POPULISM HAS ENTERED OUR LANGUAGE as a byword for a certain style of twenty-first century politics, but it’s one of those journalistic terms that has massive utility and communicates vast ambiguity. What on earth do we mean by it? First of all it has become associated with right-wing and nationalistic rhetoric — left-wing populism is always preceded by the qualifier. But what does it actually entail in terms of policy? Nobody knows. There are very few political philosophers calling themselves “populists”, and even media commentators are usually recipients of the label, not standard-bearers of it.
For those labelled “populists” it’s something of a slur — an elitist sneer at those irrational rabble rousers — and for their opponents it’s regarded as a media gloss on grubby far-right movements that are not authentic representatives of popular opinion. But political actors and thinkers of both Left and Right ought to be willing to bear the label proudly — if only they really understood it.
The term first began to appear more frequently in the 2000s when the anti-globalisation movement was still led by the Left, who were comfortably ignored by the neoliberal/neoconservative consensus. Usage in the press increased considerably after the 2008 financial crisis, but truly spiked with the nomination of Donald Trump as leader of the Republican Party in 2016, and became a byword for aggressive right-wing anti-elitist rhetoric.
Latin word — those who inflamed the ancient Roman mob with promises of radical change. Opposed to them were the elitists, the “best men” or optimates. This division was famously outlined by Cicero in , where he described those who upheld the Roman Republic:
