Philosophers on Populism: Warnings of the Past

In 1946, Juan Domingo Peron ran on a populist platform and was subsequently elected president of Argentina. His three presidential terms characterized by his populist rhetoric led to the rise of what continues to be called Peronism. Seventy-eight years later, Donald Trump ran his campaign using populist Peronist rhetoric. On November 5th, 2024, he was elected as president of the United States. Paradoxically, his main South American endorser is none other than right-wing Javier Milei, another populist who in 2022 defeated Sergio Massa, the left-leaning populist Peronist candidate. As shown by the examples above, populism appears to transcend ideology. What does populism mean in the context of a modern-day democratic society? This paper argues that classical political theories as seen in those by Machiavelli, Plato, Aristotle, and Vitoria warn and provide information on the dangers of politics being run by populism. Furthermore, I will use the recent election in the United States and existing Latin American political literature of the 20th and 21st centuries to support the claims and warnings made by Machiavelli, Plato, Aristotle, and The Requerimiento hundreds of years ago. ‬‭The 2024 U.S. presidential election, marked by Trump’s populist victory, reveals critical vulnerabilities in democratic governance as warned by classical political theorists. These thinkers collectively argue that unchecked‬‭ populism, driven by fractional loyalty and charismatic leadership, risks destabilizing the balance‬ of power essential for a republic’s stability, unity, and moral legitimacy.‬

Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy presents a critical examination of populism, warning of its potential to disrupt societal balance and advocating for a structure that balances popular and elite interests to ensure a republic’s stability. According to scholars, Latin America was the first region in the world to experience a mass wave of populism in the 1930s and 40s. Often referred to as “classical populism,” it serves as a basis for populist theories. Using this as a framework, one could easily argue that Donald Trump is the first and most populist president the United States of America has had in its history. But why is populism a danger to America or any other society in the first place? Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy offers valuable insight as to why populism's imminent nature is dangerous. Machiavelli argues that for a nation to succeed, it must have an equitable representation of popular and elite interests. In fact, in Book, he praises the conflict that existed between the lower and higher classes, as he says this conflict led to Rome’s strength rather than weakness. He argues that such “disturbances were the cause for the creation of the tribunes, [hence] they deserve the highest praise” (I.4). This divide causes the inevitable representation of popular energy in societies, yet he notes that only popular energy should not dominate for a nation to succeed. This supports the argument that while populist movements may bring energy, they need regulation to prevent chaos and ensure that only beneficial changes come from popular pressure. In the case of Donald Trump and his populist followers, they were the main originators of the incidents and insurrection that occurred on January 6th, 2020. Machiavelli warns that if moderation among these groups is not achieved, it could threaten societies. He notes the responsibility of those who lead a republic by emphasizing the importance of them acting in a “prudent fashion” (I.5) and how they should “safeguard for liberty” (I.5). There should be an equitable representation of “men of prominence and men of the people” (I.5), something that is put at risk by Trump's presidency due to the rise of his intensely loyal populist base. The “redshift” of the November 5th election shows Trump's intensely loyal base and how they propagated this sentiment among other undecided voters. This is a prime example where one leader, backed by a populist faction, consolidated their power. This could “lead [the state] to tyranny, as occurred in Rome with Caesar” (I.29). Although Machiavelli does not reject tyranny, he implicitly states how characteristics imposed by populist leaders lead to this form of government. As he somewhat endorses tyrannical rule, we turn to Latin America to show how unchecked populism can come at the expense of broader accountability, examining how democracies have shifted into more authoritarian forms through populism. Alberto Fujimori’s neopopulism in 1990, where, like Trump, he was exalted as a leader, led to his auto coup d'état, in which he dissolved his congress and ruled by decree. This is similar to Nayib Bukele, the president of El Salvador, who has received allegations of being a dictator and whose biography on X once read as “the world's coolest dictator”. According to Machiavelli when a leader starts engaging with tyrannical ideals two outcomes emerge: managing a state with strong laws or stabilizing internally. As he says “either you discuss a republic that wishes to create an empire, like Rome, or you discuss one that is satisfied to maintain itself” (I.6). Considering how modern nations function, it is an imminent danger when populist leaders who pursue unchecked power threaten to undermine a republic’s balance and stability. All these instances mirror the "red wave of 2024”. Going back to Machiavelli's thoughts on tyranny, he does not entirely condemn tyranny and dictatorships, as he notes they may be necessary but still limits his argument by emphasizing the importance of temporality in dictatorships. An article by the New York Times titled “As Election Nears, Kelly Warns Trump Would Rule Like a Dictator” discusses how John F. Kelly, who was chief of staff to President Donald J. Trump argues he could become a dictator. While unlikely, if this were to happen the dictatorships of Augusto Pinochet and Rafael Videla in Chile and Argentina respectively show the lack of temporality of tyrannical rule. In fact, dictators are often only overthrown under exceptional circumstances, such as external pressures—as was the case with Chile’s Pinochet. Trump’s rhetoric and governance style, emphasizing his famous “Make America Great Again,” resemble Machiavelli’s warning of unchecked authority and power which can often lead to devastating consequences, as seen when in Argentina, the later convicted military junta, decided to invade the Falkland Islands. This decision became the catalyst for an economic recession in Argentina. When the populist junta was eventually tried in court for other human rights violations none of the militaries recognized the legitimacy of the court. Machiavelli says, “the organizer of a republic must find an arrangement that allows charges to be made against any citizen in the republic without fear and without respect to the individual’s position, and after a charge has been made and thoroughly examined, he must severely punish those making false accusations" (I.8). This shows something that is easy for populist leaders such as those mentioned before to avoid. In a populist government, where loyalty to a leader may overshadow accountability, failing to punish accusations and protect public indictment processes can erode democratic safeguards and encourage authoritarian tendencies, a clear danger to the long-lasting American democracy. 

