In an era where political rhetoric often pits the “little guy” against the “big guy,” populism has resurfaced as a potent force, captivating voters with promises of empowerment and justice. From a free market perspective, however, populism is not a savior but a siren song that leads economies astray. As Louisiana experienced with Huey Long, it masquerades as a champion of the people while undermining the very principles that foster prosperity: voluntary exchange, limited government, and individual liberty. True advocates of economic freedom must reject populism if there’s any hope for Louisiana’s resurgence.

Identifying populism begins with recognizing its core characteristics. At its heart, populism is an ideology that divides society into a moralistic binary: the “pure” versus the “corrupt elite.” This worldview frames politics as a battle between virtuous ordinary masses and nefarious power-holders, often using emotional appeals rather than evidence-based policies. Populists employ ill-founded and sometimes flippant solutions to complex problems, demonizing opponents as illegitimate, undermining independent institutions like courts and media, and promoting a homogenized view of “the people” that rarely exists in society. It combines elements from both left and right, attacking big business while embracing nativism or protectionism. Moralizing discourse is a hallmark, casting elites as inherently evil and populists as saviors, and it often calls for knee-jerk reactions in the form of policies that prioritize short-term grievances over long-term stability.

Central to populism is the notion that “big is bad.” This narrative portrays large, successful business, banks, and global entities—think “Big Oil,” “Big Pharma,” and “Big Tech,” for example—not only as disconnected from workers and ordinary citizens, but inherently exploitative due to their immense power. Yet, from a free market viewpoint, this is a fallacy. Economies are not fixed pies but expandable through innovation and competition. The Cato Institute critiques this as the “pizza delusion,” where assuming resources are static ignores how free markets create more “pizza” for everyone—evidenced by companies like Domino’s growing from one store to thousands, lifting workers and consumers alike. “Big” entities drive efficiency, job creation, and wealth generation; demonizing them stifles growth, invites government overreach, and hurts workers and consumers.

Populism’s anti-free market bent is evident in its policy prescriptions. It favors heavy regulation, price controls, and protectionist laws and regulations, which distort markets and reduce incentives for entrepreneurship. Historical populists opposed giving “too much power” to big businesses as well as individuals. Louisiana’s quintessential populist Huey Long, who promised to make “Every Man a King,” charged the state’s largest businesses for a slew of new state-run government assistance programs to benefit the poor while amassing tremendous power in Baton Rouge for himself and state lawmakers. Thankfully, his “Share the Wealth” plan, which proposed to redistribute wealth by capping individuals’ fortunes while simultaneously guaranteeing everyone a basic income, never passed.

Populist approaches have led to economic instability and stagnation, as seen in Louisiana protectionism’s drag on growth for many years as other state economies flourished. That’s because free markets thrive on competition and minimal interference, allowing individuals and businesses to pursue their interests. Populism, by contrast, empowers politicians and bureaucrats to pick winners and losers, fostering cronyism rather than true capitalism.

Equally troubling, populism in today’s context often contradicts conservative principles, which emphasize limited government, fiscal responsibility, rule of law, and individual rights. Conservatives advocate for a restrained state that protects freedoms without dividing society; populism, however, weaponizes nationalism and “us versus them” rhetoric, exacerbating polarization and undermining democratic norms. It abandons free-market conservatism for dangerous big-government solutions. While conservatives seek to preserve heritage and promote meritocracy, populists push for aggressive interventions that echo progressive overreach. This creates internal rifts in conservative circles, where populism’s fleeting emotions and appeal to masses (as evidenced by polls “justifying” government intervention) clashes with conservatism’s focus on enduring values.

Louisiana must not allow populism’s seductive promises to mask its destructive core. For Louisiana to achieve an economic comeback—where innovation flourishes, jobs abound, and people thrive—true supporters of free markets must reject these notions of government intervention and division. Embracing limited government, open competition, and individual opportunity is the path forward; anything less risks perpetuating the cycles of grievance and stagnation that Huey Long’s era bequeathed.