My understanding of populism is that it's neither good or bad. Scholars disagree on the correct terminology, and the word has different meanings and connotations in the US and Europe and has changed course throughout the centuries.
As far as I can tell, the struggle between the populist politics of the popular politician talking "for the little guy" against the establishment was a fight fought back in rome. As the Elite struggled for power, the populist politicians who was favored by the people who wanted land reform, redistribution of grain and have their interest listened to in the senate, was countered by the conservative movement;
The Populārēs ("favouring the people", singular populāris) were a grouping in the late Roman Republic which favoured the cause of the plebeians (the commoners), particularly the urban poor. It supported laws regarding the provision of a grain dole for the poor by the state at a subsidised price. It wanted reforms which helped the poor, particularly land redistribution for the poor to farm and debt relief. At times it also supported the extension of Roman citizenship to Rome's Italic allies. A popularis was a politician who supported this faction. The populares are regarded in modern scholarship as in opposition to the optimates, who are identified with the conservative interests of the patricians (the aristocracy) and supported the senate, which represented its interests.
Couldn't you say that when a single-issue political party runs on abolishing slavery or giving womens rights to votes or fighting for worker rights or abortion, that that is a populist movement? You have a status quo where something is illegal, but the status quo changes its tune once enough people become in favor of the populist ideas.
With tentpole parties like the Democrats and Republicans, they've historically co-opted populist third party ideas once they got traction. The populists get their main single-issue causes represented by the establishment, and the tentpole party gets a lot of new people.
That essentially was the story of Bernie Sanders and the Democrats. Bernie Sanders has a movement and he uses that movement to squeeze the agenda. He doesn't give in and keep his bargaining chips close to his chest. Even when he cannot win he approaches the Democratic party and negotiates concessions. What can they give Bernie in terms of what he wants in favor of his support and the support of his voters? That's classical populist politics. That is how politicians exercise power and exercise influence.
It's why the first line of defense on both the republican and democratic side is always to wave the same air of: "unity, fall in line, vote for least worst party or we're doomed". And normally it works. Normally people will set aside their differences to not let the other side win- Until, like in 2016 when too many people have lost complete faith in the system and wanted to see the system burn.
So this struggle between the populist and status quo is as old as republics themselves. Because we human beings base our civilizations on hierarchy; meaning that some people are below others, and some people have more than others, and some people have more power than others, we seem destined to have this duality play out. Class warfare is impossible because we cannot be equal. It's simply beyond our comprehension or understanding, because greed, corruption and tunnel vision seems to cloud all attempts at equalizing. Flat structured societies to abolish classes have all failed. We might not like capitalism, but nobody has suggested any real alternative to it.
[from article]"The problem is that a lot of data suggests that countries with more robust welfare states tend to have stronger far-right movements. Providing white voters with higher levels of economic security does not tamp down their anxieties about race and immigration or, more precisely, it doesnt do it powerfully enough. For some, it frees them to worry less about what its in their wallet and more about who may be moving into their neighborhoods or competing with them for jobs"
Is there a cause and correlation here? Without having looked into it specifically it seems self evident to me that many many countries with no real solid welfare state is deeply racist and discriminatory as well.
If it is the case that countries with robust welfare states have stronger far-right movements, might simply be a side effect of countries with strong welfare states tend to be countries with more opportunity and wealth?
I absolutely think that as long as there been borders- national states, that there has been a dislike of outsiders. Too many foreigners of any group is disliked. People who live in a place don't want that place being taken over. That doesn't mean if it's someone different coming into your village with new ideas or differences, or on the larger scale.
America has always tried to obstruct the movement of a mass amount of certain people. Benjamin Franklin was famous for thinking that there was way too many Germans. It was too many one of one specific group. At other times it was too many Irish, too many Chinese, too many Japanese, too many Italians.
And the fear has changed in dimension as well. Today the west is afraid of terrorists, but 50 years ago it was communists. 100 years ago, it feared anarchists. It was a massive worry. And going further back to the early beginning of the United States, even the french revolution and its call for liberty was seen as a threat to the American way of life that didn't want to have anything to do with the extremism of Europe and its monarchies.
So I don't think that you can blame far-right strength movement on the idea that having a welfare state is a breeding ground for strong far-right movements. Some of the worst shitshows with regards to welfare have some of the most hostile far-right movements.
In Europe it is clear- Just like it was at the dawn of fascism that economic depression makes people everywhere more conservative. It's when countries are doing bad that they become conservative. It's when people are suffering they go from "please don't eat too much of our pie to" too "get the fuck out of my country before you and your kin destroys everything we've build".
Far-right sentiments in Europe has grown since the late 90s, but it's not until 2008 at the recession (and the aftermath) that millions and millions of people had their lives, businesses and careers ruined in a way that didn't give anybody justice. This turned into anger and a populist idea that banks escape the law and control a lot of the worlds government through lobbying. Besides Island, virtually no countries managed to put irresponsible bankers, hedgefund creditors or real estate agencies into court for misuse, greed and incompetence.
Immigrants and minorities ALWAYS feel the wrath when things go bad. They are always the first to take the blame. People on the bottom cannot defend themselves and they are seen as taking up the most resources. from homeless, to alcoholics and abusers, to single mothers, to welfare recipients- all of those people are perceived as being bootstrap lacking lazy people.