Plato’s Republic presents a powerful critique of democracy, emphasizing its vulnerability to devolve into tyranny when leaders prioritize emotional appeals over rational governance, a concern that resonates in the context of populist figures. In The Republic, Plato is renowned for his critique of democracy, highlighting how easily this system can devolve into tyranny. He argues that democracy’s vulnerability lies in its tendency to appeal to emotions rather than reasoned policy, making it susceptible to manipulation by populist leaders. Plato describes the "democratic man" as someone uneducated and “reared in misery” (VIII). This man is driven by desires and, when young, “tastes the honey of the drones and associates with wild and dangerous creatures who can provide every variety of multicolored pleasure in every sort of way,” (VIII) ultimately becoming someone who embraces democracy. Populist leaders easily exploit these desires, appealing to the "honey" the democratic man seeks rather than promoting policies which should make them win the job. The people, swayed by popular desires, are likely to choose those who satisfy immediate gratifications over those who address long-term needs. Plato argues that humans are naturally full of desires, some of which are “dangerous, wild, and lawless,” (VIII) even in individuals who may appear to be “entirely moderate or measured.” (VIII).  Although he does not mention populism explicitly, Plato’s arguments provide a framework for understanding why populism works as a political strategy. Appealing to desires requires little policy or action; it simply plays to emotions. Donald Trump, for example, appeals to desires for safety and wealth through his “America First” trade policy and strict immigration restrictions respectively. Plato’s famous Allegory of the Cave can serve as a metaphor for the dangers of a populist leader like Trump or others. Leaders who manipulate by appealing to desires keep voters in darkness, or "inside the cave," by altering their perceptions and presenting distorted images of reality, represented in the allegory as shadows. These shadows may not be entirely false but rather manipulated perceptions of political promises. For instance, Trump appeals to his populist Latino base by promising rights and bringing renowned reggaeton artists on stage, yet he simultaneously incites discrimination against the same groups. His economic policies follow a similar pattern: The New York Times reports that 42% of Latinos voted for Trump, many attracted by his economic rhetoric, but unaware of the devastating effects that tariffs may have on Latin American countries. This manipulation was evident during Trump’s previous administration with the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017”. While this reform primarily benefited corporations and higher-income individuals, Trump promoted it as a benefit to the middle class, positioning it as a way to create jobs and stimulate economic growth within the United States. These shadows and distortions also encompass Trump’s touted economic growth, which may overlook those left behind, such as millions of women who have faced increased risks to reproductive health or how his “booming economy” predominantly benefits certain sectors of the elite. This selective economic narrative is reminiscent of Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship in 1980s Chile, where high GDP per capita did not account for the millions of oppressed and tortured citizens. Trump’s emotionally driven campaign reflects the kind of democratic or populist leader that Plato implicitly warns against. Plato critiques the excesses of democracy, where the so-called democrat prioritizes charisma over policies that elevate human virtue. His critique underscores a significant risk posed by Trump’s rise: if democracy continues to empower leaders who appeal to the lowest common denominator of public sentiment, it risks spiraling into tyranny, with power concentrated in the hands of a single, populist figure.

