Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
The dangers of political populism
The dangers of political populism
Jan 21, 2026 11:10 PM

Reason doesn’t seem to have had a significant influence in the election thus far. Populism, on the other hand, has been having a good run. Despite Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders appealing to very different groups and offering seemingly different platforms, they’re both populists. Acton’s director of research, Samuel Gregg, has noticed a striking similarity between the populist playbook Trump and Sanders use and the rhetoric that Alexander Hamilton spoke out against in the 1780s.

Writing for The Stream, Gregg warns that “Populism endangers liberty:”

To be sure, populism is often fueled by legitimate dissatisfaction with the status quo. Americans have good reason to be furious with their political and economic leaders, especially those who rarely venture outside the New York-Washington DC axis. When Sanders shouts that the economic system is rigged and Trump thunders against an out-of-touch political class, they have — as no less than Charles Koch (who’s very critical of both men’s economic policies) has affirmed—a point.

One problem, however, with Trump-Sanders-like populist rhetoric and policies is that they undermine liberty. Why? Because populists don’t like those guarantees of freedom — such as the separation of powers, due process, and rule of law — that might obstruct realization of their goals. That’s why Sanders tweeted that “any Supreme Court nominee of mine will make overturning Citizens United one of their first decisions,” and Trump has claimed that he’ll do things which the president has no constitutional authority to do.

Criticism of populism — and a desire to resist its corroding effects on freedom — was a central theme of the life and thought of someone else who, like Sanders and Trump, spent much of his life in New York. Alexander Hamilton is perhaps best known for giving America the financial architecture that allowed the United States to transform itself into a dynamic, capital-intensive economy. But he was also deeply skeptical of populism, seeing it as a fast road to breaking the bonds that limited government power.

After the Revolutionary War, Hamilton defended Tories who were at risk of being banished or losing property to the whims of politicians in New York. While the English had not exactly acted as saints during their occupation of New York, Hamilton feared the precedent that would be set by punishing an entire group of people without fair legal proceedings. This position made him unpopular with the politicians of the time, who catered their platforms and promises to the fickle wishes of voters, but ultimately behooved the nation. What we want in the short term isn’t necessarily a good idea individually and almost certainly isn’t a good idea for the nation as a whole in the long term. A constitutional republic is intentionally created in order to restrain these ever changing emotions in order to keep liberty secure.

Voters today would do well to take in Hamilton’s wisdom:

Hamilton understood that human beings can be passionate, even fickle, and don’t always see what’s in their long-term interest. Hence, one of the responsibilities of politicians in constitutional democracies is to temper this state of affairs by thinking about the mon good and then making the case to their fellow citizens. It isn’t easy. Even the strongest, most reasonable arguments often won’t be enough to counter the hysteria pedaled by populists. In an age, however, in which populism increasingly prevails in the American public square, we desperately need many more Alexander Hamiltons and far fewer Donald Trumps and Bernie Sanders.

Read “Alexander Hamilton’s Warning to Fans of Trump and Sanders: Populism Endangers Liberty” in its entirety at The Stream.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Journal of Religion and Business Ethics
The latest issue of the newly launched Journal of Religion and Business Ethics is now available (vol. 1, no. 2). Check out the contents at their website. From the journal’s about page: “The Journal of Religion and Business Ethics is a peer-reviewed journal that examines the ethical and religious issues that arise in the modern business setting. While much attention has been given to the philosophical treatment of business ethics, this is the first journal to address the more inclusive...
Envy: A Deadly (Economic) Sin
Victor Claar, Acton University lecturer and professor of economics at Henderson State University, will give a talk tonight in Washington, D.C., hosted by AEI, “Grieving the Good of Others: Envy and Economics.” If you are in the area, you are encouraged to attend and hear Dr. Claar as well as two respondents discuss the topic of envy and its moral and economic consequences. Here’s a description of the event: Critics of capitalism often argue that this economic system is irretrievably...
A Lesson from Michigan: Time to End Crony Unionism
In this week’s Acton Commentary, I take a look at the prospects of “right-to-work” legislation in Michigan, “A Lesson from Michigan: Time to End Crony Unionism.” One of the things that disturbs me the most about what I call “crony unionism” is the hand-in-glove relationship between the labor unions and big government. We have the same kind of special pleading and rent seeking in this system as we do in crony capitalism, but the labor unions enjoy such special protection...
Explaining the New Democratic Logo
“The new Democratic logo is so bad that the intellectual rot in the official announcement went largely unnoticed.” The rest of my piece is here at The American Spectator. ...
The Daily Show Takes on a Union
The Daily Show exposes some union hypocrisy (HT). In the words of the union local head, es down to greed”: ...
Rev. Sirico: Respect others’ rights, but also their values
A new column by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, president and co-founder of the Acton Institute, was published today in the Detroit News. This column will also be linked in tomorrow’s Acton News & Commentary. Sign up for the free weekly Acton newsletter here. +++++++++ Faith and policy: Respect others’ rights, but also their values FATHER ROBERT SIRICO If such an award were to be given for the Most Contentious Religious Story of 2010, the two main contenders would undoubtedly be...
The Politics of Crony Unionism
Last week’s Acton Commentary and blog post focused on my claims about “crony unionism” and how the intimate relationship between Big Labor and Big Government corrupt both. Here’s another instance of the kinds of gross conflicts of interest produced by this relationship: It’s hard to see this as anything but partisan pandering on the part of the largest public sector union, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Meanwhile, the Washington Post asks, “Was politics behind the...
Work as if It Mattered
The conversations over the last few weeks here on work have raised a couple of questions. In the context of criticisms on the perspectives on work articulated by Lester DeKoster and defended by menter John E. asks, “…what is it that you hope readers will change in their lives, and why?” I want to change people’s view of their work. I want them to see how it has value not simply as a means to some other end, but in...
Radio Free Acton: The Stewardship of Art, Part 2
Last week, we posted part 1 of our podcast on the proper Christian stewardship of art; for those who have been waiting for the conclusion, we’re happy to present part 2. David Michael Phelps continues to lead the discussion between Professors Nathan Jacobs and Calvin Seerveld, who previously debated this topic in the Controversy section of our Journal of Markets & Morality. The first portion of that exchange is available at the link for part 1; the remainder of the...
Mandating Monolithic Medicine
Among the warnings sounded as the Democratic health care reform bill was being debated was that the federal insurance mandate included in the bill—even though not national health care per se—would essentially give the federal government control of the insurance industry. The reason: If everyone is forced to buy insurance, then the government must deem what sort of insurance qualifies as adequate to meet the mandate. This piece of Obamacare promises to turn every medical procedure into a major political...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved