Due to the rise of populist parties in Europe, many scholars assume that „mainstream parties“ adopt populist communication to try and fight off the challenge. However there is few empirical evidence in this respect. The few existing studies couldn’t find support for this assumption.

This study aims to address this research gap by assessing how populist communication in election manifestos develop over time. I conduct a quantitative content analysis of election manifestos of center-left and center-right mainstream parties in Austria, Germany, Spain and Italy. Besides the measurement of populist communication strategies, I also assess if the political mainstream adopts right- and/or left-wing communication strategies due to the success of respective competing parties and shifts in public opinion.

The descriptive findings suggest evidence for a populist contagion in all countries except Germany. The same is true for the use of left-wing communication. Certain mainstream parties increasingly make use of populist and left-wing communication especially when shifts in public opinion occur.

Unlike populist and left-wing communication, hints for an adoption of right-wing communication can be observed in all countries under investigation – also in Germany. Thus, parties seem to be most responsive to the success of radical right parties and respective public moods.

I argue that the “populistization” of mainstream parties does not pose a threat to democracy because these parties adopt people-centered and anti-elitist but not illiberal or anti-pluralist communication strategies. However, the mainstreaming of right-wing communication can be considered as a larger threat: A high number of statements portraying “unnatives” or immigration in a negative light, suggests that immigrants, Muslims and other minorities are first and foremost a threat or a problem for the “native” society.