If there's a single global through line to the politics of the last decade, that through line is the continuing fight over something called, by both its supporters and opponents, "populism."
Donald Trump (the US). Narendra Modi (India). Viktor Orban (Hungary). Giorgia Meloni (Italy). Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil). Boris Johnson (the United Kingdom). A cast of thousands, a few still enjoying their 15 minutes and then some, many others at least temporarily out of the limelight.
The negative reactions, usually postured as defenses of "liberalism and democracy" against "illiberalism and authoritarianism," are just as plentiful and, in places, at least marginally as successful ... but not quite so big on cults of personality.
Rather odd, don't you think? The "populists" pose as "the voice of the people" but center their efforts on backing individual leader figures, while their supposedly "elitist" opponents emphasize "the people" over particular representatives of same.
In reality, both sides are fake versions of "populism."
The core underlying claim of populism is this: There are two classes of people, the "exploitative elites" and the "righteous masses."
That claim is true as far as it goes. The falsehood --- or, being generous, error --- is in identification of those two classes.
Today's self-described populists identify the exploitative elites as those who either belong to, or pretend to support, particular easily scapegoated "out-groups" like racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual minorities. They identify the righteous masses as whoever falls for the scapegoating and flocks to Dear Leader's banner.
Today's self-described anti-populists identify the exploitative elites as the populists, whom they also identify with easily scapegoated "out-groups," especially anyone who has more money than you. They identify the righteous masses as whoever falls for the scapegoating and flocks to the Leader Party's banner.
In reality the two classes --- as identified in Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer's "libertarian class theory" in the 19th century --- are the productive class (everyone who earns a living by producing and exchanging valuable goods and services --- the righteous masses) and the political class (the exploitative elite who use government to exercise power and parasitically rake off a portion of the wealth the righteous masses produce).
Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, as members of the US political class, have a lot more in common with each other than either has in common with the average American.
Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi, as members of India's political class, have a lot more in common with each other than either has in common with the average Indian.
And so on, and so forth.
So why the fake "populist" versus fake populist "anti-populist" posturing?
Because it WORKS. Any given political class faction may be on top or in waiting to get back on top at any given time, but those factions cooperate to ensure that the productive class remains in thrall to their various schemes and scams.
Politics is about power.
Realpolitik is about acting to maintain power, moral and ethical considerations be damned.
Real populism --- libertarianism --- rejects political power, not just one political class faction.