Jan-Werner Mueller says six months ago many on both sides of the Atlantic feared that the populist "tsunami" that swept through Britain and the US would also devastate the political landscape in Europe in 2017. They believed voters in the Netherlands, France and Germany - and possibly in Italy and Britain too - would duplicate the success of Trump and Brexit, as a result of the toxic politics that drove those campaigns. Yes, 51,9% of Britons voted for leaving the EU and Trump won 62,984,825 votes (46.4%) over Hillary Clinton 65,853,516 votes (48.5%).

But the Anglo-American phenomenon has been lost on European voters in this year's elections, because liberal forces in the Netherlands and France have counteracted the momentum. And it looks most likely that this trend will continue in the September election in Germany. The author maintains, even though populist contenders have lost in the Netherlands and France, their defeat is just "nominal" because the populist substance of their policies has been adopted and copied by mainstream politicians.

This is alarming because it reminds of "the interwar period, when conservatives opted to collaborate with authoritarian and fascist parties, democracy died as a result." Nigel Farage was the initiator of Brexit, but he was backed by prominent Tories - Michael Gove and Boris Johnson. The two now serve in Theresa May's cabinet. Although Trump reached out to the white working class, he ran as a GOP candidate "and received the blessing of Republican heavyweights such as Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich."

During of the election campaign, the Dutch centre-right Prime Minister Mark Rutte copied Wilders-like rhetoric – "telling immigrants that they should leave the country if they do not want to behave “normally.” Ahead of Britain's snap election Theresa May spoke like Trump, saying she were the only one to deliver Brexit, and urging for unity behind her “strong and stable” government." She also adopted Jeremy Corbyn's social obligation, with words straight out of Labour’s playbook.

The author says we are not turning the clock back "to the interwar period, and today’s populists are not fascists. But the lesson still holds: the choices made by established elites, as much as the challenges posed by insurgent outsiders, determine the fate of democracy. Those who collaborate with populists – or copy their ideas – must be held accountable."

The question is how reliable is populist rhetoric? Most often contenders in an election campign pay lip service to social issues they pledge to tackle - words spoken are not followed up by appropriate action or behaviour. In the Dutch election in March, Rutte was eager to reach out to supporters of his populist rival, Geert Wilders, by emulating xenophobic statements. He had beaten Wilders. Now he needs to move on and focus on his centre-right agenda.

What bothers the author is the bigotry and hypocrisy embraced by populists, who claim to have the "moral monopoly on representation and the policies." Seeking to divide a society or a country they advocate this us-versus-them language. They always "claim to be the sole legitimate representative" of the "real people," calling anyone who disagree with them a dissident or an enemy - enemy of the people.

The author fears that a "political culture is shifting to the right, without any kind of proper democratic authorization by citizens." Even if populists haven't gained executive power within the EU, they are not defeated. We have to ensure that this “post-populist moment” is here to stay, because we don't want to relive the dark days of the "interwar period".

