consider FDR to be one?
Usage of the term populism varies in history and location. On the surface, it often appears to be an ideal of democracy by claiming to support the grass roots needs and interests of "the people." But I am wary of populism because of how it can vary in defining who "the people" are and who is a threat to their needs and interests.
Democracy depends on certain values and principles, e.g. the value of all people and the principles of equality and protecting everyone's rights. That's the kind of democratic principle that I see FDR supporting, not as a populist, but as defender and preserver of democratic principles. In his time, the nation was as polarized as today, fascism vs. communism as movements claiming to represent "the people." Market manipulations, speculation, and corporate monopolies had created economic disaster that hurt everyone and threatened democracy itself due to the political and social unrest that it created. FDR acted to preserve democracy by breaking up monopolies, pressing for financial oversight, and creating programs to relieve the stress that created extremism.
But populism, which usually pits "the people" against "the elites" is based more on strong emotional appeal in a zealous ideology than on democratic principles, even though it claims to represent those principles. Populism can come from the left or the right. Its zealous emotional appeals can crowd out reason and descend into a cult movement under a charismatic or authoritarian leader that depends more on personality and emotions than on sound democratic governing principles. Depending on how "the people" and "the elites" are defined in a populist movement, it can exclude certain groups (ethnic, religious, political, class, educational level) as "enemies of the people." At that point, it veers away from democracy and its principles.
In the name of equality, the initial populism of Russian Communism descended to vilification of the middle and upper classes as "elites." Lenin and later, Stalin, were the cult leaders. Educated people were "elitists" as the working classes were elevated. Certain types of culture - art, music, literature - were elitist. Consequently, dissent of any kind was suspect or punished. The party leaders became the new elites and freedom and equality were destroyed under authoritarian rule.
On the right, fascist populism led to the cults of Hitler and of Musolini in place of sound democratic governance. They defined "elites" as Jews, liberals, a free press, and political dissenters and in Germany, as "enemies of the German people" who had supposedly caused the defeat of Germany in the First World War. The democratic rule of law was replaced by the personality cults of Hitler and Musolini.
As a Democrat (big D), I support the principle of reasonable regulation of businesses and corporations, of paying their fair share, as a balance against letting them run rampant over government and the rights of the people. I recognize the need for some substantial political and social change to undo the wrongs of RW extremism and restore democratic balance to our governance. I support the full equality rights of all people, especially people whose full equality has been suppressed throughout our history. I don't see that as populism. I see it as living up to the principles and values that we have paid lip service to, and have held as ideals of democracy, but have not yet fully achieved. Our democracy is a living, growing, breathing governance, composed of the people who live it and make it what it is through our votes and through our commitment to its values and principles.
= new reply since forum marked as read