This is an odd use of the term "populist", Max. Are we to call general antigovernmet sentiments "populist" just because they are expressed, in one form or another, by lots of people? But without any reference to the *interests* of those people? Surely populism (at least the version of it that interests people here) must be defined as that which advances the interests of the great mass of us unwashed against the interests of capital and the few who control, and benefit from their control of, capital.
I repeat: Armey's antigovernment rhetoric is directed against the use of government to help people, when such action is in opposition to capital's interests (minimum wage, single payer health insurance, etc). He is for government action to protect and enhance capital's interest (war spending, prisons, etc.).
The fact that Armey, and Reagan, have had some success in getting people to repeat their slogan that "the guvmint is the problem" doesn't make what they say or do "populist". Nor does the fact that some government actions *are* stupid or reprehensible--and should be opposed--serve to make Armey's antigovernment rhetoric populist.
Armey is the antithesis of a populist; there is no "trace" of populism in him. And to approach him in the hopes of appealing to that nonexistent strain, as Henry suggests, is a complete waste of time.