"populist" is just a word people use when they don't understand why people care about something and don't bother trying to find out. "popular" = "what people I like want", "populist" = "what people I don't like want"
It's unfortunate that populism has a name that leads to this misconception. People see the word and jump into discussion assuming that they know what is all about.
Populism is the claim that the people have a 'will'. There is no real disagreement of what the real people want or need for compromise. There are people who disagree but they are not the 'real people'. They are somehow compromised, the corrupt elite, misled or 'the others'. What 'people want' is already known, now you just need to vote populist into power to implement the will of the people. Laws and norms often make it difficult to implement this 'will' and they should be changed.
By contrast liberal[1] democracies are based on idea that the complex democratic process gradually produces something that people can live with. It's not exactly what anyone wants. There is no common agreement of what people want when people go and vote. The end result of working democracy is negotiated compromise. Laws and norms should be followed when this game of democracy is played.
---
[1]: liberal is another word that have different meanings in different contexts. Liberal does not mean leftist in this context.
That's all fine and good if the democracy actually works. If it has been subverted by a corrupt elite then a desire for a real functioning liberal democracy by a vast majority of the populace can be handily written off as populism using that same definition. It's quite a convenient to define the term in a way that makes it vaguely pejorative, in that case. The fact that you set it up as a contrast to liberal democracy is a good illustration of that. Populism, like elitism, can be right or wrong for a given situation depending on context and policy details.
I always understood populist as bowing to the lowest common denominator rather than taking an actual moral position. Ie not thinking through the consequences.
It seems you are just accepting the globalist media's caricature of nationalism without thinking about it more deeply.
All nationalists take a moral position. That's what nationalism is. And all nationalists think through the consequences as well. Just like globalists do.
Are you saying nationalists like washington, lincoln, gandhi, mandela, et al weren't taking a moral position or thinking of the consequences of their nationalism?
"Populist" isn't just a label for nationalist. It's a label for a certain type or approach to politics. Bernie Sanders, for example, is a populist, though I seriously doubt that he's a nationalist in any meaningful sense.
> And all nationalists think through the consequences as well. Just like globalists do.
You surely mean "nationalist/globalist politicians", because in my experience, most people absolutely don't consider the consequences of policies that appeal to them. (Okay, maybe the first-order consequences, but not any indirect effects.)
I think PJ O'Rourke defined it best: Nationalism, the idea that every little group of human twerps with its own slang, haircut, and pet name for god should have a country.
Doesn't every world leader portray their struggle as a fight between their supporters and their enemies? It almost goes without saying that a politician whose supporters just so happened to be the masses and whose opponents just so happened to be the elites would say that there was a struggle between the masses and the elites...
Don't forget about historical examples like Boss Tweed, or the present-day examples of the governments of many third-world countries. There is definitely such a thing as having the scales tipped in your favor by a few especially important individuals. Sure, it might be excessive for the radicals on all wings to say that the system is completely corrupt on every level, but it's equally silly to think that both you and the CEO of Time Warner have identical levels of influence on the outcome of the next election.
(I used Tweed as an example because in addition to his "populist" appeals to the poorest of the poor, one of the major components of his scheme to stay in power was his relationships with the businesses he funneled money into.)
Sure, the US populism of the late 1800's / early 1900's was this negative sort of populism, at least not in the main (there's always fringe elements of any group) But most populism movements of the last 100 years seem to be this authoritarian, scapegoating variety. I'd be quite happy with a benign populism that sought to raise the quality of life for the masses, but all I see are engines of fear being used to to aid in gaining power. I don't think we get there when both sides of the left/right divide are stuck in a "they want to destroy us" level of rhetoric.
There may be something to your definition but populist is also plainly about the candidate who says whatever people want to hear, so yes it may overlap.
As for GP's point, it may be the case for Trump but not so much for the newest populist in Brazil, for instance, who's more or less a sellout to the US of A and giant platform companies as many a breed of politician here down south have ever been.
It's unfortunate that populism has a name that leads to this misconception. People see the word and jump into discussion assuming that they know what is all about.
Populism is the claim that the people have a 'will'. There is no real disagreement of what the real people want or need for compromise. There are people who disagree but they are not the 'real people'. They are somehow compromised, the corrupt elite, misled or 'the others'. What 'people want' is already known, now you just need to vote populist into power to implement the will of the people. Laws and norms often make it difficult to implement this 'will' and they should be changed.
By contrast liberal[1] democracies are based on idea that the complex democratic process gradually produces something that people can live with. It's not exactly what anyone wants. There is no common agreement of what people want when people go and vote. The end result of working democracy is negotiated compromise. Laws and norms should be followed when this game of democracy is played.
---
[1]: liberal is another word that have different meanings in different contexts. Liberal does not mean leftist in this context.