For all the terminology of the political world, all the divisions and divisions-within-divisions, there is no term which defies definition quite the way populism does. When we speak of conservatives or liberals or progressives or even libertarians, we pretty much all agree what the label means, and who it covers. Hyphenation and neologisms abound to adequately describe individual factions of the major groups; such as social conservatives versus fiscal conservatives, or neo-conservatives versus paleo-conservatives. But there's no disagreement with the general scope of what "conservative" means. The concept of populism doesn't have this generally-agreed-upon consensus among the public, however. Even historians define the term differently amongst themselves. And this is just within America's politics -- populism can mean even more diverse movements when talking about the rest of the world.

Newsweek magazine announced a few weeks ago that: "We Are All Socialists Now." While I leave it to others to debate this dubious assumption, I would counter with the question: "Are We All Populists Now?" Because the wide use of the term seems to be encompassing just about everyone now, with the possible exception of a few CEOs in the financial industry.

Consider how the term was used on the campaign trail in the past two years, if you find that hard to believe. Just from memory, the "populist" label was slapped on: Mike Huckabee, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and (later) Barack Obama. Each was lauded for their "populist appeal." Or their "populist stance" on the issues. But if the label can interchangeably be used to describe both Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton, is it big enough to encompass everyone? Well, perhaps not John McCain -- he had just a few too many houses for anyone to call him populist (with a straight face, in any case).

The problem of defining populism comes from the fact that there is no core set of beliefs which make you "populist" or "not populist." Populism itself is usually a movement, and not a political party. And it is usually a reactionary movement which takes place in times of widespread insecurity and crisis. But populism has an uglier side as well. It is not merely reactionary to the current time and situation the country finds itself in, it is also usually a movement against some identified group or groups. Populist movements are normally born of popular rage against some group which is often scapegoated into a great evil (whether justified or not). And populist movements can come from either side of the political spectrum.

Many today make the mistake of conflating populism with progressivism. But equating the two is wrong. Some populists and some progressives today probably agree on a lot of issues, but that doesn't mean all populism is progressive (although you might be able to say that progressives try to focus on issues they think have a lot of populist support).

The reason for the common mistake of using the two terms interchangeably comes from the history of the two movements. The word "populism" comes from "The People's Party" which was a third party which rose to the heights of their power (they got one U.S. Senator elected) in the 1890s. It was largely an agrarian, anti-bank movement. But they were eventually absorbed into the Democratic Party, which many populists decried as a monstrous sellout at the time. Shortly thereafter, the Progressive Party seemed to take their place on the American stage, and up until about World War II made its own third-party splash on the scene.

But these aren't the only movements in American politics which historians call populist. Because while the granges and farmer's-rights people started the movement which initially defined populism, by their dissolution they lost the right to define the label on their own terms. And historians now use the label for a lot of movements which bill themselves as taking the side of "the people" against some perceived villain.

This villain changes over time. Which is why each time populism rebirths itself, it is a movement dependent on the current political crisis and balance of power. And there are no set guidelines for who the villains of the day can be in any given "populist" movement. As close as you can come is to generally identify those above "the people" who are being demonized, and those below "the people." While the first instance is what average people usually think of when they think of populism, the second simply cannot be ignored.

Above "the people," almost by definition, is "the elite." Now, this elite isn't always exactly the same group, but more populist movements have agreed on who to target on this issue than on those below "the people." The favorite target: Wall Street bankers and other plutocrats (usually also from the Northeast). The ugly side of this, historically at least, has been to equate this elite group with the handy scapegoat of the Jews. Populism and antisemitism actually share a long history, to populism's shame. And this is where it gets into what is today technically called: "tin-foil hat territory." Not only the Jews have been singled out in this fashion, but all manner of elitist boogeymen as well -- the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, and other crackpot notions too numerous and far-fetched to iterate here.

If you think that's ugly, consider who has been historically scapegoated below "the people" -- immigrants. The particular flavor of immigrant has changed, but can be summed up as "whichever immigrant group were the last ones in." Irish, Italian, Mediterranean, Eastern European, Chinese -- whoever was the largest group to have most recently arrived has been excoriated for "stealing good American jobs." The anti-immigrant wave that has been building for the past ten or fifteen years is nothing new in American history, in other words. And it is accurate to call the Minutemen and other "citizens" border patrol groups "populists."

This, while ugly, barely scratches the surface of the ugliness exhibited in the name of populism. While all the attention is currently on a right-wing radio personality, a few have begun making comparisons to a right-wing radio demagogue from years past: Father Coughlin. Who was also called a "populist," at least when he started out. Former Clinton cabinet member Robert Reich warned of this in a recent Salon article:

Republicans have made no secret of their wish to blame Obama for the bad economy, and to stir up as much populist rage against his so-called socialist tendencies as politically possible. History shows how effective demagogic ravings can be when a public is stressed economically. Make no mistake: Angry right-wing populism lurks just below the surface of the terrible American economy, ready to be launched not only at Obama but also at liberals, intellectuals, gays, blacks, Jews, the mainstream media, coastal elites, crypto socialists, and any other potential target of paranoid opportunity.

The only thing he forgot in his list of favorite populist targets was immigrants, but still a clearly scary list to a certain demographic. The media certainly isn't helping to accurately define the term. Of course, since there is no agreed-upon definition of "populism," they are free to do so. Meaning that calling Rush Limbaugh or Rick Santelli a "populist" is no more incorrect than calling Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi a "populist." It's like the old kung-fu movie challenge: "My superior populism style will defeat your populist style!"

But in all seriousness, this is the challenge now facing the left. A populist rage is indeed building in this country. It can be defined and channeled into productive reforms and progressive policies, or (if ignored) it will erupt as a backlash from the right. There aren't many terms in American politics which can be honestly used by one party or the other in this fashion, which depends on the current circumstances. Platitudes like "ethics" or "change" or "reform" are used equally by both, but actual "isms" such as populism have in modern times been seen as the purview of one party or the other ("Liberal Republican" wasn't always the oxymoron it is today, for instance).

This may sound like some sort of semantic debate, splitting hairs of political philosophy. But the ramifications could be enormous. Because the balance of power in Washington could swing in the next few years depending on which side defines "populism" better than the other. It's not just a framing issue, it could be the biggest battle in 2010, or even 2012. Whichever side can convince America that it is truly battling for the populist cause (however it is defined) may have an enormous advantage in elections to come.

For the Democrats, the challenge is to pass law after law which is seen as helping out "the little guy" or "the middle class." Without watering everything down to suit Big Business. Passing credit card reform would be an excellent start down this path. Conversely, Republicans are stoking the fires of hatred towards Wall Street, and are banking on (sorry, I couldn't resist) Wall Street being the boogeyman for the next few years.

Populism can be a force for good. It can be a positive and progressive thing. It should be a force for good. It should be a movement which betters the lives of "the people," forcing government to address middle-class concerns as opposed to Big Business. But it can also get hijacked fairly quickly and used for some ugly purposes instead.

During any such period of nebulous definition of "populism," both sides are going to try to grasp the label in the public's eyes. But for the time being, until one side or another definitively wins this fight to frame the issue, I guess we're all populists now.

-- Chris Weigant