In Spain, France, Greece and England, countries recently joined by the United States, we have seen the growth of various movements with similar characteristics: they set themselves up as defenders of the rights of the people against an elite that ignores their true interests; they appeal in their campaigns to ethical values such as social justice, the greatness of a lost past and the idea of an honest and just people, denouncing, in passing, moral decadence, corruption and injustice; they channel the resentment, bitterness and frustration that people often experience during an economic crisis and in the face of a growing wave of political and economic corruption scandals; and they promise a redemption of politics and social life that comes close to a kind of messianism or political utopianism.

Given the bewilderment and perplexity of so many analysts, a hypothesis could be proposed to explain this status: populist leaders and organizations have taken advantage of an ethical vacuum in the political arena to offer the electorate a utopian vision of a better future for their children, of a society that would offer them a collective life and staff with more meaning and hope.

With the decline of the old official consensus on the values of a Christian nation and the legitimization of pluralism, the institutions that order society have had to face an increasingly divided society on moral and social organization issues. In this context, political and media discourses have tended to dodge or reduce to simplistic and politically correct formulas some crucial issues for the future of the West, including the value of human life, the loss of illusion and meaning in a large part of the population, collective and national identities in the face of cosmopolitanism, the rise of fundamentalist and illiberal ideologies, the transmission of moral values to future generations of citizens, and the prudent handling of the refugee crisis in Europe.

It is not that these issues are never addressed, but rather that when they are, it is usually in a mercenary and superficial or purely technical manner. If it is not to defend the status quo, or to defend the dogmatic positions of a party, social problems are generally treated not as existential challenges but as technical problems, which can be solved with scientific "interventions". And the real difficulties of tolerance and coexistence are hidden behind vague assertions of pluralism, diversity, and inclusion, which seem to say everything and nothing at the same time.

Our representatives often do not dare to offer a properly moral defense of their public policies, but reduce everything to the quasi-religious imperative of increasing GDP at all costs. The poverty of our ethical speech is reinforced by a doctrine of political correctness, which protects certain practices, policies and moral beliefs absolutely from any criticism, with the excuse that those who oppose "progress" are consumed by hatred or that their judgments are invalidated by irrational prejudices.

And this is where populism comes in, which ultimately seeks to overturn the dogmas of political correctness and speak candidly about people's values, concerns and anxieties. We have seen this most forcefully in the case of Donald Trump, who has won the esteem of a large portion of the American people by challenging the norms of political correctness "in a big way." Populists like Trump channel the pent-up frustrations of a people who have long been deprived of a public forum in which to express and explore their concerns.

Populism has triumphed time and again (and continues to triumph) because our culture is not prepared to respond intelligently and sensibly to the rise of populism in its own midst. We are not in the habit of discussing ethical values with our fellow citizens in an open and nuanced way. As a result, we do not know how to give a considered and sincere response to the politically incorrect and sometimes extremist speeches of the populist.

When the populist begins to gain ground, the representatives of the dominant culture scorn him for his lack of political realism, or accuse him of threatening our civilization with his intolerant slogans that oppose any moderately accepted consensus. They dismiss him as a fanatic who does not deserve their attention. And one day, they realize that this "fanatic" is supported by a not inconsiderable portion of their fellow citizens. And if they disagree with his moral and political principles, it is already too late to debate with him, because he has taken his country out of Europe (Brexit) or installed Donald Trump in the oval office.

If we are to moderate the excesses of populism, it is imperative to fill the ethical vacuum in our public life with voices that can more fully represent the interests of all sectors of society and not just those who currently feel alienated. We need to foster a more balanced and intelligent public discussion about the crisis of governance and the crisis of values that the Western world is going through. Such a response will probably not come from the traditional political parties, whose culture is often at heart rather "pragmatic" and anti-intellectual. On the contrary, we can expect initiatives of this nature subject in the media, in educational institutions and in other relevant forums of civil society.

Opening a space for discussion on the ethical foundations of our culture is no longer a luxury, but a necessity. If we fail to do so, we open the way to populist and demagogic discourses that could, with their seductive and simplistic solutions, endanger the basic principles of a free and open society.