Populist political leaders leverage the discontent and disenfranchisement of the low-status “losers” and give a voice, conduit, and megaphone to that anger.

What changes is the type of discontent they leverage.

But, usually, it revolves around the basics of:

• Survival
• Reproduction
• Status
• Racial/inter-group dynamics

Political populism is a charismatic leader, often a dark triad, channeling people’s discontent. The leader stirs emotions for the votes and/or revolution he needs to get in power

We’ll use Trump and the 2024 elections as an example. But the dynamics are the same with any populist.

Intro

The Trump phenomenon has perplexed many.

Specifically, what some find most impressive is Trump’s resilience.
Trump maintains a large appeal with the electorate despite his critics seeing him as a danger to democracy -and courting with racism and misogyny to boot-.

In this article, we contend that Trump is not popular despite his most inflammatory rhetoric, but exactly because of it.

Populism is a movement of revolt that needs two things:

1. A leader to channel its discontent into action and political and social change
2. An ideology that legitimizes anger into a more socially and psychologically acceptable ideology (Blau, 1964)
   

Since populism often needs to overthrow the system, populism requires an insurgent, radical leader who attacks and frames ‘old’ politics as corrupt and ineffective.
And the angrier and more incendiary the leader is, the more the followers feel represented and vindicated.

Seen from this point of view, Trump is the angry people’s wrecking ball against a system that they feel is not working for them anymore.

What is it exactly that makes these people feel the system is failing them?

It’s these points:

1. Low-Status Men & Mating (Intergender Power Dynamics)

What’s Trump’s largest voting block?

Non-college-educated white voters.

ChatGPT also confirms:

Men with lower education vote Trump

It’s a safe bet that lower education = lower status (on average, at a group level).
Lower status men support anti-establishment populism because they’re failing in those establishments.

And what do gender power dynamics have to do with it?

Everything.

It goes at the core of survival and reproduction.

This is the principle:

⚖️ The more women gain power, the more average men struggle to be attractive dating options to these women.

And struggling men provide fertile ground for populists who offer easy -but rarely functioning- solutions.

This video is a good primer on these dynamics:

But for a quick text-based explanation, this is it:

It goes at the core of hypergamy, or “women preferring to date higher value men than they are”.

Women want to date -and to look up- to a higher power man.
In societies that repress women, almost any man is higher power than women.

However, it’s simple math that the more power women gain, the fewer men are higher power than women.
That means that fewer and fewer men are attractive dating options.

A society with empowered women favors high-value men because empowered women can only really lust after a high-value man.
Only a higher-power man can truly lead a woman.
And, thus, women can only be happy feminine women with a higher-power man.

At a societal level, empowered women change the dynamics of dating marketpalce.

In libertine societies with empowered women, the top men “monopolize” several women, who are “taken off the market”.
And with a shrinking female population available, average and lower-value men struggle to find a mate.

Of course, unless we go really extreme, most men still pair up in 1:1 semi-monogamous pair bonds.
However, the dynamics still negatively affect men, including:

• Younger lower-value men get little or no sex
• Lower-value men live in fear of never finding a mate
• Most average men must content themselves with lower-quality women
• Lower-value men in relationships fear abandonment and cuckoldry to higher value men
• Average men pay a psychological price and never get to “feel like real men” who wear the pants

This is what’s happening in the West.

Western’s Women Power Disempowers Average Men

In recent decades women have been gaining more and more power.

They gain more degrees:

And, equally if not more significantly, women are catching up in earning:

And, equally if not more significantly, they are catching up in leadership positions:

What’s not in the chart is that women are also becoming more:

• Power-aware
• Assertive
• Demanding for social skills, “game”, and “expertise”

And guess what?

These empowered Western women don’t find poorer, non-college-educated men attractive.

Exceptions always apply of course.
But then, you better be a hunk.
And most men are not hunks.

Bottom line, empowered women are a (reproductive) threat to average men.

These men may not be consciously aware of it.
But deep down, subconsciously, they know it.

Also read:

• Successful women dating

Politics: Sexually Disempowered Men Vote Conservative

And how does this tie back to politics?

Simple:

• The democratic party is the party of empowered women
• The Republican party is the party of traditional masculinity

Starting from the top.
Democrats have Kamala Harris, and Republicans have Trump.
And it trickles down to their supporters. Democrats have Beyonce and Taylor Swift, Trump has Kid Rock and Hulk Hogan.

Trump (silently) embodies the ideals and values of male-dominated households.
In those households, men still wear the pants.
And in that culture, average men still find a mate.

Voting for Trump is a vote for putting men back in the lead.
And giving them a chance to date, mate, and enjoy a good man’s life.

The Conservative Fantasy Household

The main dream-promise of the conservative household is 1 man : 1 woman, with a feminine woman, and a man wearing the pants.

And it’s not totally wrong, either.

If Kamala Harris wins, the culture become even more embracing of empowered women.
And if Trump wins, politics would re-establish that “it’s the man’s job to lead”.

