Jair Bolsonaro is the newest president of Brazil. His victory over Fernando Haddad, winning 55.1 percent of the vote, is another addition to a long list of recent far-right victories in global politics.

Bolsonaro’s win gives his deeply controversial platform, full of anti-immigrant, anti-science, and anti-democracy positions, a place to become real policy in Brazil, implying enormously negative change for both Brazil and the rest of the world. Bolsonaro’s success is a key lesson for Democrats as they approach the midterms and the 2020 election; anger is an incredibly powerful motivator for voters.

Bolsonaro ran on a populist platform, promising to fight for Brazilians who are justifiably furious with the Brazilian government for its deep-rooted corruption that only recently was uncovered, implicating some of Brazil’s largest companies and highest-ranking officials, including former Presidents. His platform includes calls for a stronger military, primarily for the purpose of protecting the Brazilian people from immigrants from Haiti, Senegal, and Bolivia, as well as Syrian refugees, whom he called “a escória do mundo,” or “the scum of the Earth.” He opposes environmental regulation and hopes to eliminate protections for wilderness lands in favor of economic interests, especially those of mining corporations, and plans to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords. He has been quoted praising autocrats and totalitarian governments across the globe, including Augusto Pinochet of Chile, Alberto Fujimori of Peru, and, most worrisome, Brazil’s own former military dictatorship that was infamously brutal to its own citizens. Finally, he has repeatedly been criticized for making outrageously racist, misogynistic, and homophobic statements to the public.

Sound familiar?

Bolsonaro has undeniable parallels to populist candidates who have been disturbingly successful in their respective elections, including Marine Le Pen of France, Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey, the AFD party in Germany, and, of course, Donald Trump. These individuals and parties (or, as they will call themselves, “movements”) all have one key feature in common; they all claim to be the savior of the forgotten man.

The world has seen a sharp increase in general dissatisfaction with government. For example, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto at one point in his term had a 74% disapproval rating. The United Kingdom recently voted to leave the European Union, accusing the E.U. of refusing to give British citizens representation in the making of E.U. laws and therefore denouncing bureaucracy. The 2016 U.S. election also saw an increase in third-party votes as well as a general frustration among voters stemming from a widespread hatred of both major candidates.

This global trend represents an important lesson for Democrats as the 2020 election approaches: anger is useful. Trump, Le Pen, Bolsonaro, and others all found success due to their ability to exploit the anger of the middle and lower classes by claiming to be the anti-establishment candidate in their races. The 2016 election was a competition between emotion without clear policy and policy without real emotion, Trump and Clinton. Trump proved that how voters feel is now even more important than the (sometimes) complex and coherent plans put forward by each candidate. By placing their hopes in Hillary Clinton, Democrats wagered that the public would care more about the temperament and policies of a candidate rather than that candidate’s ability to communicate and embody voters’ anger; they, clearly, were wrong, and now Democrats must be able to put forward candidates who can embody the fury we have seen from liberals across America since Trump’s inauguration. If Democrats want to win back the White House, they cannot put forward another boring and non-emotional candidate; they must take a page out of the populist playbook and use Americans’ anger as a vehicle to victory.