"Populist" is the only insult in British politics that concedes the argument while it makes it. Every other term of abuse claims a position is wrong. This one claims it is popular, and asks you to hear no difference between the two.
The word does have a proper meaning. The political scientist Cas Mudde defines populism with some precision: a thin politics that splits society into two moral camps, a pure people and a corrupt elite, and demands that government simply enact the people's will. That describes a real thing with real faults. A politics of the pure many against the corrupt few has no patience for the machinery that stops majorities doing whatever they please - the courts, the procedures, the side that lost the vote and keeps its rights anyway. Used for that, "populist" names a genuine danger, and a careful writer should hold the word in reserve for it.
That is almost never the word doing its work on a Tuesday-night panel. There, "populist" attaches not to any contempt for institutions but to the popularity of a demand the speaker dislikes. Watch where it lands. It lands on wanting lower immigration, on wanting cheaper energy, on wanting the offender caught and the border controlled. None of these is a theory about the pure people and the corrupt elite. Each is a preference, held by a great many people, that some of those describing it would rather fewer people held.
The tell is mechanical, and once seen it cannot be unseen. A claim gets called false when the speaker believes it is false. A claim gets called populist when the speaker cannot say it is false and wishes it were less believed. The label is reached for at the exact moment the argument on the merits has been lost - which is why it so often arrives with a poll attached, the wretched thing shown running comfortably ahead, offered not as evidence for the position but as the charge against it.
The word outlived the party
The irony sits in the word's own history. "Populist" was coined in 1892 by the American People's Party - farmers and labourers who took the name for themselves, proudly, to say whose side they were on. It was a badge before it was a slur. The party faded and the word outlived it, drifting over a century from a name people called themselves into a name pinned on them from above. That drift is the whole story in miniature. A word that once meant "of the people" now works, in most British usage, as a way for one set of people to talk about another set without having to talk to them.
There is a cost here, and it falls first on the honest critic of the real thing. Contempt for constitutional limits genuinely exists, on the left and the right, and it deserves a precise word. Every time the label is spent on a merely popular opinion, that precise word loses value - so that when a movement really does insist only its leader speaks for the real people, the alarm has been rung so often that no head turns. Crying populist at everything popular is how a country loses the ability to name the thing when it finally arrives.
The deeper damage is done to the ordinary voter, who is not a political theorist and never asked to be treated as one. A demand that many people share can be met or it can be beaten. It can be delivered, or it can be argued down until fewer people hold it. Both are the normal work of politics, and both take the demand seriously enough to engage it. Calling it populist does neither. It reclassifies the wanting itself as the fault - not the policy, but the appetite for it - and leaves the person who holds it with the clear sense that the objection is not to what they want but to their being counted at all. That sense is usually correct. It is also the most dependable machine for manufacturing the resentment the word claims to have detected.
So keep the word, but make it earn its keep. Reserve it for a politics that would override the courts, silence the losing side and collapse a whole nation into one leader's account of it. When it turns up for anything less, treat the label as information about the speaker rather than the position. Reached for honestly, "populist" names a real threat to democracy. Reached for the way Britain now reaches for it, it names a policy that is winning and a commentator who has run out of reasons why it should not be.
An opinion of the house. The argument is ours; the record beneath it belongs to no one.
How this piece was made
How this piece was made. The other side's case was put at full strength first: populism is a real and precise concept. Cas Mudde defines it as a "thin" ideology dividing a pure people from a corrupt elite and demanding the direct enactment of the popular will (Mudde, "The Populist Zeitgeist", Government and Opposition, 2004), and it names a genuine hostility to the constitutional checks on majority power. That was conceded, not knocked down. The turn is a claim about usage, not about the concept: that British broadcast and print now apply the word to the popularity of a disliked demand rather than to any contempt for institutions, and that the tell is its arrival at the point the argument on the merits has been lost. The historical spine is checkable: "populist" was coined in 1892 for the United States People's Party and drifted from self-description to external label over the following century (Etymonline). No living person is named or characterised - the criticism falls on a pattern of usage and on the commentariat as an institution, never on an individual's motive. No statistic is asserted as fact; the single figure in the body is explicitly hypothetical. What a critic should check: whether Mudde's definition is fairly represented; whether the claimed pattern of usage holds across a fair sample of coverage rather than cherry-picked cases; and whether the "tell" is falsifiable or is merely a way to wave away every honest use of the word. That last is the strongest objection, and the closing rule - reserve the word, do not retire it - is the answer offered to it.
What do you think?
Sign in — it's free to add your take, reply, and vote on others.
No takes yet. Be the first to make the argument.
The record stays free. If it was worth your time, buy us a coffee - or become a member for the commentary and the weekly.