The analysis of political organizations that use populist communication is nowadays fundamental to understand the political phenomena taking place in Western democracies. In this direction, the text written by Campolongo, Scanni, and Tarditi represents a relevant contribution to political analysis. The scholars have already dealt with the communication and medicalization of politics in the past, through articles and monographs; their earlier works were specially focused on the organizational transformations of parties, induced by the digital revolution, and the different declinations of populism and its interpreters. This book focuses on three elements: crisis, political narratives, and populism.

The authors decided to work on these themes in 2020. The pandemic outbreak represented a disruptive event in Western political arena, already characterized by the Great Recession. The latter was marked by a general weakness of political parties, both because of the lack of trust in them, and of the lack of responsiveness on their part. The pandemic outbreak made these processes even more apparent: the relevance of effective policy decisions collides with a political establishment lacking adequate preparation, thus even more incapable of dealing with Covid-19 consequences.

The researchers’ objectives, explicitly stated at the beginning of the book, were to analyze the crisis narratives capable of influencing collective perceptions elaborated by those European political parties that were characterized by the use of a populist communicative register; to verify whether the persistence of the typical polarization We versus the Others could be found in these narratives; and how the great ideologies, structured around the class cleavage and the consequent right–left distinction, had influenced their framing strategies (p. 8).

The book fills in some gaps in the political literature on the subject: the empirical analysis, in fact, examines the narratives constructed by political parties and not exclusively by leaders, as is usually done in the literature.

Another novel element is the analysis of the pandemic frame by focusing on three specific dimensions: health, economic, and international. The authors considered the contexts of Italy, France, and Spain. The comparison of the narrative frames of the crisis developed from February to October 2020. It was conducted by examining speeches concerning the measures to be taken to cope with the consequences of the spread of the virus, by the representatives of those “new or renewed” political forces that the authors divide into left-wing, right-wing, and hybrid populists.

Specifically:

• • Podemos and La France Insoumise left-wing populists, focusing on the building of inclusive communities and on impoverished social groups’ interests;

• • Rassemblement National, Lega per Salvini Premier, and Vox, right-wing populists who, through a Eurosceptic and nationalist discourse, aim at building excluding communities;

• • Movimento 5 Stelle and La République En Marche, mixing left-wing proposals and right-wing ones, and therefore framed as hybrid populists, whose discourse focuses on anti-establishment statements and on the renewal of the political class.

In the framework of populism studies, the three political scientists interpret populism as a subtle ideology (p. 24). Thus, there are several references to the scientists Laclau, Mudde, and Mouffe.

Virus Populista? is structured in seven chapters that we can divide into three parts. In the first one (Chapters 1–3), the three political scientists emphasize how globalization and interconnectedness have weighed on the emergence and scope of the pandemic crisis.

The text focuses on politics, and in particular on the relations between political actors, and on the discursive competitive dynamics. The discursive dimension of the crisis opens up some opportunities for parties. In societies marked by disruptive events, political communication is fundamental. The crisis narrative, to which the authors refer, is based on two categories: information management and meaning management, the ability to shape the population's crisis perception.

In 2020, the discursive dispute was structured around three thematic areas: pandemic, politics, and science; economy and society; and European and international cooperation. The first refers to the very recognition of the danger posed by the spread of the virus, governmental measures to deal with it, and the relationship between politics and science, and thus between their respective interpreters. The second refers to the decisive importance of the current economic model to determine the extent of the crisis. Austerity policies have generated increasing inequalities, and the systemic weakness of the health service proved decisive in turning the crisis into a pandemic disaster. Lastly, it highlights the European Union's (EU) regaining of political centrality since the pandemic outbreak: the citizen's material conditions depend on its choices, thus EU governance is once again decisive, which is confirmed by the shift to distributive policies after years of austerity. Chapter 3 is dedicated to a description of the populist forces that, in the time period taken into account, were in government and in opposition.

The second part (Chapters 4–6) focuses on the authors’ empirical research. It was conducted through the method of comparative qualitative analysis of the speeches of the representatives of the selected parties given in parliament between February and October 2020, supplemented with communication material found on social media and the official websites of the political parties.

According to the authors, the populists in opposition insisted on the frame of the “emphasizing” of the pandemic crisis, whereas those in government insisted on the frame of the “recognition” of the exceptional nature and unpredictability of the crisis. The interventions of the various party representatives in the text give readers the opportunity to understand the issues at the core of the discursive contest. The authors make a distinction between parties in government and opposition, but differences are not lacking even within the two camps, differences that underline the vitality of the left–right axis.

In their conclusions, the authors highlight the persistence of the populist communicative register during the pandemic crisis by the parties, which differ greatly on framing strategies. In relation to the analysis of the discourse presented by the scholars the failure to overcome the right and the left emerges. It confirms the theoretical premise of populism as a subtle ideology and therefore to be understood not as a phenomenon of overcoming ideologies but of their rearticulation. A further merit of the text is the collection and analysis of the interventions of populist forces. The authors guide readers in understanding the framing process and the party competition around it. This has the capacity to shape citizens’ thinking and perceptions, to orient the debate, and consequently to intervene in the institutional agenda by helping to determine the public policy-making process.

A concluding remark is required concerning the category of “hybrid populisms,” which encompasses Movimento 5 Stelle and La République En Marche: this is an unstable, and somewhat undefined, category, since the two parties have a brief history and their positions have significantly changed over time; in addition, as the authors argue, the persistence of the left–right axis is witnessed by its ability to attract hybrid populisms toward one of its poles.

The Italian political science community is in agreement in defining the phase that began with the Great Recession of 2008 and is still ongoing as a phase of “polycrisis” or “permacrisis.” In the light of this assumption, a text such as Virus Populista?, capable of putting under the spotlight, through empirical analysis, some peculiar and still understudied aspects of the crisis, is fundamental for understanding the current political transform.