Populism, Partisanship, and Polarization: An Interview with Professor Paul Gardener, Queen’s University Political Studies
Jacquie Sandler, External Affairs
March 23rd, 2020
The start of 2020 also marks the year of another American presidential election. As the 2016 American elections were the topic of much debate worldwide, this year’s global audience is as large and attentive as ever. To help answer some of the current questions surrounding the 2020 battle for the President’s Palace, The Observer’s External Affairs Branch brings you an interview with Political Studies Professor Paul Gardner, who offers a compelling insight into the past, present, and future of America’s presidential elections.
Does there seem to be a clear Democratic and Republican frontrunner so far, or is it too early to tell?
The current situations between the two parties are incredibly different. It is widely agreed upon that there is no conceivable scenario in which Trump would not win the Republican nominee, unless a significant scandal arose and damaged his standing. However, it is quite clear that Trump is very resistant to scandal, so this is an unlikely situation. Trump is also very good at attracting media coverage; journalists have been fascinated with Trump ever since he formally announced his initial candidacy in 2015. Other Republican candidates are simply not catching on and are not earning enough media coverage that could adequately compete with Trump’s dominance of political news.
For the Democrats, it has been quite clear since the Nevada caucuses that Sanders is ahead at this point. There is a common prediction that he will win the Democrat nominee; however, I am not willing to make that bet at this moment. Unlike the Republican party, there is much more competition and fluctuation among the main Democrat contenders. The assumption that Sanders will secure the nominee is premature.
The phrase ‘the rise of populism’ is becoming increasingly used in American society. What is populism, and why has it become such a significant concept in the context of American elections and politics?
Populism is a very nebulous term that is often used and applied quite loosely in political discourses. Put simply, populism in America is a strategy used by politicians to appeal to the common person. This generally takes the form of anti-elitist, and rather majoritarian language and a distrust in American, particularly democratic, institutions. However, the term is loaded with additional meaning depending on who it’s coming from. Left-wing populists such as Sanders commonly advocate for things such as welfare distribution and expanded socio-economic rights for marginalized groups, whereas right-wing populists such as Trump can promote ideas about ethnonationalism and social exclusion in the name of protecting and empowering ‘the people’. The populist appeal is certainly a pervasive tool among this year’s Democrat and Republican presidential candidates. However, it is important to keep in mind that these definitions barely scratch the surface of the populist rhetoric; much more detail can be given on what populism means across the political spectrum.
It is hard to pinpoint a comprehensive answer for populism’s rising significance. Trust in government institutions has indeed been declining in America over the past two decades; Americans’ dissatisfaction with their democracy has become an embedded part of American political consciousness. The rise of populism therefore might be related to issues surrounding confidence in governmental institutions, but more analysis is needed to gain an adequate understanding of its roots and causes.
The 2016 elections were indeed significant and unconventional. Why is this? Could we see similar patterns this year?
Both Trump’s candidacy and secure of the White House were surprising in some ways. He had no prior experience in politics and government, whereas Clinton could not have been more qualified to play the part. However, both Trump and Clinton were unpopular candidates, which was shown in a widespread dissatisfaction during the primary elections. Trump was able to appeal to this dissatisfaction by using the power of political partisanship and polarization; in other words, the growing gap between Republicans and Democrats. Despite him being an atypical candidate and the predictions that Republicans were going to abandon Trump, America’s intense partisan leanings definitely played a significant role in his success. For example, Trump’s economic strategies and promises tapped into many Republican voters’ disapproval of Obama’s outlook on the economy and desires for vast economic improvement. With the power of partisanship in mind, it can be argued that the 2016 results did not defy our expectations, and are not as unconventional as one might think.
These patterns of polarization will certainly be relevant in this election, especially if Sanders makes it into the general election. This would definitely be new for America, as it has been a long time since a socialist has been in Office. It remains to be seen if what we understand about elections from a political science perspective will be subverted in 2020. Professor Gardner’s thoughts address the various elements and details that make the American elections incredibly multi-layered and intensive. He also reminds us that this process is littered with uncertainty and unpredictability, making it impossible to offer an accurate outlook on the future of the election. Nevertheless, as Election Day approaches, audiences around the globe should prepare for some interesting developments in the months to come.
Professor Gardner’s contact information can be found on the Queen’s University Political Studies page:
https://www.queensu.ca/politics/people/faculty/paul-gardner