[importantbrian]

> (specifically: it's the vector that rejects pluralism, divides the polity into "the people" and "the elites", and declares that a particular political agenda, in its entirety, represents the true will of the people)

The elites vs the people distinction is usually the key characteristic of populism in most definitions. Populist movements also tend to be very anti-establishment. Many vectors for influencing politics don't involve viewing society as this battle between the people and the elites. For example, while it's true that left-wing populists exist in the US I wouldn't describe the current Democratic party as a populist party. It is more of an institutionalist party and they don't tend to attack elites, because most groups traditionally considered part of the elite support the party. This is in contrast to the current Republican party which very much casts itself as being opposed to the elite. All the rhetoric about battling the deep state and draining the swamp is very much populist.

[downWidOutaFite]

It depends on your definition of elites. "Deep state" and "drain the swamp" is about attacking government elites but the same movement promotes less regulation and lower taxes for business elites.

[tptacek]

It doesn't matter who the elites are; it only matters that some notion of them exists. The key to populism is the claim that some political platform (left, right, religious or secular) represents the manifest will of the people in its entirety, and that any opposition to that platform is corrupt or elite-driven. If you're looking to understand the term by its opposition, the antonym of "populism" is "pluralism".

[jjjjj55555]

> represents the manifest will of the people in its entirety, and that any opposition to that platform is corrupt or elite-driven

It's funny how this starts to sound more and more like just Marxism.

[tptacek]

No, Marxism is an political platform. Populism obviously isn't Marxism; there is right-populism (which is currently the most popular form).