J.T. YOUNG: The populist phenomenon

OPINION:

Populism is showing its presidential power, but its congressional impact is still to come. Both parties are extensively — albeit unwillingly by their establishments — field-testing populist politics this year. Very soon, congressional races will feel the same effect, which promises to bring even more volatility to Washington if successful.

It is hard to overstate the sudden and significant impact of populism on 2016’s presidential politics.

It’s practitioner in the Republican Party, Donald Trump, has won 19 of 29 U.S. primary contests so far, and according to Real Clear Politics’ average of national polling, remains well ahead of his closest competitor, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, 44.8 percent to 28.5 percent. Its Democratic adherent, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, trails Hillary Clinton, the most prominent establishment figure in either party, just 50.6 percent to 42.6 percent.

Currently, the only establishment candidate in either party leading a populist is Mrs. Clinton, and it requires all her unprecedented national exposure during a quarter-century to do so.

Strangely, while populism is hardly new to American politics — the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements are both recent — it has erupted dramatically into this year’s presidential election. Mr. Trump announced his candidacy last June; Mr. Sanders at the end of last April. Populism has had its impact across both parties in less than a year.

However despite its presidential impact thus far, it has had little appreciable effect on congressional races — so far. That will change soon and, depending on presidential outcomes, will likely do so to an even greater extent in the future.

Populism’s first impact will come indirectly this November. Rather than coming through the congressional candidates themselves, populism will channel through the presidential candidates in several ways.

The congressional impact’s most important variable will be whether a populist candidate reaches November’s presidential ballot. If so, the populist candidate could bring unexpected outside and crossover voters into the race — both for and against that candidate’s down-ballot brethren. Such a candidate could also drive away traditional establishment party supporters — the very party establishment the candidate will have toppled to win the nomination.

How such a confluence of cross-currents will net out is debatable. Currently, the populist Mr. Trump trails the establishmentarian Mrs. Clinton in Real Clear Politics national poll average of 48.5 percent to 39.3 percent. From this perspective, populism appears to hurt Republicans’ down-ballot candidates.

However, when Mr. Sanders, the Democratic populist, is pitted against the remaining Republicans, he leads them all — doing better than the establishmentarian Mrs. Clinton. So populism’s potential indirect effect this November is unclear. What is clear is that it will have an effect, including the real possibility populist supporters may simply stay home if their candidate loses the nomination.

Also clear is that populism’s impact is unlikely to end with this election. Even if its effects on the 2016 presidential race have now peaked — which is far from evident — it will already have proved a very potent political force.

There is no reason to believe that populism will not have a direct effect on congressional races in 2018, when imitators will have had time to get on ballots nationwide. Time was too short this year, but future imitators will have two years to change that — and have every incentive to do so.

A political power now at 40 percent in both parties is one sure to spawn copycats, and few areas of endeavor readily reward imitators as politics. As the current presidential race proceeds, it is field-testing populism nationwide, giving would-be imitators a detailed map of its best successes.

When the 2018 congressional races arrive, populism’s impact won’t be filtered through a presidential contest. It will come directly: First, through intra-party primaries; then, through inter-party general elections. They is likely to be just as politically volatile as today’s — and establishment members of Congress may be no better equipped to handle it than today’s presidential contenders.

Such volatility could be particularly acute in Congress. Already fractious and partisan, imagine the addition of populism. In a place where the two establishment parties are already crossing swords, what happens when elements antagonistic to both establishments are added?

That would assuredly guarantee an even more explosive environment than that already existing. And another guarantee is even more certain: A populist challenge is coming to Congress — as each passing day of its growing success in the 2016 presidential campaign affirms.

• J.T. Young served in the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget, and as a congressional staff member.