What do you think?
Rate this book
Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit and Authoritarian Populism
Authoritarian populist parties have advanced in many countries, and entered government in states as diverse as Austria, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and Switzerland. Even small parties can still shift the policy agenda, as demonstrated by UKIP's role in catalyzing Brexit. Drawing on new evidence, this book advances a general theory why the silent revolution in values triggered a backlash fuelling support for authoritarian-populist parties and leaders in the US and Europe. The conclusion highlights the dangers of this development and what could be done to mitigate the risks to liberal democracy.
554 pages, Hardcover
Published February 14, 2019
80 people are currently reading
1214 people want to read
About the author
Pippa Norris
68 books39 followersPippa Norris is Associate Director (Research), and Lecturer, John F. Kennedy School of Government, at Harvard University in the USA.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
November 1, 2020
An interesting, yet enjoyable read. I have some thoughts on the concept of cultural backlash and the book as a whole.
Firstly, as a Finn, the book felt more than a bit US-centric. Understandable, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't bother me.
Second, I feel the theory of cultural backlash doesn't work as broadly as it maybe is implied here. I'm referring to e.g. Bolsonaro's rise in Brazil. The theory certainly doesn't cover everything and definitely does not explain the aforementioned case.
Third, the opinions the authors have about Trump are made quite clear. I wasn't bothered by it, since I'm of the same opinion, but it raises the question about objectivity. Then again, I'm not an American, so I can't say I understand how it must feel, watching your country slowly descend into authoritarian populism.
In addition to all this, the term 'populist' was used quite freely with different politicians, which made me lift my eyebrows. This wide of a definition of the term 'populist' didn't sit right with me.
In conclusion. The book confirmed what I claim to already have known, but gave us all a new term: Cultural Backlash is a term that'll be widely criticised, considered and inspected in the future. I do recommend this book. It provides a satisfactory explanation for the rise of authoritarian populism in our times and gives us lots of new theories to think about.
I had some things I disagreed with, but overall, a great experience and a revolutionary book.
Firstly, as a Finn, the book felt more than a bit US-centric. Understandable, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't bother me.
Second, I feel the theory of cultural backlash doesn't work as broadly as it maybe is implied here. I'm referring to e.g. Bolsonaro's rise in Brazil. The theory certainly doesn't cover everything and definitely does not explain the aforementioned case.
Third, the opinions the authors have about Trump are made quite clear. I wasn't bothered by it, since I'm of the same opinion, but it raises the question about objectivity. Then again, I'm not an American, so I can't say I understand how it must feel, watching your country slowly descend into authoritarian populism.
In addition to all this, the term 'populist' was used quite freely with different politicians, which made me lift my eyebrows. This wide of a definition of the term 'populist' didn't sit right with me.
In conclusion. The book confirmed what I claim to already have known, but gave us all a new term: Cultural Backlash is a term that'll be widely criticised, considered and inspected in the future. I do recommend this book. It provides a satisfactory explanation for the rise of authoritarian populism in our times and gives us lots of new theories to think about.
I had some things I disagreed with, but overall, a great experience and a revolutionary book.
May 25, 2020
Great systematisation of what authoritarian populism is and why people support it.
Nothing exactly new, but the hard data is always good. The generational theory is the most interesting thing here. The writers propose a theory that the rise of authoritarian populist parties is due because older generations feel that their position of power is being undermined by women, minorities and deindustrialization. The younger generation does not feel the same, but they do not vote as much as the older generation, so for the time being the authoritarian populism is rising.
So the book is optimist and present the current rise of authoritarian populism as a passing phenomenon. When the younger generation of gen X:es and millennials get older they will vote for more liberal/progressive governments. This if economic conditions do not decline too much.
Nothing exactly new, but the hard data is always good. The generational theory is the most interesting thing here. The writers propose a theory that the rise of authoritarian populist parties is due because older generations feel that their position of power is being undermined by women, minorities and deindustrialization. The younger generation does not feel the same, but they do not vote as much as the older generation, so for the time being the authoritarian populism is rising.
So the book is optimist and present the current rise of authoritarian populism as a passing phenomenon. When the younger generation of gen X:es and millennials get older they will vote for more liberal/progressive governments. This if economic conditions do not decline too much.
April 2, 2022
The main thesis of the book and some of the statistics are flawed, as explained by the article below.
Schäfer, Armin. 2021. Cultural backlash? How (Not) to Explain the Rise of Authoritarian Populism. British Journal of Political Science. 1 - 17. doi:10.1017/S0007123421000363
Schäfer, Armin. 2021. Cultural backlash? How (Not) to Explain the Rise of Authoritarian Populism. British Journal of Political Science. 1 - 17. doi:10.1017/S0007123421000363
May 25, 2021
Key takeaway pro (nejen) české progresivní strany:
Mladší generace jsou jedna z příčin i řešení populismu.
