What can history tell us about populism today? And what can today’s populism theory tell us about historical movements or moments? Classic cases of populism, such as Peronism and the American Populists, are often swept aside in today’s discussions of “populism” in media, politics, and academia alike. Perhaps today’s “populism” has nothing to do with the “populism” of the past – or does it?
HEPP is holding an international symposium to discuss these issues on 3-4 November at the University of Helsinki’s Faculty of Social Sciences. Our two keynotes, Charles Postel and Sabrina Morán, will bring us to the United States and Argentina (respectively) in their explorations of how the present and the past intertwine in political movements today that are often described as populist (see below for more information on their keynote speeches). Other confirmed speakers include Allan Dreyer Hansen (Roskilde University) and Emilia Palonen – the leader of HEPPsinki and main organizer of this symposium.
Our Call for Papers is open until 1 October 2025. We will inform applicants about our selection on 6 October 2025. You can find the full CfP and submit your abstract HERE or at the link below.
This event is onsite only and we cannot provide funding for travel or accommodation.
This event is funded by the European Union, through the CO3 Horizon Europe project. Any views expressed here only represent the views of the speakers and do not reflect the official views of the EU.
The Trump Presidency: Roots, Symbols, and Models of Power
The Trump administration is consolidating authoritarian powers. It has forced universities, law firms, media corporations, museums and cultural institutions to "bend the knee" to its will. It has unleashed the Justice Department to exact retribution against Trump's personal enemies. It has dispatched agents of ICE and other masked federal police to terrorize immigrant communities, beating, arresting, and kidnapping both documented and undocumented immigrants (and citizens). It has deployed the armed forces to occupy Los Angeles and Washington, DC. It has shredded civil rights protections for Black Americans and other people of color, as well as LGBTQ+ people, making the trans community a special target. It has fired hundreds of thousands of federal workers and stripped most of the rest of union protections in the biggest assault on labor rights in modern history. It has usurped the powers of Congress and defied the courts in dismantling federal protections of consumers, students, the poor, the environment, public health, and the global trading system. All of this has been directed towards the aggrandizement of power -- of Trump and his Maga movement, and the accumulation of Trump's personal wealth.
Many commentators and social scientists have observed that Trump and Maga are making use of the "authoritarian playbook." The main reference here is Victor Orbán's Hungary, and other contemporary models of authoritarianism. Pundits and historians have also drawn parallels with the fascist movements of the 1920s and 1930s. Still, it is essential to consider that the United States has its own anti-democratic and authoritarian history. Much of this is rooted in the history of Black slavery and the expropriation of the Native Peoples, as well as in the specifics of the formation of corporate power and prerogatives in the United States. Trump relies on social media and other forms of communication, but his main symbols of authority and power have deep roots in American political culture.
This leads to multiple questions:
To what extent are Trump and Maga a uniquely American phenomenon?
How do they fit into the trans-Atlantic and global models or patterns?
What are the symbols of power that sustain Trump and Maga?
Do Trump and Maga represent continuity or rupture in the American trajectory?
What do the answers to these questions mean for Europe and the world?
Charles Postel is a professor of history at San Francisco State University. His research focuses on the political ideas of social movements, with much of his work devoted to the farmer and labor movements of the post-Civil War United States that culminated in the Populist upheaval against corporate power in the 1890s. His research has also focused on the anti-Populist political tradition in the United States, and conservative and right-wing movements from the McKinley campaign of 1896 to the Tea Party and MAGA movements of the twenty-first century.
In the name of the people: “Populism” and political polarization in contemporary Argentina
The history of Argentina has been marked by what is now known as polarization: the division of national politics into two antagonistic camps, quasi-enemies, who identify each other as a threat to the existing order in general, and to democracy in particular. The two poles have always appeared as the expression of opposition between mutually exclusive political identities: civilization and barbarism, Unitarians and Federalists, liberals and nationalists, Peronism and anti-Peronism, Kirchnerism and anti-Kirchnerism. Since the works of Gino Germani onwards, and especially since the publication of Ernesto Laclau's La razón populista (On Populist Reason), this antagonistic form of politics has been labeled populism. Therefore, the polarization that is a central concern in Western democracies in crisis in the 21st century is not a novelty in Argentina, but rather a characteristic feature of its political dynamics. However, Javier Milei's government reopens the debate on populism and polarization: do they refer to the same phenomenon? What do these categories tell us about the transformations of the present? Does the concept of populism allow us to understand these processes? And, conversely, how do historical phenomena affect the theory of populism?
This work aims to problematize the Argentinian governments labeled as left and right populists (Kirchnerist and libertarian) considering Laclau's theory on populism. From the perspective of the history of concepts, we will seek to examine the relationship between historical cases and populism theory, focusing on its relevance for understanding the challenge that political polarization poses to contemporary democracies.
Sabrina Morán is a researcher at CONICET and the Instituto Gino Germany at the University of Buenos Aires. She has worked on populism for several years, addressing its relationship with republicanism and democracy in Argentina. Her approach is grounded in conceptual history and political identities, and her current research examines epistemological problems related to the definition of populism in global studies. She participates in research teams led by specialists in the subject, such as Dr. Gerardo Aboy Carlés (UNSAM-CONICET-Argentina), Dr. Julián Melo (UNSAM-CONICET-Argentina), and Dr. Javier Franzé (UCM-Madrid-Spain).