In recent years, the worlds’ political systems have been shaken up by a new wave of anti-politically correct and populist politicians that have gained loads of support. These candidates, such as Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, Boris Johnson of the UK, and most of all Donald Trump of the US, all have overwhelming support from their constituents because they break the traditional mold of the average politician. The reason anti-politically correct and populist candidates have started gaining support is because they are more entertaining, come up with radical or over the top ideas, and speak plainly compared to traditional political candidates. In short, these politicians tell people what they want to hear and that is why people vote for them. This strategy is dangerous for political systems around the world because if people are voted into office based on how they speak rather than how they may help their country, then it will be the country that suffers. 

One of the main ways these candidates have attracted widespread attention is their presentation of over-the-top, radical ideas. To make headlines and generate excitement amongst people that have some extremist views they will propose ideas for change in their nation that are borderline ridiculous, but also gain them support. A perfect example of a populist/anti-politically correct politician that has used this tactic is Rodrigo Duterte, the President of the Philippines. Duterte has been very outspoken and has said a plethora of ridiculous things during his tenure as President of the Philippines which has made him infamous throughout the rest of the world but has gained him lots of support within his own country. One of the craziest things Duterte has done is relate himself to Adolf Hitler when he said "I'd be happy to slaughter them. At least if Germany had Hitler, the Philippines would have (me). You know my victims, I would like (them) to be all criminals, to finish the problem of my country and save the next generation from perdition," (McKirdy). When he made this statement, he was explaining how he wanted to deal with the Philippines’ drug problem and his proposed solution was to kill drug dealers and addicts. This statement came with lots of negative publicity (mainly from other countries) for Duterte, especially from different Jewish organizations, but it also garnered him a lot of support from his own citizens who were very unhappy with the country’s drug epidemic. This shows that polarizing politicians can still gain a lot of support, especially when they are stern on an issue that many deem as very important. 

Donald Trump, our nation’s newly sworn in President, has a habit of making headlines with “exciting” ideas quite often. His most famous outrageous claim was that he would build a wall along the border of the US and Mexico to prevent illegal immigration. “The Wall” as it is referred to, is now a hugely polarizing subject in the US with Trump supporters shouting “Build that wall!” at his rallies and his critics using it as a symbol to prove that Trump is a racist. Whether you agree with the idea or not, one must admit that it’s unlike anything that any American President has ever proposed before which is why it has caught so many peoples’ attention. The New York Times published a Gallup poll that showed that Americans find immigration to be the second biggest problem with our country right now (Aisch and Parlapiano). This would explain why Trump has gained so much support for his beloved wall. It’s an unusual, over-the-top idea that presents a solution (maybe…) to what people consider to be a huge problem. 

Boris Johnson, the current UK Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, made similar headlines with his comments on the Syrian and Libyan refugee crisis in 2016. Johnson asserted that the UK and other EU members should immediately turn boats carrying refugees around and send them back to where they came from. Johnson maintained a xenophobic and UK-centric attitude in the time before he was appointed as Secretary of State in order to help the UK Brexit movement. The Brexit movement was a movement started to have the UK leave the European Union and many of its supporters (mainly Johnson) made outrageous statements such as the one previously mentioned in order to stir up a sense of nationalism among British citizens. This newfound nationalism allowed the Brexit leaders to send a message to the British people that translated to “we don’t need the EU, we’re fine on our own”. This was a common theme that Johnson pushed throughout the Brexit movement, and to show the effectiveness of populist strategies, the Brexit movement won in a popular vote. His leadership in that movement and outspokenness on the issue of the refugee crisis eventually ended up getting him promoted to Secretary of State due to his popularity. 

The problem with anti-politically correct candidates being “entertaining” is that they attract voters that are usually politically uneducated and inactive. Making outlandish claims such as slaughtering drug dealers or building a border wall might excite people with extremist views or people who simply think the ideas are funny. Voting for a person who is just exciting, though, is dangerous because they may be interesting to watch but they won’t usually be what is best for their country.

It’s become quite obvious that people are willing to vote for a candidate because they are simply more exciting and that is because voters are fed up with traditional political campaigns. Right-wing news sources such as Breitbart have said as much, insisting “Yes, Trump is different. Guess what? That’s a good thing” (Delgado). This shows that there is a whole sect of people that will vote for a candidate simply because they break the traditional mold of what society expects a politician to be. On the surface this may seem like a good thing considering stereotypes about politicians have us believing that they are liars, schemers, and are only in the political establishment for themselves. While that may be true for some politicians, it is certainly not true for all and the fact of the matter is that most experienced politicians (i.e. the ones that usually run for high ranking offices) are in their respective positions because they know what they’re doing. This is a monumental point. The fact that people will vote for someone simply because he or she is “different” is incredibly dangerous. One thing our societies must realize sooner rather than later is that when it comes to choosing our leaders, different does not necessarily equal better.

One way these new populist candidates are different is how they entertain their constituents. Trump was a master entertainer during his presidential campaign which is most likely why he won the Presidency. The main tactic he used to entertain voters was to insult his opponents, starting with fellow Republicans seeking the nomination then his main opponent, Hillary Clinton. Trump would insult his opponents for trivial things that had nothing to do with policy or issues concerning the country. He made fun of the way John Kasich eats saying “Did you see him? He has a news conference, all the time when he’s eating. I have never seen a human being eat in such a disgusting fashion,” (Rupar). He also assigned nicknames to his opponents such as “Little Marco” and “Lyin’ Ted” for Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, respectively (Rupar). Though these insults and shenanigans may have made people laugh and made people watch the debates, there is nothing about them that would warrant someone voting for Trump. Duterte would also try to entertain his constituents with insults. He frequently called his opponents “idiots” and “imbeciles” while campaigning. He also referred to other world leaders as stupid and weak. Duterte seemed to try to make his voters laugh by using a type of insult comedy during his campaign, further supporting the fact that these populist candidates intentionally try to be entertaining to gain votes.

Another way these populist candidates gain support is by being divisive and polarizing. They will usually select a majority group in a society, align their beliefs with the majority and then alienate the minority. In the past, southern Democrats would do this in the US. This strategy is highlighted in Robert Jones’s article “How Trump Remixed the Republican ‘Southern Strategy’” where he explains how being divisive has helped politicians win in the past and how it helped Trump win now. Jones says that Trump was able to identify a group that dominated the majority of the US, which were middle class whites, and pander to them. In pandering to them Trump would speak very plainly and he would throw political correctness out the window, sometimes saying things that could be considered borderline racist. He would also make promises that mattered almost exclusively to them, such as bringing back factory/manufacturing jobs to the US and being stricter on immigration. In pandering to this group, he alienated minorities because of his lack of awareness and empathy for their situations. By saying all the right things to please a majority group he was able to win the Presidency but in doing so, he divided the country. Boris Johnson also divided his constituents and sided with the majority while he was mayor of London. Johnson would repeatedly pander to middle class whites (the majority population in London) while almost ignoring or alienating issues that minority groups were concerned with. By siding with the majority he was able to keep up his popularity and eventually raise his political status. 

 Voters across the world have also become increasingly frustrated with the usual political rhetoric that candidates use while running for office. This new wave of populist candidates has perfected the art of speaking plainly and relating with the middle and lower classes with their speech. They have an incredible knack for making very complex political and social issues sound very black and white, which makes people who are otherwise uninformed feel as though they are. These politicians break down very complex issues then choose the side of the argument where the majority lies. A perfect example of this is where Trump referred to illegal immigrants from Mexico as “bad hombres” to give the allusion that immigration from Mexico must be halted because the people that come from there are bad (Salama). Since then, people have hopped on the anti-immigration bandwagon which has led to actual legislation such as Trump’s infamous “Muslim ban” which barred travel from certain countries with a predominately Muslim population. The point of bringing this all up is that when people don’t take into consideration the complexity of large issues (such as immigration), they can be easily persuaded by candidates that simplify the issues for them. To combat this, people must make it a point to educate themselves on the big issues that dominate the political field in their respective countries. 

Peter Ross Ranges’ article “The theory of political leadership that Donald Trump shares with Adolf Hitler”, from the Washington Post mirrors my concern with Trump and other populist candidates’ tactics. In this article, Range points out the interesting concept that both Trump and Hitler based their messages on trust when he says “Leading up to his ‘I alone’ moment at last week’s convention was a long string of assertions by Trump that we just have to trust him — trust him to solve problems”. They both ask the people of their respective countries to trust them to fix their problems and they hint at the fact that they alone can fix whatever the problems might be. The concept of “trust” is what frightens me about the general state of our country. The fact that people have been convinced to hand their fate over to a person whose best reason for asking for it is “Trust me.” And “I can fix it.” is quite disconcerting. Range says that this concept of trust led to each man gaining enough followers for them the claim that they alone could fix their nation’s problems which is where the real danger comes in. If people can be convinced that only one person could solve all of their problems, then complete control would eventually be handed to that person, as it was with Hitler. The fact that people are willing to vote for a person that suggests things like this, even though we have an example to warn us why that isn’t wise, is what worries me and seems to worry Range.

Another thing a populist candidate like Trump would do is prey upon peoples’ fears to gain support, promising that he will provide protection. Today, in the US, people have a general sense that the United States is becoming weaker and Donald Trump took advantage of that with his “Make America Great Again” mission statement. There is no strategy offered to go along with his mission of making America great again yet the fact that he said he would do so was enough for the American public to elect him to the presidency. Trump warned people that things were terrible in the US and without him it would continue to trend in a downward spiral, but with him the US would reclaim its former glory. The sentiment that “we were the best before so we’re entitled to be the best again” that Trump seems to have instilled is a dangerous one in that it creates a sense of entitlement among citizens and also creates a dangerous level of nationalism that breeds discrimination and intolerance.

Another reason for the rise of populist politicians is the general public’s newfound dislike for political correctness. For some reason, conservative minded individuals around the globe have started to stray away from political correctness in speech, writing, and media. Politicians such as Trump and Duterte have mastered pandering to these anti-politically correct constituents. They will routinely make fun of their opponents for things that have nothing to do with policy. They will also accuse the media of being too politically correct and reporting false news in favor of being politically correct. They will also be somewhat racially insensitive and when they are called out, they will accuse their accuser of being politically correct. People seem to have become fed up with being sensitive to peoples’ feelings-- which is pretty disconcerting-- and these politicians play right into these sentiments. 

Overall, these candidates are very polarizing; they seem to split the opinions of whatever nation they appear in and it seems as though they are always on the side of the majority. The fact that they align themselves with the majority ensures that they will win their respective elections and will in turn worry the minorities of whatever nation that they are in. These candidates will continue to gain support until the traditional political establishment changes their strategies during campaigns. The thing about these populist candidates that is worrisome is the fact that they are able to be elected without any regard to their experience or ability to lead a country. The purpose of this essay is to shed light in some of their strategies and to encourage people to vote for candidates based on their ability to lead rather than their ability to speak plainly or be entertaining. Being educated is the most important part of preparing for the voting process. Make sure that you, as a voter, take initiative to educate yourself on the sentiments of candidates and the strategies that they will use to coerce you. If we elect leaders based on their merits rather than their ability to entertain and make us laugh, our nations will progress in the right directions rather than into turmoil, so it is my hope that people will educate themselves further before going to the polls.