In Politics and Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle emphasizes the necessity of moderation and balance in governance, critiquing populism's divisive nature and suggesting that leaders like Trump, who prioritize emotional appeals and personal gain over the common good, risk destabilizing the unity and ethical foundations of the state. Politics and Nicomachean Ethics present ethical pitfalls evident in Trump’s behaviors, particularly those reflecting populism. Aristotle advocates for a government that blends elements of democracy and oligarchy, stressing the importance of balance. Populism, by contrast, often leads to fanaticism, risking bipartisan cooperation and national unity. A simple example, which can be extrapolated onto political dynamics, is that of land ownership: “when some people own an excessive amount [of land] and the rest own nothing, either extreme democracy arises or unmixed oligarchy” (IV, 11). Aristotle would view this as a state of deep imbalance, where Trump’s followers neglect the common good, focusing instead on securing their own interests. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle emphasizes moderation as essential for leaders, a principle opposed by Trump’s divisive tactics, which foster an anti-anti-Trump reaction. This is mirrored in Brazil with President Lula Inacio da Silva, whose populism divides Brazilian politics between petistas (pro-Lula) and anti-petistas (anti-Lula). Similarly, recent Brazilian elections have seen votes split not between two platforms, but between a petista or simply anti-petista stance. This parallels the American electoral landscape. As noted in The New York Times after Trump’s election, “populist disenchantment with the nation’s direction and resentment against elites proved to be deeper and more profound than many in both parties had recognized. Mr. Trump’s testosterone-driven campaign capitalized on resistance to electing the first woman president.” (Baker). Aristotle would argue that such leadership undermines the true purpose of a state, sowing division among the polis. His emphasis on the “good life” as one of harmony and justice implies that Trump’s populism detracts from the common good that a democracy should aspire to achieve. In Chapters 5 and 7, Aristotle discusses the “chief good” or telos of human life eudaimonia, often understood as “the good life” or “flourishing.” This state is achieved through virtue and balance. Regarding populist tactics, Aristotle also comments on the dangers of appealing to emotions, noting, “this is just the condition of men under the influence of passions; for outbursts of anger and sexual appetites and some other such passions, it is evident, actually alter our bodily condition, and in some men even produce fits of madness” (7). This reveals how not only pleasure but even the promise of it can sway humans—hence, why populist leaders like Trump win. It also likely explains why a testosterone-driven campaign appealed to millions of American men. 

The Requerimiento provides the conclusion for this paper's argument. Far from texts like the ones discussed previously it synthesizes and extrapolates the behind the scenes of populism. The 2024 U.S. presidential election and the rise of populism as seen in Trump’s recent victory echo concerns voiced by classical thinkers, as well as the calculated dominance presented in historical texts like the Requerimiento. This document, written in 1510 as a decree to the indigenous people of the Americas, sought to enforce Spanish rule and religious control. As the Requerimiento proclaims, those who accepted Spanish authority “will do well” and would be allowed to live freely, while those who resist would face “all the mischief and damage” the Spanish could deliver (5). This forced allegiance bears striking similarities to Machiavelli’s analysis in Discourses on Livy, where he warns against the dangers of unchecked populism and the instability it creates if dominated by popular demands alone. He argues that even necessary conflicts between classes, which Rome managed to balance, can turn destructive if manipulated solely for one group’s benefit: “disturbances were the cause for the creation of the tribunes” (I.4). Trump’s loyal base and the power of populist sentiments in his campaign reveal a similar volatility, as populist allegiance threatens to overshadow balanced governance, risking societal stability in favor of factional loyalty. The duality of coercion and incentive can be seen in Plato’s critique of democracy within The Republic, where he portrays democracy as vulnerable to manipulation by leaders who satisfy desires rather than foster virtuous governance. Plato’s portrayal of the “democratic man” as one who seeks gratification aligns with populist appeals that speak to immediate wants instead of reasoned policies. Like the Requerimiento, which claimed to offer “many privileges and exemptions” to those who submitted (5), populist leaders often leverage promises of prosperity or “freedom” to rally the people, only to keep them bound by dependency and loyalty. Trump’s promises during the election cycle to “restore” the nation, much like those of Perón in Argentina, exploit popular desires in ways that mirror the Spanish conquerors’ use of incentives to secure loyalty. For Plato, this manipulation, designed to keep people figuratively “in the cave,” shows how populist leaders can distort reality by appealing to immediate emotions rather than cultivating leadership based on virtue and rationality. In addition to Plato’s concerns, Aristotle’s Politics warns against democracy’s drift toward tyranny when personal ambition goes unchecked, prioritizing loyalty to the leader over civic virtue. Aristotle quotes how men desired honor. This theme is evident in the Requerimientos language, which demands conquered peoples “acknowledge the Church as the Ruler and Superior of the whole world” (5). Aristotle’s fear of ambition without ethical constraints reflects contemporary worries over Trump’s return to power and aligns with The New York Times populist worries warning that he could “rule like a dictator.” The forced compliance seen in the Requerimiento echoes the fears surrounding unchecked populism, where loyalty takes precedence over accountability, undermining the republic’s moral and civic integrity. In The Republic, Plato also argues that when leaders capitalize on people’s base desires, they risk leading society into tyranny, as emotional appeals often obscure rational governance. In conclusion, the Requerimiento and the philosophers analyzed show how thoughts and events from hundreds of years ago speak much about modern political threats and society. Will society wake up to these warnings from the past?

Footnotes / Works Cited