Many are concerned that the Democratic Party is becoming too progressive, that it needs to nominate a centrist for any hope of defeating Donald Trump in 2020. This is, in fact, the reason former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz cites as he contemplates a 2020 run as an “Independent centrist.” This concern may seem sensible if you view politics in terms of candidates occupying points on the usual left-right continuum. However, the left-right divide does not matter quite as much as it once did. That a centrist like Hillary Clinton lost to an authoritarian like Donald Trump in 2016 offers a hint as to why.

In an influential 2004 article, political scientist Cas Mudde defines populism as “an ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite’, and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté générale (general will) of the people.” If populism is about ordinary folks versus the elite, then surely we are living in a time of populism. In fact, we have since the financial crisis of 2007–8, if not longer.

The persistence of populism should not be surprising. Despite low unemployment, the economy is not working well for a large portion of the American electorate. Total compensation continues its decades-long failure to keep up with productivity. Life expectancy has been on the decline. Around 80% of workers live paycheck to paycheck. Consumers are getting nickeled and dimed by monopolistic internet service providers and health insurance companies. Our public infrastructure and schools slide into dereliction while our taxes unjustifiably pad the profits of the military industrial complex and private prisons.

Yes, it has been years since the financial crisis that resulted in government bailouts for Wall Street and the auto industry, but people remember these things. These memories make them wonder if we have a “government for the people” or one that serves only the wealthy few. This frustration is why a veteran would scrawl, “Foreclosed! 3 tours in Iraq but no bailout for people like me” on what used to be his garage door (a sentiment paraphrased in the opening sequence of the movie “Hell or High Water”). We have been unwittingly living through a public experiment that can only result in burgeoning populism.

The Tea Party movement and Occupy Wall Street were both populist. As were the 2016 campaigns of both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Recall Trump’s campaign promise to “drain the swamp” and rid Washington D.C. of a rampantly corrupt political elite. Though it is now clear that this was empty rhetoric, it fits perfectly well into Mudde’s definition of populism. In light of this, we can see how somebody on the far right like Trump beat a centrist like Clinton: He convinced enough voters that he represented ordinary people, while framing Clinton as an out-of-touch elitist. What mattered in 2016 was the divide between populists and elitists, not between left and right. I see no reason why 2020 should be any different.

Yes, Democrats are turning sharply to the left, but the progressive platform is also a timely appeal to reigning popular sentiment. What is more populist than instituting taxes on extreme levels of accumulated wealth and raising the top marginal income tax rate to finance universal childcare, Medicare for All, and a Green New Deal? Polls suggest these proposals, including the tax hikes on the rich, have widespread appeal. This suggests Democrats are positioning themselves squarely in agreement with the volonté générale, even if they are not in the center of the traditional left-right divide.

Populism is the new centrism, and it will remain so until people feel they are getting a fair shake. Trump seems to understand this. At least, he did in 2016. As the 2020 election revs up, expect Trump to strike another pose designed to appeal to populist sensibilities. Neoliberal Democrats, who often claim to be centrists (in the traditional sense), will be easy targets. This should be on the mind of every Democrat, because it may be the case that even Trump’s faux populism can beat an establishment (i.e. anti-populist) candidate, who can be easily framed as elitist. That is, after all, precisely what he did to Clinton in 2016.

Trump is the proverbial bull in a china shop, and that will attract many voters dissatisfied by the status quo. Against such competition, the political playbook from decades past does not apply. It is not enough that a candidate is not Trump — 2020 will not simply be a referendum on “The Donald.” The milquetoast strategy of revealing as little as possible about one’s political stance, so as not too ruffle too many feathers, is risky. Empty rhetoric is insufficient. So is non-partisanship; people do not care about compromise unless it is going to help them. Muttering words like “freedom” and “justice” and “equality” without advocating particular policies that enhance such values will not inspire voters to show up to the polls. In times like these, people demand substance. Failing to deliver would be disastrous, and we cannot afford another disaster.