Now you see why Trump can say the most misogynist crap about women, and still get these men’s votes.
Indeed, the more misogynist Trump is, the more he’ll get these men’s votes.

P.S.: The Irony of Right-Wing Populism: Losers Lose Bigger

Trump IS an old-school “alpha male type“.

Adn that is exactly why he won’t help average men.

Trump and the men like him GAIN with libertine societies (flash news: Trump DID engage in polygyny with serial semi-monogamy).

Plus, their goal is to build empires, and make as much money as possible.

The old-school staple of right-wing and conservative economic policy is little government and few taxes.
Especially on the wealthy.

So, in truth, Republicans only make it worse for average men.
But, alas, they wouldn’t be average and below-average men if they thought this far in advance :).

2. Men & Power (Social Power Dynamics)

Men are hardwired to admire dominance and social power.

Both right-wing populist leaders and dark triad offer dominance in spades.

And Trump is no exception.
If anything, he may be overly dominant to be an effective politician.

Democrat leaders are NOT as dominant.

Kamala Harris is a good woman.
But that “good” is also her limitation with some voters.

Albeit power in her role, she’s not personally powerful in:

• Behavior
• Character
• Mindsets
• Body language…

More of the same for Tim Walz.
He looks like a pudgy Santa Claus. Safe and kind.

Tim Walz is the type of man women feel safe with.
Too safe, maybe.
Walz is the guy the woman lies on and calls “my teddy bear”.

Compare to JD Vance:

Too Nice Guy VS A**hole

JD Vance is also carrying some extra kilos.
But look at those eyes.
You wouldn’t call him “teddy bear”. More like a “possessed doll”, if anything.

JD Vance is an asshole, but he’s a high-power, socially dominant asshole.

High-Power Men Want High-Power Leaders

I see this every single day in your YouTube channel’s comment section.

We see that thousands of men love Trump exactly when he displays the most dominance.

These guys somehow don’t see that it’s ultimately more effective to be high power and high-warmth.
And to be high power without being a pathological narcissist and win-lose type. Trump would be a two-time president in a row, without having to risk a third campaign if he had been less of a narcissist.

But let’s not digress too much and you can just watch this video:

Back to politics instead, this is also why Democrats did best with men like Clinton and Obama.

These were charismatic, high-power men who helped bridge the gap between pro-social but low-power Democrats, and high-power Republicans.

Low-Power Men Project Onto Trump

Trump also gets many low-power men’s votes.

This group overlaps with our point #1, as also suggested by Hakkar and Sivanthan’s research.
They’re not high-status or dominant.
But they wish they were.

So they do what sports fans do.
They emotionally project onto their idol-representative.
And Trump’s victory becomes their victory.

I also see this in our YouTube comment section.
These men lash out with videos critical of Trump. Or, worse, videos showing Trump looking weak.
They can’t accept their idol of strength to look weak.

Even videos that are simply not negative of Kamala Harris stoke these men’s emotions:

Low-Status Men Project Onto Their Leader

Emotional Trump supporter: can’t wait to see your (trying to be offensive). How are you so analytical of human nature and so impaired in… (more attempts to be offensive follow)

👉🏼 Fans always emotionally over-react when they perceive an attack to their hero

Their hero losing is worse than their own loss.
If they lose, it’s just another average man losing.
If their hero loses, it’s the whole cause losing. It becomes hopeless.

3. Racism & Social Privilege (Racial Power Dynamics)

Life is always easier when you place a whole race/group beneath you.

The power dynamics are simple:

Individuals from a privileged class all gain at the detriment of the un-privileged ones.
Adn the bigger the privilege and gap between the groups, the better off the privileged individuals are.

Conversely, for a formerly privileged individual:

⚖️ The more egalitarian a society becomes, the worse off the members of the formerly privileged group become.

Even “privileged lower-value men” are better off.
From a dating point of view, he may “date down” on a lower class and find a mate. But if everyone is the same, the “loser” is just a loser.

And general society-level progress does not change these dynamics.

Remember that individual status is comparative and never absolute.
So it doesn’t matter that today’s lower-value whites have a more comfortable life than a king in 1500.
Because everyone else has a more comfortable life, lower-value white men still lose with black and minorities’ empowerment.

So many whites today resent a more egalitarian society because they see equality as coming at their expense.
And they’re not totally wrong about the latter.
And about the former, that egalitarianism may be “fairer” doesn’t compute in many men’s minds. We are selfish animals, after all.

Undercover Racism: An Iceberg-Like Phenomenon

Many underestimate the true extent of racism.

Circumstantial evidence is always poor evidence.
And still, looking at the most popular comments on this video does serve as a powerful reminder -and wake up call for many-:

Racism hasn’t disappeared, only gone undercover

If you want to see who people truly are, give them anonimity
– TPM Proverb ✒️

Politics: If They Can Be Racist With A Vote, They Will

Without racists in power, undercover racists have no power.

