When Populists Say They Represent “the People,” Do They Really?

Political rhetoric, electoral support, and public interest are not the same thing

In the previous article published here at the end of July, 2026, “Why Are Both Major U.S. Parties Becoming More Populist?”, we explored a basic feature of populism: it is neither exclusively left-wing nor right-wing. Donald Trump’s right-wing populism and Bernie Sanders’ left-wing populism may differ dramatically in their policies, but they share an important political message. Both emphasize a conflict between ordinary people and powerful elites, while promising to return political power to “the people.”

That raises an obvious question.

If a politician repeatedly claims to represent ordinary people, does that mean the politician actually represents their interests?

The answer is more complicated than it may seem.

“Representing the People” Is First a Political Claim

One distinction is essential to understanding populism: who politicians say they represent and who ultimately benefits from their policies are two different questions.

Donald Trump provides a clear example.

From “Make America Great Again” and “Drain the Swamp” to his repeated attacks on the Washington establishment, federal bureaucracy, mainstream media, and global elites, Trump has built a consistent political narrative: ordinary Americans have been ignored by an establishment that no longer represents them, and he will return power to the people.

That is classic populist rhetoric.

But when political scientists describe Trump as a populist, they are not concluding that he actually represents “the people.” They are describing the way he frames politics: who counts as the people, who belongs to the elite, and why the two are supposedly in conflict.

The same distinction applies to left-wing populism.

Bernie Sanders has spent decades criticizing billionaires, Wall Street, and large corporations while emphasizing the interests of workers and ordinary families. That, too, creates a political narrative of “the people versus the elite.”

Whether the policies advocated by either politician actually benefit the people they claim to represent is a separate question.

Winning Millions of Votes Does Not Mean Representing Everyone

There is another common source of confusion.

If a politician wins tens of millions of votes—or wins a national election—does that prove that the politician represents “the people”?

In a democracy, winning an election certainly provides a legitimate mandate to govern. But that is not quite the same as claiming to embody the interests or will of “the people” as a whole.

Modern societies do not contain a single population with identical interests.

A factory worker, a small-business owner, a university professor, a retiree, and a young person entering the workforce are all part of the same country. Yet they may have very different interests and opinions about taxes, healthcare, housing, trade, immigration, and social programs.

Even people who vote for the same candidate may do so for entirely different reasons.

One voter may care primarily about the economy. Another may vote based on immigration. A third may be motivated by cultural issues. Someone else may simply dislike the opposing candidate.

Elections determine who has the authority to govern. They do not necessarily establish that one politician has become the embodiment of a single, unified “will of the people.”

This is an important distinction between representative democracy and populism.

Democratic institutions assume that society contains competing interests. Populism tends to simplify that complexity into two broad camps: “the people” and “the elite.”

The Better Test Is What Happens After Policies Are Implemented

If we want to know whether a politician actually advances the interests of ordinary people, campaign speeches and slogans are not enough.

Policies and their consequences matter more.

After a tax cut, which income groups receive most of the benefits?

When tariffs are raised, which industries gain protection, and which businesses and consumers face higher costs?

When the minimum wage increases, what happens to workers’ incomes, and what costs do employers absorb?

When governments expand healthcare or housing assistance, who receives the benefits, and who ultimately pays for them?

These questions are often more useful than simply asking whether a politician is “on the side of the people.”

Public policy rarely produces only winners and no losers.

A policy designed to protect manufacturing may help certain factories and workers while increasing costs for companies that depend on imported materials. Rent controls may provide relief to existing tenants while also affecting housing investment and future supply. Higher taxes on wealthy households may generate additional public revenue while also influencing investment decisions.

Determining whether a policy serves “the people,” therefore, requires examining actual outcomes rather than political slogans.

The Power of Populism Comes From Simplicity

Why, then, is the claim “I represent the people” so politically powerful?

Part of the answer is that modern societies are extraordinarily complicated.

Why is housing becoming more expensive? Interest rates, land-use rules, construction costs, population growth, and local government policies may all play a role.

Why have manufacturing jobs disappeared from some communities? Automation, global trade, corporate decisions, and labor costs may all contribute.

Why is healthcare so expensive? The answer involves insurers, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, government programs, employers, and consumers.

None of these problems can easily be explained in one sentence.

Populism offers a much simpler explanation:

The system is failing because powerful elites are no longer acting in the interests of ordinary people.

That explanation is not necessarily entirely wrong. Modern societies do experience concentrations of political and economic power. Interest groups can influence government, and some communities can remain poorly represented for long periods of time.

But when every complicated problem is explained as a struggle between “the people” and “the elite,” policy disagreements can gradually become judgments about identity: Who belongs to the people, and who stands against them?

That is both the political strength and the potential danger of populism.

In a Democracy, No One Owns “the People”

Populism often raises a legitimate and important question: Are political institutions actually listening to ordinary citizens?

Democratic societies should take that question seriously.

But representative democracy does not answer it by searching for a leader who can perfectly embody “the people.”

It begins from a different assumption: people have different interests, values, and experiences. That is why democracies rely on elections, legislatures, courts, the media, local governments, civic organizations, and other institutions through which those competing interests can be expressed, negotiated, and sometimes compromised.

So when deciding whether a politician truly represents ordinary citizens, the most useful question is not how often that politician invokes “the people,” nor simply how many votes the politician received.

A better question is: What policies followed? Who benefited? Who bore the costs? And did the political system continue to allow people with different interests to make their voices heard?

That may be one of the most important lessons in understanding populism.

In a pluralistic society, no politician can simply claim to embody “the people.”

“The people” are never a single body with identical interests, values, and political preferences. Elections can give political leaders a democratic mandate to exercise power on behalf of citizens, but no politician can monopolize the definition of “the people,” much less equate his or her own political agenda with “the will of the people.”

The central challenge of democracy is not to discover some single, authentic “will of the people.” It is to find peaceful, institutional ways to manage the disagreements that inevitably exist among the people themselves.

By Voice in Between