Příčina: podle autorů jejich otevřené a tolerantní (post-materialist) názory generovaly autoritářský reflex, fenomén, kdy se hodnoty starších, konzervativnějších generací staly menšinovými. Ty se teď cítí ohroženy novými hodnotami a tíhnou k autoritářským vůdcům (my vs oni rétorika, zpátky-do-budoucnosti).
Řešení: post-materialist názory jsou v západních společnostech většinové. Jenže mladí lidé daleko míň volí. Cesta od populismu vede skrze intenzivní mobilizaci nevolící progresivní většiny.
Mladší generace jsou jedna z příčin i řešení populismu.
Příčina: podle autorů jejich otevřené a tolerantní (post-materialist) názory generovaly autoritářský reflex, fenomén, kdy se hodnoty starších, konzervativnějších generací staly menšinovými. Ty se teď cítí ohroženy novými hodnotami a tíhnou k autoritářským vůdcům (my vs oni rétorika, zpátky-do-budoucnosti).
Řešení: post-materialist názory jsou v západních společnostech většinové. Jenže mladí lidé daleko míň volí. Cesta od populismu vede skrze intenzivní mobilizaci nevolící progresivní většiny.
June 20, 2024
Starkes Buch. Nichts für Leser, die davor nie Berührungspunkte mit Sozialwissenschaften hatten. Die Thesen sind gründlich empirisch aufgearbeitet und werden anschaulich mit Daten unterfüttert. Die Theorie wird zuerst erklärt, dann schrittweise Untersucht und schließlich an zwei Fallbeispielen getestet. Sehr informativ.
April 22, 2025
Ikke noe nytt, men spennende, lettlest og baserer seg på seriøst store mengder data. Muligens litt for mye.
March 1, 2022
This work provides a solid introduction to the discriminatory constituents of populism. As a student familiar with the exclusionary aspects of the authoritarian manifestations of populism in a Western context, it was by no means ground-breaking, and it provided me with few fresh insights. However, the data supporting its arguments is strong with clear explanations for the individuals less equipped for reading graphs such as myself. For students coming from a social science background who are not yet familiar with populism, I can imagine that it is a great entryway to studying its popularity.
There are two foundational issues that I encountered while reading the book.
First, its conclusion seems almost naive in its implicit suggestion that authoritarian populism is a passing phenomenon that will gradually die out with the disappearance of the generation of Baby Boomers. Indeed, this part of the population in Western countries is the most prone to authoritarianism as illustrated by the data, but this disregards the influence of alternative factors. For instance, the presence of the younger generations that have increasingly shown support to extreme right-wing parties. Moreover, it points towards factors such as high education lessening an individual's attraction to authoritarian populism, implying that the recent generations with an increasing background in higher education will result in less support for it. It disregards the individuals with degrees in higher education who still support populism. This naive attitude downplays the threats posed to liberal democracy by authoritarian populism. It is still popular, and I think that a more vigilant attitude towards its longevity would be better to accomplish the goal of protecting Western democracies.
Second, it foundationally relies on the Western-centric assumption that democracy equals good governance and that authoritarianism vice versa equals bad governance. Although it is not explicitly stated, it becomes evident through the book's focus on protecting liberal democracy, and the singular way in which authoritarianism is described. Rather than appreciating the wide and dynamic manifestations of authoritarianism, it consistently opts for describing ambiguously defined authoritarian values in juxtaposition to social democratic ones, which are almost presented as naturally superior. In my opinion, the book could have benefitted from more clearly defining the authoritarian dimension of contemporary far-right Western parties instead of throwing all forms of authoritarianism onto one big pile.
Let me end this review with one disclaimer. I absolutely agree with the goal of mitigating the risks to liberal democracy from the dangers posed by far right-wing politics, particularly when it comes to discrimination. However, I find it deeply questionable to revert to the Western assumption that authoritarianism is uniform in character and equals nothing but oppression, disregarding a rich history of a political tradition that contemporarily is much more wide-spread than democracy. It should be possible to criticize contemporary authoritarian populism in the West by discussing the specifics of its manifestation(s) instead of furthering the stale dichotomy that democracy is good and authoritarianism is bad.
There are two foundational issues that I encountered while reading the book.
First, its conclusion seems almost naive in its implicit suggestion that authoritarian populism is a passing phenomenon that will gradually die out with the disappearance of the generation of Baby Boomers. Indeed, this part of the population in Western countries is the most prone to authoritarianism as illustrated by the data, but this disregards the influence of alternative factors. For instance, the presence of the younger generations that have increasingly shown support to extreme right-wing parties. Moreover, it points towards factors such as high education lessening an individual's attraction to authoritarian populism, implying that the recent generations with an increasing background in higher education will result in less support for it. It disregards the individuals with degrees in higher education who still support populism. This naive attitude downplays the threats posed to liberal democracy by authoritarian populism. It is still popular, and I think that a more vigilant attitude towards its longevity would be better to accomplish the goal of protecting Western democracies.
Second, it foundationally relies on the Western-centric assumption that democracy equals good governance and that authoritarianism vice versa equals bad governance. Although it is not explicitly stated, it becomes evident through the book's focus on protecting liberal democracy, and the singular way in which authoritarianism is described. Rather than appreciating the wide and dynamic manifestations of authoritarianism, it consistently opts for describing ambiguously defined authoritarian values in juxtaposition to social democratic ones, which are almost presented as naturally superior. In my opinion, the book could have benefitted from more clearly defining the authoritarian dimension of contemporary far-right Western parties instead of throwing all forms of authoritarianism onto one big pile.
Let me end this review with one disclaimer. I absolutely agree with the goal of mitigating the risks to liberal democracy from the dangers posed by far right-wing politics, particularly when it comes to discrimination. However, I find it deeply questionable to revert to the Western assumption that authoritarianism is uniform in character and equals nothing but oppression, disregarding a rich history of a political tradition that contemporarily is much more wide-spread than democracy. It should be possible to criticize contemporary authoritarian populism in the West by discussing the specifics of its manifestation(s) instead of furthering the stale dichotomy that democracy is good and authoritarianism is bad.
January 21, 2020
A thorough but dry academic treatise
This is a comprehensive, detailed academic treatise on the authors' hypothesis about a cultural backlash against libertarian values in Western societies that has given rise to authoritarian populism. I must applaud its rigorous analyses of an enormous about of data in comparative politics. It provides a convincing case of the pertinent issues involved.
Although the book covers a very interesting subject, I find the authors' style of writing rather too dry to sustain interest. Their discussion often involves very long paragraphs that at times stretch over a few pages.
While pertinent issues are carefully and convincingly presented, the final chapter gives recommendations that lack depth and are no more than common sense. That I find disappointing.
Finally a recommendation for readers who may be interested. Do get a hard copy of the book. The very fine print in the many tables and graphs is quite impossible to read with an e-copy on my cell phone.
This is a comprehensive, detailed academic treatise on the authors' hypothesis about a cultural backlash against libertarian values in Western societies that has given rise to authoritarian populism. I must applaud its rigorous analyses of an enormous about of data in comparative politics. It provides a convincing case of the pertinent issues involved.
Although the book covers a very interesting subject, I find the authors' style of writing rather too dry to sustain interest. Their discussion often involves very long paragraphs that at times stretch over a few pages.
While pertinent issues are carefully and convincingly presented, the final chapter gives recommendations that lack depth and are no more than common sense. That I find disappointing.
Finally a recommendation for readers who may be interested. Do get a hard copy of the book. The very fine print in the many tables and graphs is quite impossible to read with an e-copy on my cell phone.
July 8, 2022
An extremely informative book on the dangerous rise of authoritarian populism. I loved the use of extensive research and data visualization to back up the authors’ theories. However, there was a weird amount of spelling/small errors (ex: saying Bill Clinton was re-elected in 2006 and labeling the chapter’s sections as 1,2,3, and 5). Overall an amazing book studying populism, authoritarianism, and our contemporary political landscape.
May 9, 2021
V tomto období čítam len knihy do školy. Cultural backlash síce nie je ničím novým, ale tie dáta sú zaujímavé.
February 21, 2025
Few theories have been as persistently and thoroughly debunked as the cultural backlash theory. Yet, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, it remains the dominant narrative for explaining the rise of populism. At its core, the theory posits that a reactionary wave of predominantly white, older, and less-educated voters, disoriented by rapid cultural change, is lashing out against progressive values and an increasingly diverse and cosmopolitan world.
This narrative offers a convenient refuge for centrist liberals. It absolves the political and economic system of any significant responsibility for the populist surge, shifting the blame instead to the supposed prejudices of a regressive minority. By framing populism as the dying gasp of an archaic worldview, it suggests that the turbulence is temporary and that the arc of history will inevitably bend toward liberal democracy, if only the reactionaries can be contained or outlasted.
The problem is that this theory is not only empirically flawed but also dangerously misleading as a moral and political guide. Empirically, it oversimplifies the real motivations behind support for populist movements, reducing deep economic, social, and political suffering to mere cultural anxiety. It overlooks how economic shocks, rising inequalities, and systemic failures of liberal democracy contribute to discontent. It also neglects how elites have manipulated cultural narratives to deflect attention from their own roles in perpetuating inequality and precarity.
