Populism is a word that is thrown around a lot to describe a diversity of Democrats. Bernie Quigley at Raising Kaine, for instance, describes Wesley Clark, John Edwards, and Jim Webb as "populists" but attacks John Edwards for having the wrong solutions in contrast to the other two. This seems to introduce the concept that a populist doesn't have to always agree with other populists about the solution to certain problems. This is an interesting concept that could perhaps help resolve disagreements within the Democratic Party and the liberal blogosphere in particular. We can all give along if we realize we have the same goal in mind, even if we disagree as to how we get there.
Some political typologies define a populist as someone who is socially conservative but economically liberal. While I do believe that there are people out there with that mix, I don't believe that it's productive to narrowly define a populist in that way. It turns populist into a simple supporter of absolute majority rules, with the majority dictating the outcome of both social and economic policy to their own benefit. I'm sure there are politicians who would run on platforms of allowing the majority to decide the social and cultural values imposed on the minority, and then tax the minority for the benefit of the majority, but that's not populism. Feel free to offer a definition.
I think we can agree that the opposite of populism is elitism. The terms are defined relative to one another. Elitism wants to create a system of privilege and class, and when applied to politics elitism means government policies that divide us into classes and grant some groups certain privileges that aid them in maintaining their power and position. Populism could be summed up by the statement of Thomas Jefferson: "Equal rights for all, special privileges for none."
This makes populism a way of thinking and approaching problems. It works to identify special privileges and undo or fix them. It works to promote equal rights and equal opportunity. But I don't think that populism is as simple as having to agree to certain policy proposals as the only way to fix problems. A populist is not defined by agreeing with proposal X and proposal Y, but the impact that their own proposals would have. Or, at the very least, if their heart is in the right place.
I think that the opposition to some of John Edwards' policies by Bernie Quigley is an example of this. If you listen to John Edwards it's clear that he cares about the divide in America between those with privilege and those without. He is a populist. But I think that other populists can disagree with Edwards about the best solutions.
Take the idea of sending everyone to college. For one person graduating from high school, going to college makes a lot of sense. They will be better off financially, largely because a college degree is seen as meaning something and having value. It separates the individual from other potential employees who only have a high school degree or none at all.
But if everyone were to have a college degree, or a vast majority, the college degree would loose its value. It would become the equivalent of today's high school degree, something that is expected. Instead, graduate programs would take on the role of today's undergraduate degree as a way of separating out potential employees. As noble as the idea is, sending everyone to college isn't going to work.
I think far too often in political debates, particularly those online, people are attacked simply for supporting different policy ideas. A handful of policies are viewed as the Holy Grail of Democratic politics and if you don't agree with them you're seen as a traitor to the cause. While it's good to try to find unity and agreement in support of policies, I think focusing on the founding principles of what the Democratic Party stands for is a better first step.