The return of the spectacle and idiot kings of politics

If progressive parties truly want to bring meaningful policies to fruition, they can’t just leave the field wide open to right-wing conservative fabrications.

The resurgence of hardline conservatism and the reappearance of leaders once dismissed as relics of an embarrassing political era is a worrying trend in international politics. Not so long ago, public sentiment was leaning in a different direction – to the left, or so we thought – the early days of the COVID-19 crisis seemed to upend established norms, ushering in new governments or shoving entrenched administrations aside. In the United States, the Democrats took office. In Australia, Labor assumed power, as did their equivalents in the UK (Labour) and Brazil (Hope Federation). These moments gave the impression that flamboyant populist leadership was headed for extinction yet, just a few years on, the very style many hoped was gone for good is flourishing again – and it’s every bit as chaotic as before.

These once-familiar figures and their ideological heirs are making powerful comebacks – Donald Trump, the most polarising U.S. leader in recent memory, is once again a focal point, galvanising his base with empty promises and dramatic flourishes. Meanwhile, new firebrands such as Javier Milei in Argentina demonstrate that the same brand of politics – anger-driven, spectacle-oriented, dismissive of expertise – knows no borders and has no filters. The recent conservative victory in Germany, paired with a significant vote for a far-right AfD party, suggests that this combative and unapologetically manipulative playbook resonates with growing numbers of people across supposedly stable democracies. With rhetoric that panders to resentment and fear, these figures excel at painting experts as elitist enemies of the true people, peddling empty promises that rarely stand up to reality.

In Australia, the same tactics echo in the attacks from conservative figures who continually resort to fear-based campaigns. The formula is simple: attack everything, lie, promise the world, and deliver little of substance when given the opportunity. The outrage, the staged stunts, the falsehoods wrapped in catchy soundbites – these are all part of a recurring show. It’s the politics of the spectacle, designed to entertain rather than govern effectively. More centrist or progressive voices, whose ethic is based more on reason and policy in the public interest, struggle to counter something that is constantly fuelled by raw emotion and sensational claims. While the left often tries to rely on factual material, data, and nuanced arguments, the right explodes the truth and exploits frustration and distrust to amplify their influence. And at least in the short term, the entertainment factor usually triumphs over the patience required to explain complicated policy.

This pattern highlights a big strategic gap: progressive groups cling to the idea that massaging mainstream media coverage or delivering intellectual lectures and TED Talks is the key to hearts of voters. It isn’t. Yet the same old channels are either owned by antagonistic media barons or increasingly irrelevant to large sections of the population. Meanwhile, the populist wave surges through alternative communication methods – social media, local radio, untraditional news outlets – reaching people who are either indifferent to or alienated by institutional politics. The reality is that a swarm of conservative politicians preaching simple, dramatic solutions can do immense damage in just a short time, leaving permanent marks on institutions and civic trust. Some who have been rejected by voters manage to regroup and stage a return, buoyed by the spectacle they have perfected.

The lesson for anyone opposed to this chaos is that it’s not enough to be intellectually correct or rely on the approval of the mainstream media. Strengthening direct communication with communities, making policy relatable, and at times matching the velocity and spirit – though not the dishonesty – of the populist approach can be critical. There may be small signs of a shift in strategy, such as the Australian government’s quick announcement of measures to strengthen Medicare, a straightforward action that’s easy for people to understand and hard for ideological opponents to undercut. But this has to happen in more than just a handful of instances. The alternative is a political stage where theatrics continue to win over calm policymaking – and where the self-styled idiot king can keep staging encore after encore.

Crash through or crash: How to defeat the right-wing spectacle

The natural antidote to politics-as-spectacle is simple yet deceptively difficult to deliver: policies that matter. It’s not about mirroring right-wing theatrics; stunts and Musk-style chainsaw acts might dazzle the audience and work in the short term, but they rarely produce tangible improvements in people’s lives. Instead, progressive and centrist governments have to demonstrate they’re serious about enacting what could be described as left-wing populist reforms – measures that truly help ordinary people and make a difference, but without losing their soul to headline-chasing or unsubtle gimmicks.

The challenge is that once in power, these parties often proceed timidly – ample evidence of this has been provided by the Albanese government since May 2022 – as though they’re fearful of a backlash for pushing too hard on crucial agendas like economic justice, climate action, or healthcare. But the evidence worldwide suggests that when progressives hesitate, voters eventually punish their timidity by swinging back to the very forces they sought to remove.

Part of the frustration among electorates is rooted in the feeling that even when new administrations take charge, the old status quo and rules of the establishment remains largely intact. If right-wing populists promise the earth and moon (no matter how outlandish or destructive), then moderate left parties have to offer something equally significant in real terms – transformative policies that resonate with people’s immediate concerns, whether that’s unaffordable housing, stagnant wages, or the ever-increasing cost of healthcare. Any fear of seeming “too radical” may be understandable, but time and again the pattern has been: play it safe, get voted out. This was Barack Obama’s conundrum, reflected in his memoirs, where he admitted holding back on more sweeping reforms, partly out of concern for how a bold Black president would be perceived by voters accustomed to convention. Many progressive parties worldwide suffer this same anxiety, scaling down their ambitions to avoid sparking controversy or risking their approval ratings. Yet the backlash they often aim to avoid catches up with them anyway.

