Trump, Sanders, and the Essential Contest Over “Populism”

2. The Concept Of ‘Populism’

Like all political concepts, ‘populism’ has been variously defined. Its usage is, perhaps, surprisingly recent. The emergence of the term, and its initially narrow focus, are illustrated by the OED entry (‘P’ entries completed 1908-9). ‘Populism’ briefly refers to ‘Populist’ which in turn is primarily defined as ‘An adherent of a political party formed in the U.S. in Feb. 1892, the chief objects of which were public control of railways, limitations of private ownership of land, ….a graduated income tax, etc..’(OED, 1933). No more general definition or earlier usage is offered. This usage is strongly associated with what now appears as a strange mixture of socialist and liberal ideas, inspired by writers like Henry George.

More recent definitions offered in academic work for theoretical analysis and/or empirical operation are broader. The main features appear to be:

• 1.

  “A form of politics predicated on a moral distinction between corrupt elites and the virtuous people, with the latter viewed as the sole legitimate source of political power (Laclau, 1997; Mudde, 2007; cited in Bonikowski and Gidron, 2016: 7)

• 2.

  “a political strategy through which a personalistic leader seeks or exercises government power based on direct, unmediated, uninstitutionalized support from large numbers of mostly unorganized followers.” (Weyland, 2001:14),

• 3.

  “a thin-centered ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogenous and antagonistic groups, ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite,’ and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté générale (general will) of the people”. (Mudde, 2004: 543)

• 4.

  “a rhetorical style appealing to the masses over the corrupt elite. (Hawkins, 2009: 2010); cited in Bonikowski and Gidron, 2016: 7))