Joeri Schasfoort tackles a demographic earthquake that is reshaping Western democracies: the sharp political divergence between young men and young women. While most analysis fixates on the usual suspects of polarization, Schasfoort brings a crucial, data-driven distinction to the table, arguing that we cannot understand the rise of populism without separating the economic drivers of the left from the cultural anxieties fueling the right. This is not just a story about who is voting for whom; it is a warning about how economic insecurity and social status are being weaponized by opposing political forces.
Redefining the Battlefield
The piece begins by dismantling the lazy assumption that all populists are the same. Schasfoort writes, "strikingly in the 1990s, social scientists typically considered populism a Latin American phenomena," yet today, support for populist parties in Europe has surged from 10% to around 30%. He correctly identifies that to understand the current moment, we must move beyond vague labels. The core of his argument rests on a rigorous, three-part definition: populism is the struggle between "the people and the elite establishment." However, he insists that the flavor of that struggle differs wildly depending on the side of the aisle.
Schasfoort explains that while left-wing populists like Bernie Sanders focus on economic redistribution, far-right movements are defined by two specific pillars: nativism and strict social ordering. He notes that the current executive branch in the US has exemplified this shift, where "foreign students that protests on US campuses are deported" and funding for universities with diversity policies is frozen. This is a sharp, necessary distinction. By separating the economic grievances of the left from the identity-based grievances of the right, Schasfoort avoids the trap of painting all populists as merely "anti-establishment." He argues that while both sides simplify complex issues, the far-right specifically thrives on the belief that "the state should be purely inhabited by the group that already lives there."
"Populism is not a new phenomena... on average populist governments both from the left and right have two negative effects on the countries that they govern."
This framing is effective because it grounds the discussion in historical data rather than partisan outrage. Schasfoort cites studies showing that populist leaders are four times more likely to trigger democratic backsliding and tend to stay in office much longer than their non-populist counterparts. The evidence is sobering: whether it is a left-wing leader in Argentina or a right-wing leader in Hungary, the tendency to erode checks and balances is a consistent pattern.
The Economic Trap
The commentary then pivots to the economic consequences, a section where Schasfoort's reliance on historical comparison is particularly strong. He references a long-term study comparing populist regimes to "doppelganger countries"—artificial constructs of similar nations that did not elect populists. The findings are stark: "on average, all populists reduce economic growth, where left-wing populist do slightly worse than right-wing populists." This challenges the romanticized view that populism is a necessary corrective to elite stagnation.
However, Schasfoort is careful not to declare doom as inevitable. He points out that leaders like Hungary's Viktor Orbán and Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu have seen solid economic growth, proving that populism is a "risky bet" rather than a guaranteed catastrophe. Critics might note that attributing economic success or failure solely to the populist label can obscure other factors, such as global commodity prices or regional trade dynamics. Yet, the broader trend remains clear: populism often delivers on its promise of simplicity but fails on the complexity of governance.
The Gender Divide and the Gen-Z Shift
The most compelling section of the piece addresses the recent, sharp divergence in Gen-Z voting patterns. Schasfoort argues that while economic insecurity is the universal engine of populism, the type of insecurity differs by gender. For young women, the threat is economic and social, driving them toward the populist left. For young men, the driver is a loss of status. He writes, "far-right populist parties tend to thrive with demographics that previously had relatively high social status, which then declined."
He identifies three specific factors supercharging this trend among young men: a backlash against what they perceive as extreme feminist narratives in media, a crisis of loneliness, and falling behind women in educational attainment. Schasfoort observes that "young men are increasingly falling behind young women when it comes to education, which brings, let's be honest, considerable social status." This is a crucial insight. It suggests that the rise of the far right among young men is not just about economics, but about a perceived erosion of their traditional role in society.
"Until then, parties that strongly believe in a solution that may be oversimplified, such as banning immigration, will likely become more and more popular also with the Gen Z."
The author links this status anxiety to the algorithmic nature of modern media, where "polarizing messages tend to get far more clicks than nuanced ones." He notes how figures like the former US executive branch leader dominated the podcast space, a medium particularly popular with young men. This analysis holds up well against current trends, though one could argue that the role of online radicalization is more complex than just a reaction to educational gaps. Still, the connection between declining status and the allure of authoritarian solutions is a powerful narrative thread.
Bottom Line
Schasfoort's strongest contribution is his refusal to conflate left-wing and right-wing populism, offering a clear framework for why young men and women are fleeing the center in opposite directions. His argument that the solution lies in structural economic fixes—"build more houses to get house prices down"—is logically sound but politically difficult. The piece's biggest vulnerability is its reliance on historical averages, which may not fully capture the unique, rapid-fire nature of the current digital information ecosystem. Ultimately, the reader is left with a clear verdict: ignoring the specific, gendered roots of this polarization will only guarantee its continuation.