don't have a strong ideology and vision anymore.
While not saying that the people are always right, my main support for democracy is based on the fact that I don't trust elites either.
What are the basics that the UK Labour Party could be getting right?
I recently saw a poll that shows the vast majority of Brits support taxing the wealthy. That should be the first place that you get money, not disabled people. There is also huge support for the state taking an active role in energy policy and provision. What Covid, the energy crisis, and the Russia-Ukraine war show is that you need a fair, strong, functioning state. Obviously, this is the purview of the Social Democrats.
My final question is that, in your 2019 book, you didn’t mention social media much. Would you take about it more now?
There is no student of mine that will let that slide! First of all, I’m very sceptical about the empirical evidence. Research shows that social media has an effect on a small portion of people who generally are already very politically active. Small numbers of people are swayed by it. A few more are radicalised by it, but this doesn’t necessarily have large electoral consequences.
The other thing is that the rise of populism started in the 90s, well before social media. Communication was really not that different. They started to reach more people once they were included in the mainstream media. Social media are bubbles. CNN, Fox News and Christian Radio reach far more people than Trump did on his Twitter. I do believe that social media plays a role, but so do radio and TV.
There is nothing inherently far right about social media. The biases that it has, that are nativist, reflect the nativist biases of society. Much of the research assumes impact and only looks at the few far right politicians who are successful, but there are actually many more who are mediocre or even terrible online. We very easily make generalised statements on the basis of exceptions.