But if suddenly a racist party appears, the racist party easily scoops up all the undercover racist votes.

Know back to American politics.
And this shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone:

Democrats are the party of equality and inclusion.
Republicans, well… Not so much.

So any white reactionary who (subconsciously) resents the loss of white privilege votes Republican.

If anything, public repression of racism pushes even more racist voters toward Republicans and Trump.
Black Republicans only serve the GOP as a convenient front to hide these dynamics.

4. Clannishness (Inter-Group Power Dynamics)

Populists often leverage humans’ natural in-group VS out-group.

In-group/out-group dynamics means that people people favor their own group (in-group) and dislike, discriminate, or fear, those outside of it (out-group).

In-group/outgroup dynamics are present in most human beings as part of our evolutionary makeup.

Politics: Clannish Individual Vote Anti-Immigration

Conservatives, more focused on power, are generally more clannish than Democrats.

Plus, populist leaders do the following:

• Make the in-group feel “superior” (over-patriotism) to cash in on the good feeling
• De-humanize the outgroup as evil, dangerous, or disgusting to cash in on anger and fear

For example, something Trump said during the 2024 campaign:

• Haitians eat our dogs
• America first
• Mexicans send us the rapists

Etc., etc.

🙋‍♂️America First is dereliction of leadership

Lucio: While “America first” may seem the most benign expression of clannisshness, I see it as the most damaging.
First off, it’s dumb politics because the most powerful thing you can do is to lead the world.
Furthermore, it’s bad for everyone when any country removes itself from global cooperation, let alone the richest country in the world (tragedy of commons).
In a world that desperately needs cooperation to face the challenges ahead, I find this is the most dangerous of Trump’s approaches.
But that’s just me…

Result: both high-power clannish and fearful men vote for the populist to keep their group “pure” and safe.

These 4 Will Always Vote for Trump

People in the above categories will vote for Trump no matter what.

The reason is simple:

Survival and reproduction trump any argument.

For men in these four groups there can’t be a higher priority than finding a mate, maintaining status and power, and advancing one’s group over others.

These voters will SAY that Trump has better policy, they will SAY Harris has no policy.
But that’s all a front.

These voters won’t be dissuaded by anything Trump may say that’s nonsense, racist, or misogynist.
As a matter of fact, Trump NEEDS to be inflammatory things to pander to these demographics.

These voters also won’t be dissuaded if Kamala Harris spanks and emasculates Trump in the debates.
As a matter of fact, they’ll support Trump harder BECAUSE a black woman handing Trump his ass is the the worst nightmare of lower-value, conservative white men.

Populism Isn’t The Issue. Populist Leaders Are

“Populism” is usually in the negative.

However, populism can be a fair answer in some cases.

Elites after all can monopolize all the resources while the populace goes hungry.
And long-standing governing parties can fumble policies -EU and USA probably didn’t do a great job with immigration-.

However, populist leaders are charismatic dark triads who sell pro-people policies as a cover for their power-hunger.
That means that, once in power, their selfish interest come first, second, and probably third and a few more spots below that.
And I haven’t seen many exceptions to this rule.

Populists Stoke Anger & Anguish to Weaponize Them

General principle:

⚖️ While winners are happy with the system because they’re winning, losers are receptive to anti-establishment populism because they’re losing

And the angrier and more resentful the losers become, the more power their leader can channel against the system.

In our current example, Trump weaponized the anger, fear, and anguish, of the lower-status white men.

Paraphrasing the lucid political commentator Anthony Scaramucci, to these men, Trump is their orange wrecking ball against the system.

Fascism, Nazism, & Communism: Populism Is The Common Root

Populism and fascism/communism are different.

However, they overlap.

Fascist and communist regimes need people’s approval to overthrow democracy and install a new political order.

And any despotic fascist or communist movement starts with populism to first overthrow the old system.

ChatGPT agrees:

Fascists, Nazists, & Communists share populist roots

Fascism, Nazism, and the Bolshevik Revolution had differences, of course.

Fascism and nazism, as right-wing movements, included militarism and national pride (clannishness).
The nazis added racism to the mix.
And communists added land owners and industrialists to the “out-group we should hate”.

But they were all remarkably similar -and populistic- in how they rose to power.

They all promised to channel the power of the united people against perceived weak and/or fat elites who preyed on the masses and who deserved to be eliminated.

Populist Governments Always Become The New Establishment

Populism decreases over time because the revolutionaries become the new elite.

And the populist “new” system just becomes another system with its winners and losers (often, pretty much the same people because winners tend to win anyway).

And this is why today many don’t link fascism, nazism or communism to populism.
Because those systems changed their tone and rhetoric over time. (And if they didn’t, the gap between words and facts grew so large that most people realized it was political manipulation).

But they all started as populistic movements.

Of course, just because we saw many past populist movements turn despotic and disastrous doesn’t mean all present and future populists will do the same.

But, personally, I wouldn’t bet on any power-hungry dark triad to be the enlightened exception.

Related video: