![\"\"](\"\/pardeeschool\/files\/2015\/10\/schmidt_london_resized.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
At a conference co-hosted by the ZOE Institute for Future-Fit Economies<\/a> and European Commission<\/a> Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion,\u00a0<\/span>Vivien Schmidt<\/a>, Jean Monnet Professor of European Integration and Professor of International Relations and Political Science at Boston University\u2019s Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies, discussed the challenges of populism<\/a> to social policy while leaders are both in and out of power.<\/span><\/p>\n In the lecture, titled “Overcoming Populist Challenges to Social Cohesion,” <\/span>Schmidt’s analysis of populist leaders began with grassroots leaders outside of the government in how they begin to form their own narratives and status as a demagogue by focusing on social issues that alienate certain groups while uplifting the targeted voter class. She then shifted to the elected populists in how they reconfigure the mainstream political parties’ priorities and policy agenda to meet their own interests. Mentioning case studies from Spain<\/a> and Denmark, she discussed how the far-left influenced, or in some cases did not, influence the center-left parties to take decisive policy action.<\/p>\n However, in discussing the center-right parties, Schmidt posited that they “have been moving much farther right, picking up on that agenda because they’re worried that they’re going to lose their electorate, but also because they see that [populism’s narrative] resonate.” From there, she outlined two likely paths that far-right leaders could take: either compromising with the mainstream once elected, or refusing to compromise and instead eroding the institutions of liberal democracy.<\/p>\n Schmit dived into the challenges of tackling and overcoming populist movements. She called for a more progressive and impassioned discourse to combat the populist ‘us vs. them’ narrative that also addresses common frustrations, like economic and social issues. She also argued that parties need to reconstruct their organization back to the national level, getting more in touch with their electorate and rebuilding the connections between political parties and their followers. Synthesizing these points together, Schmidt contended that the most important factor would be addressing the actual issues that their followers face on a day-to-day basis, or ameliorating the social milieu.<\/p>\n