The electorate’s impatience can be seen as a message: break – or smash – the template, or risk irrelevance. Whether it’s in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, or Australia, massive waves of support for new progressive governments are often squandered by an overcautious approach. Worse, this leaves an opening for brash, reactionary figures who promise big – even if most of those promises are hollow. There are historical precedents showing that when progressive governments seize the moment to enact real change, many voters remain loyal precisely because they see results on the ground. It’s not about making up the theatrics to match the right’s showiness and shallowness; it’s about bold governance that tangibly improves day-to-day life.

A grand speech on policy theory or an avalanche of incomprehensible data rarely stirs the public imagination. A straightforward demonstration of action, however, can inspire genuine belief in government. It also starves the idiot king phenomenon of oxygen. After all, figures who thrive on outrage and lies gain traction when people think no one else is addressing their concerns. In that sense, it’s not about out-yelling the demagogues – it’s about making them irrelevant. When communities see meaningful solutions to spiraling rent, energy bills, and job insecurity, the spectacle of hatred and division loses much of its appeal.

Implementing such seemingly radical (they’re not really that radical) but sensible reforms demands persistence and political courage. It involves direct engagement with voters and a willingness to fight local battles. Rather than hoping mainstream media outlets or big national platforms will spin the message favourably, progressive forces can and should harness alternative channels – legitimate online forums, grassroots events, community radio, small-circulation publications – to maintain a consistent, clear narrative about what’s being done, why it matters, and how it benefits everyday life. That also means consistently challenging the right’s warped claims, but on platforms defined by substance, not empty drama.

Without this willingness to roll up their sleeves and deliver popular reforms, progressive governments risk repeating the pattern: they arrive in a flash of hope, then fade under the weight of half-measures and a paralysing fear of controversy. In a climate where dissatisfaction quickly morphs into anger, the right-wing spectacle is always waiting in the wings, DOGE chainsaws and the manipulative lies ready to pull out at any moment.

If progressives don’t show they can and will change things – even at the risk of short-term blowback – they run the very real risk of ceding the political platform again. The truth is, strong majorities have placed trust in them across countries and moments of time. What many voters are asking, as they contemplate the return of these foolish demagogues, is whether that trust will be rewarded with bold action or squandered in the name of caution.

Can progressives fight the fire without getting burned?

The question of whether progressive or centrist parties can or should adopt the same tactics perfected by right-wing populists isn’t just philosophical issue; it’s about developing the correct strategy. The modern right-wing stage is filled with a cast of performative political characters – Clive Palmer, Ralph Babet, Bob Katter, Pauline Hanson – whose brand of politics hinges on outrageous claims and publicity stunts, grounded in fear, misinformation, and the triggering of emotions. By contrast, parties on the left traditionally aspire to be seen as the stewards of good policy and public service, or the simple politics of don’t be an arsehole. Yet the harsh truth remains that electoral battles can be lost to lies if a party chooses not to fight back with vigour.

Governing is a messy business where ideals run headlong into the relentless demands of staying in power. Occasional negative campaigning – such as Labor’s unofficial “Medi-scare” campaign during the 2016 federal election – has proven highly effective partly because it capitalised on an element of truth, reiterating the historical suspicion many voters have about the conservative side’s views on public healthcare. After all, it was the Liberal Party which completely removed Medibank, the precursor to Medicare, in 1981 so, on that level, it is based on a semblance of truth.

That approach is in contrast to the open dishonesty of, for example, the shares franking credits scare, which had no factual foundation yet helped ruin Labor’s chances at the 2019 federal election. In the face of relentless attacks, progressive forces can’t rely on polite policy discourse: they must highlight the verifiable weaknesses of their opponents – such as bloated government debt, the many corruption scandals when the Liberal and National parties were in office, or their repeated attempts to undercut workers’ rights. None of this has to sink into total deceit, but it does require a willingness to use sharper language and bolder tactics than many progressive leaders are comfortable with.

Even so, adopting a more combative approach doesn’t have to mean sacrificing integrity. Fear-based smears are one thing; shining a floodlight on real problems is another. Progressives who lean too far into stunts risk losing the moral high ground and feeding broader voter cynicism about “all politicians lie”. But without any form of pointed pushback, large chunks of the public remain vulnerable to slick, deceptive narratives from conservative forces.

If progressive parties truly want to bring meaningful policies to fruition – on healthcare, inequality, the environment – they can’t just leave the field wide open to right-wing conservative fabrications. They need to harness the rhetorical heft of spectacle, bolster it with hard facts, and expose the record of debts, cuts, and corruption from their opponents. Engaging effectively in that battle of messages might be the only way to prevent another surge of the regime of the idiot king, all while keeping democratic ideals and the wellbeing of society firmly at the centre of all their actions.