Politically, the cultural backlash theory provides little in the way of constructive solutions. By pathologizing dissent, it deepens the polarization rather than bridging divides. It leaves liberals unprepared to address the structural conditions driving dissatisfaction, offering technocratic fixes to what are, at their core, crises of legitimacy and representation. Worse still, it reinforces a sense of moral superiority among elites, perpetuating the very elitism that fuels populist resentment.
The only reason this book has such an impact is that it seamlessly aligns with the comfort zone of status quo liberalism.
This narrative offers a convenient refuge for centrist liberals. It absolves the political and economic system of any significant responsibility for the populist surge, shifting the blame instead to the supposed prejudices of a regressive minority. By framing populism as the dying gasp of an archaic worldview, it suggests that the turbulence is temporary and that the arc of history will inevitably bend toward liberal democracy, if only the reactionaries can be contained or outlasted.
The problem is that this theory is not only empirically flawed but also dangerously misleading as a moral and political guide. Empirically, it oversimplifies the real motivations behind support for populist movements, reducing deep economic, social, and political suffering to mere cultural anxiety. It overlooks how economic shocks, rising inequalities, and systemic failures of liberal democracy contribute to discontent. It also neglects how elites have manipulated cultural narratives to deflect attention from their own roles in perpetuating inequality and precarity.
Politically, the cultural backlash theory provides little in the way of constructive solutions. By pathologizing dissent, it deepens the polarization rather than bridging divides. It leaves liberals unprepared to address the structural conditions driving dissatisfaction, offering technocratic fixes to what are, at their core, crises of legitimacy and representation. Worse still, it reinforces a sense of moral superiority among elites, perpetuating the very elitism that fuels populist resentment.
The only reason this book has such an impact is that it seamlessly aligns with the comfort zone of status quo liberalism.
February 3, 2023
This book was highly recommended by the New York Times. It's a long book that covers not just the movement toward authoritarianism in America but worldwide. My biggest problem with the book is the constant use of the phrase authoritarian populism. The two words are opposites. Authoritarians do not enact the will of the people. Maybe they meant authoritarians who pretend to be populist to gain votes. I had trouble getting through the book due to this irritating phrase.
The book is extremely well researched. Chapter notes are almost as long as each chapter.
It's also a bit repetitive. The book makes the point that Trump supporters are typically older uneducated white men who feel left behind economically. Those who would like to go back in time several decades (when America was great) to a time when blue collar jobs were plentiful, you could earn more than your parents and when they didn't feel at a competitive disadvantage to immigrants taking your job. Trump voters may also feel that their religious and moral values are not respected and that an authoritarian leader is the person to fix that.
The book is extremely well researched. Chapter notes are almost as long as each chapter.
It's also a bit repetitive. The book makes the point that Trump supporters are typically older uneducated white men who feel left behind economically. Those who would like to go back in time several decades (when America was great) to a time when blue collar jobs were plentiful, you could earn more than your parents and when they didn't feel at a competitive disadvantage to immigrants taking your job. Trump voters may also feel that their religious and moral values are not respected and that an authoritarian leader is the person to fix that.
June 15, 2022
Is it just me or do authors actually disprove their own thesis and just step over it?
They show older generations being more authoritarian but also that younger are more populist oriented. Since its Authoritarian populism and not Populistic Authoritarianism populism is actually core concept and their own data doesnt fit with theory.
Besides that book is interesting read in general and it might be of interest to anyone with professional/academic interest in subject. It gets repetitive but one can just skip over 99th description how xenophobic and racist Trump is and move on. That said bias is made pretty clear but in topic such as this it is to be expected. That said such approach creates some blind spots which sometimes even made me to burst out in laughter.
They show older generations being more authoritarian but also that younger are more populist oriented. Since its Authoritarian populism and not Populistic Authoritarianism populism is actually core concept and their own data doesnt fit with theory.
Besides that book is interesting read in general and it might be of interest to anyone with professional/academic interest in subject. It gets repetitive but one can just skip over 99th description how xenophobic and racist Trump is and move on. That said bias is made pretty clear but in topic such as this it is to be expected. That said such approach creates some blind spots which sometimes even made me to burst out in laughter.
February 21, 2020
Excellent, and sometimes frightening, analysis of the value changes behind the rise of authoritarian right wing populism.
September 28, 2021
Kurssikirjaks hyvä mut lukukokemus kärsi vähän yli menevästä toiston määrästä. Jos kiinnostaa populismi (etenkin jenkkien tai euroopan näkökulmasta) ni sit kandee kattoo nopee
January 30, 2023
Fantastic work on the rise of populism and authoritarianism globally. I read this book with the question of "How did Trump happen?", and I received many, many answers.
March 6, 2025
Trump is back…
May 1, 2025
A satisfying and cohesive framing of the supply and demand sides of authoritarian populist parties in the West. A wealth of evidence is presented and the authors’ central thesis is convincing.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews