Every person needs somewhere to live, but in the United States that is becoming increasingly more difficult to achieve. With rent prices increasing by more than 50% in the past five years, frustration is boiling over, particularly among younger generations. Is supporting a populist candidate the answer to high housing prices? Probably not, but young people who can’t afford homes are starting to think there is no alternative.

In the US, renters are a growing group, with 102 million Americans, or 44 million households, renting their homes. Rent prices have skyrocketed since the pandemic, and prices for starter homes have gone through the roof as well. According to Zillow, five years ago, only 84 cities across the nation had starter homes worth at least $1 million, but that has now jumped to a record high 237 cities, which has pushed the median age of first-time home buyers to 35, up an entire year since 2019. The inability to buy a home, and therefore being at the mercy of the renting market, is fueling a surge in populism, as disillusioned renters find themselves increasingly at odds with homeowners who seem to profit from their hardship. This “anti-elite” mentality adopted by the general public is one of the symptoms, so to speak, Jan-Werner Müller lays out in his book, “What is Populism?”

Populism, Müller argues, thrives on a sense of division—an “us versus them” mentality. Rising housing prices pit renters against homeowners, who, as is so often the root of populist movements, are shown to be the “elites” who are profiting off of the hardship of the working class, while “the people” are being left behind. 

The beliefs of young people are visible in things as mundane as social media feeds, in which hate for baby boomers is often targeted at the fact that housing was so much more affordable in the 1970s and 80s, therefore it was much easier for the “boomer” generation and even Gen X to create pathways of generational wealth. Housing prices have continued to outpace inflation; for example, the median price for a home in 2024 is more than triple what it was 50 years ago, even when adjusted for inflation.

The scarcity of affordable housing has led to protests across the United States. In California, renters marched on the state capitol in San Francisco, complaining about the slow reaction time by the state government. Many young people are placing the blame on entrenched incumbents, gridlock, and xenophobia; three staple issues of populist leaders like Donald Trump. A housing shortage, combined with high rates of illegal immigration, makes for an easy target for a politician who can garner support from both overtly racist or xenophobic groups and people who may have even voted for Joe Biden, but are fed up with government inaction.

One of the core ideas in Müller’s analysis is that populism often presents itself as a reaction to the failures of liberal democracy. When democratic institutions seem to neglect the needs of the people, populism steps in, offering a voice to those who feel unheard. For many, the American dream of homeownership has become increasingly out of reach, and the sense that the democratic system is rigged against them is growing, which bleeds over into beliefs of election fraud and distrust in politicians. This disillusionment with the status quo can lead to populist movements that challenge the very foundations of liberal democracy.

Attacking incumbent politicians is a good way to hold them accountable for issues they are responsible for causing or could put an end to, however, attacking “elite” and entrenched politicians, and subsequently calling for an outsider, is not always the answer. That is what led to the election of Donald Trump (who ironically was a real estate mogul, although his self-made success as such is questionable). Trump is a prime example of how people just like to be listened to, even if the politician truly has no desire to actually address their needs. Despite being a wealthy elite himself, Trump successfully positioned himself as an outsider who would challenge the elites and fight for the forgotten working class.

Renters, many of whom are struggling to make ends meet, see homeowners, especially those who invest in real estate, as the elite profiting from their misery. This perception has been exacerbated by policies that seem to favor homeowners and investors over those simply trying to find an affordable place to live. Historically, unfair housing policies have contributed to the economic struggles of the working class, leading to increased support for populist leaders, who want to “drain the swamp” and rid the government of entrenched politicians.

It is not untrue that housing policy is “rigged” against people, particularly ethnic minorities and those near the poverty line. The 1934 New Deal Housing Act was intended to make it easier to buy a home for middle class America, but it also entrenched racial and economic inequalities by refusing bank loans to buy homes in primarily black neighborhoods. As a result, many working-class and primarily ethnic-minority communities were denied the opportunity to build generational wealth through home ownership, which set those communities.

As housing prices continue to rise, many people feel that they are being left behind by a system that benefits Wall Street elites who buy up homes and developers who make more because of increasing demand, and believe that the policymakers are to blame. 

The rhetoric of Donald Trump, attacking immigrants for occupying affordable housing and Joe Biden for his administration’s stagnant legislation, is a good way for him to gain supporters. However, he has no plan to fix these issues himself. In the past, his housing policies have hurt public housing project like the Laguardia Houses in Lower Manhattan, and he didn’t address his housing plan in the debate. On the campaign trail, he has said he wants to open up more federal land to development and lower building regulations, but Joe Biden proposed opening up federal land for affordable housing development this July, and many building regulations and zoning that could be changed are up to local governments.

On the other side of the political coin, Kamala Harris has proposed her housing plan, which includes tax incentives for builders, a $40 billion tax credit for affordable housing projects, and $25,000 in down-payment assistance for first-time homebuyers.

On paper, Harris’ plan seems to blow Trump’s out of the water. But similar to Biden’s efforts, and the efforts of the local government in San Francisco, political tug-of-war between polarized parties will likely stifle any progress toward these plans ever being passed.

It’s not that people across the nation aren’t being heard, but rather that our democracy is so ineffective at passing generally popular legislation that it seems like nothing is being done. Müller’s analysis of populism suggests it can serve as a wake-up call for liberal democracies. If institutions like the House and Senate fail to address the needs of the people, it signals the need for change. Representatives should prioritize their constituents over party lines. That’s why Müller calls populism the “shadow of representative democracy”—when elected officials fail to vote in line with the people who chose them, they either pursue personal interests or advance agendas unsupported by their constituents.

In the U.S., swing voters most impacted by rising housing prices may turn to Donald Trump, not because they’re inherently xenophobic or even fully support his policies, but because they believe their representatives are failing them. Policy means nothing if the system implementing it doesn’t work.

If the preservation of the democratic principles on which the United States was founded is important to those in the legislative branch, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle will have to pass bipartisan, publicly popular legislation that addresses the needs of the people in this country who they were elected to represent in order to restore faith in democratic institutions.