Political scientist David Runciman has an interesting analysis of the British Labour Party's leadership contest, and why Jeremy Corbyn, dismissed by many as a hard-left dinosaur, has taken the lead.
However, it is not an analysis with which I completely agree.
Writing in the London Review of Books, Runciman claims that far from being a 1980s throwback, the surge in Corbyn's popularity is typical of the internet age.
He says voters can generally be divided into “expressive” or “instrumental”. Expressive voters are signalling who they are and what they value. Instrumental voters are hoping for real benefits from the politicians they select.
Expressive voting “also seems to chime with the world of social media and online communication, where self-expression rules and echo chambers proliferate.”
Runciman is not a Corbyn fan. He says it would be impossible to imagine Corbyn taking on Cameron at prime minister's questions, or to see him working with a shadow cabinet.
However, Runciman may be missing something. Rather than simply signalling what people value, people may also just agree with many of Corbyn’s policies.
Substantial parts of the UK electorate approve of a decent living wage, or of renationalisation of the railways, policies derided by opponents both within and outside the party as “hard-left”.
Policies
It may not be just expressive voting, but rather many people believe his policies would benefit Britain and themselves. It’s not just populism. It’s the policies.
I suspect some of Trump’s vote is not just a protest vote, either.
Trump is a bizarre personality with a giant ego, appalling attitudes to women, and very strange hair, but he is also a moderate Republican, if you can get past the crass buffoonery.
He is closer to what many Americans think than are most elite Republicans.
I find his anti-immigrant populist rhetoric repugnant, but apparently, it chimes with many Americans. Vox writer Lee Drutman has done some crunching on national election studies data, and says that some 24 per cent of the electorate want to decrease immigration.
However, they also want to increase social protection programmes like social security and Medicare. If you add the figures of those who want to maintain (not decrease) social protection, and decrease immigration, fully 40 per cent of the US electorate support that position.
It is not difficult to understand. The average American does not want more immigrants who are perceived to drive down wages, and nor does the average American want the puny level of social protection decreased.
However, the rich elites who fund the Republican party want more immigrants, and to decrease social security, because they are going to get richer if that happens.
Money rules US politics to an obscene degree. While Trump has a uniquely obnoxious personality, some Americans admire him for telling the truth.
Broken system
For example when he declared: “I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them, and they are there for me.” He added: “And that’s a broken system.”
Hillary Clinton, he claimed, turned up to his wedding because he told her to be there. His selling point is that despite his claims to have bought politicians, he is beyond being bought because he is so rich. In a twisted way, he's being quite honest.
He also claims health insurance companies completely control politicians, enabling them to make a fortune. He approves of a single-payer model, that is, a government-provided health insurance service.
He just thinks the exceptionally high costs of American medical care would make it hard to implement in the US.
Some people are supporting Trump for the anarchic entertainment value. One young American voter described himself in the Atlantic as "a young guy who is immature, a bit antisocial, and with no plans for kids or a wife ever. At some level, I don't really care how things go with America as long as it's fun to watch."
But others genuinely believe American politics are so broken that Trump offers something worth considering.
I find Trump grotesque, and while Corbyn is in many ways admirable, he has the usual blind spot on the right to life of the youngest humans.
However, both Corbyn and Trump are flirting with taking mainstream parties in a radical, albeit very different, directions.
While there are really admirable individuals in Irish politics who are willing to make considerable sacrifices for their convictions, no mainstream party seems willing to represent a sizeable portion of the electorate.
Furthermore, the selling point of most new parties seems to be “we are the mainstream, only better”.
And those who do not fit that mould in Irish politics either have questionable histories or anarchic tendencies.
How viable is our democracy when despite the proliferation of new parties and old, many Irish people still have no party for which they can vote?