The spectacle of celebrity populism has crossed the Atlantic once again. A former reality television villain, whose brand of manufactured outrage once captivated millions, is now setting his sights on a US mayoral race. British political insiders, veterans of our own brush with televisual democracy, are watching with a mixture of horror and grim recognition.
Let us be clear. This is not a drill. The individual in question, whose name I shall not dignify with repetition, cut his teeth on a show that thrived on conflict and contrived drama. He is now applying the same playbook to local governance. And the market for political outrage, like any other commodity, has found new arbitrage opportunities across the pond.
From a fiscal perspective, the parallels are alarming. The UK witnessed the celebrity populist phenomenon with Boris Johnson, a man whose media persona was carefully crafted for the small screen. The result was a premiership defined by fiscal incontinence and a cavalier attitude to institutional norms. Johnson’s government spent like a reality show contestant on a shopping spree, leaving the nation’s balance sheet in tatters. The gilt market, that stern judge of fiscal probity, repriced UK risk accordingly, sending yields soaring.
Now, an American mayoral race threatens to import this model wholesale. The candidate in question has no record of public service, no detailed policy platform, and a history of inflammatory rhetoric. His appeal lies in the promise to ‘drain the swamp’ while simultaneously creating a circus. Sound familiar? The markets, of course, are taking note. Capital flight from volatile political environments is a well-documented phenomenon. Should this candidate win, expect a repricing of municipal bonds and a flight to safety among institutional investors.
The British experience offers a cautionary tale. When celebrity populists enter government, they prioritise narrative over numbers. Fiscal responsibility becomes a casualty of the constant need for dramatic storylines. Tax cuts without spending reductions, or grandiose infrastructure projects without cost-benefit analysis, become the norm. The result is a widening deficit and a loss of credibility with bond markets.
Moreover, the central bank’s independence comes under threat. Populists dislike constraints on their power, including independent monetary policy. In the UK, we saw the Bank of England dragged into political controversies during the Brexit saga. In the US, the Federal Reserve could face similar pressures, undermining its ability to control inflation without political interference.
But there is another, more insidious effect. The rise of celebrity populism erodes the very concept of public service. Governance becomes a branch of entertainment, and citizens become viewers rather than participants. The long-term cost to institutional trust is immeasurable, but the market’s verdict is clear: higher risk premiums, lower investment, and slower growth.
As the mayoral race unfolds, British observers should resist the temptation to gloat. We lit this particular match. The global market for political spectacle is highly integrated, and contagion is inevitable. Our best hope is that the US electorate, and more importantly its bond vigilantes, impose a swift discount on this dangerous asset.
Until then, watch the polls as you would watch a car crash. But remember that in the end, someone has to pay for the wreckage.
