The Long Grift of Populism: From Rome’s Plebs To Today’s Careerist Candidates

Working-Class Costume Politics Is When Biography Replaces Belief

Democraps

If you can’t count on Bernie to suss out working class candidates, who can you trust that task to? (Certainly no one in the U.K.’s New Labour disaster of a party!) In politics, it’s aways important to remember that a compelling personal story or class appeal can mask ambition— or lead to co-optation— rather than revolutionary change. In late Republican Rome, politicians known as the populares styled themselves as advocates of the people— especially the plebeians— employing populist tactics to bypass the elite Senate. The Gracchi brothers, Tiberius and Gaius, famously proposed sweeping reforms: redistributing land and extending citizenship to migrants, posing a direct challenge to entrenched aristocratic power. But populares was less an ideological faction and more a political style: a tool for ambitious individuals to curry favor with mass assemblies when aristocratic channels failed them. Notably, figures like Julius Caesar donned popularis rhetoric while dazzling politically— and eventually consolidating power

While less documented, similar patterns recur in medieval and early modern politics. Populist figures— from rebel leaders to local demagogues— would rally underclass support, only to abandon radical politics upon gaining power, aligning with the elite or accepting titles. The cycle of upward mobility subverting class-based advocacy persisted. More recently, in our on lifetimes, politicians with working-class upbringings have intermittently entered office— some genuinely rooted in labor causes, others adopting a working-class persona as a campaign brand. Access to education and power structures often shifted their priorities, revealing a pattern: biography becomes branding. Today’s political playbook makes it easier than ever to cultivate that narrative— even if the substance behind it is… thin.

Annie Karni surveyed the field a bit yesterday, her coverage highlighting a surge of Democratic candidates foregrounding their blue-collar roots, including what the Washington Post calls the “rugged guy” candidates— people like Dan Osborn (steamfitter, independent in Nebraska), Graham Platner (oysterman and veteran in Maine) and Nathan Sage (mechanic in Iowa)— who lean into relatable backgrounds and populist messaging. I have a good feeling about Platner who is opposing oligarchic influence, championing Medicare for All and a minimum tax on billionaires. We already know and trust Dan Osborn, the independent union leader who nearly unseated Deb Fischer in 2024. I don’t know Sage enough yet. I participated in a group endorsement call with him and have an open-mind. He frames his campaign as an outsider populism during a moment of institutional decline.

Contrast these with other working-class style candidates like Rebecca Cooke and Bob Brooks, whose personal narratives— selling cows, firefighting— dominate coverage, but whose policy platforms remain vague, prompting skepticism about whether they offer genuine class-based politics or just appealing branding strategies.

Some, like Cooke and Brooks, are, to put it mildly, establishment-adjacent. Genuine progressive groups have been endorsing figures such as Donavan McKinney in Detroit, positioning class-rooted insurgents against aging establishment incumbents. This tension reflects a broader crisis: Democrats must win back the working-class— especially union members— but need the right faces and policies to do it. Groups like the Working Class Project aim to rebuild trust with voters who abandoned the party in recent cycles. Rhetorical populists like Cooke and Brooks may talk hardship but lack transformational policy commitments. Consultant-packaged populists can rise fast with branding, but often fall back into establishment logic. Substantive populists such as Platner, Sage, Osborn, McKinney, Randy Bryce, Emily Berge, Randy Villegas, Zach Shrewsbury,Travis Terrell… anchor their campaigns in clear progressive platforms, grassroots infrastructure and class consciousness— but face furious institutional resistance.

From the Gracchi invoking the plebs— and then paying with their lives— to Caesar molding reformist rhetoric into imperial power, the pattern is strikingly familiar. In modern politics, the “working-class hero” can be a Trojan Horse: a symbol of rebellion that transforms into an advocate— or beneficiary— of the system. The real question isn’t just who can talk like a lab technician or mechanic— but who will legislate like one.

If Democrats want to reclaim working-class trust and electoral success, 2026 presents a pivotal moment. They must discern between cosmetic populism and working-class authentic movement, amplifying the latter even when it’s riskier, less polished, or untested. When Democrats put forward candidates who wrap themselves in the banner of working-class struggle but abandon those commitments once in office, the damage goes far beyond one lost seat. It corrodes trust. Every time a so-called champion of the little guy pivots to corporate donors or shrugs at labor priorities, voters learn the same bitter lesson: “They’re all the same.” That cynicism drives disillusionment, suppresses turnout, and pushes working people toward the false promises of right-wing populists. If the party keeps elevating careerists in coveralls, the brand will remain toxic where it most needs repair— among the very voters it claims to fight for.

Even establishment apologist Ezra Klein asked “Have Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer distinguished themselves as able to win an argument? Are they going to hold the line as national parks close down, as federal employees are furloughed, if checks stop going out the door, if flights are delayed because air traffic controllers aren't getting paid? I don't know that they will. I am quite certain that this moment deserves real opposition— that Democrats, morally speaking, should not fund a government that Trump is turning into a tool of personal enrichment and power. But I am not certain that Democrats can win a shutdown— I am not certain that they have the leaders that they need. It is absolutely the case that Democrats could lose a shutdown, but whatever they're doing right now, it's not called winning.”

Electing GOP-lite Dems like Angie Craig or virtually anyone backed by Schumer, is bound to make matters worse for the party and the country.

UPDATE From Travis Terrell

This afternoon, Travis, the progressive populist running for Congress in southeast Iowa, had some advice for other candidates, suggesting that the ones “who show up at picket lines and protests only to hunt for cameras, nobody out there is going to remember your smile. What they remember is who stood in unity with them, who listened, and who actually fought beside them. So instead of posing like a working-class hero, try showing up the right way. Talk to the people you’re supposed to be fighting for. Stand with them, not in front of them. As someone who grew up on picket lines and in the crowds at protests, I can tell you: solidarity isn’t about you. It’s about the people who are out there risking everything for a better life.” Good advice. I hope he replaces the Trumpist incumbent next year. You can help make that happen here.