I would say my definition is only odd to some on the left. Populism is often used to refer to right-wing movements, as well as to those which are not as obviously classified.
A broader definition can be found in Mike Kazin's boo, The Populist Persuasion, that I mention here every five months or so. For Kazin, populist movements include the prohibitionists pre-1910; the anti-communism of the 1950's; and the modern religious right.
Common features of these movements are: a) the notion of a cause (merited or not) which pits the many against an elite few (the latter people and interests with money and power); b) the idea that these elites have damaged some lost state of higher well-being for the many; c) the use of themes (justifiably or not) which exploit the actual grievances to which you allude; d) in some cases the advocacy of policies which at least in literal terms go against the interests of Capital (e.g., Buchanan on trade; Jack Kemp on the IMF).
Thus it is possible for certain racist or fascist movements to be classified as populist, though clearly not all populist movements should be regarded in a negative light.
Some on the left are prone to narrow the definition of populism because they may see any sort of vaguely left insurgency as precursors to movements whose explicit politics they share. But it doesn't necessarily have to turn out that way.
> 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.).
yup yup yup
> 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
No but the fact that Reagan sold this to so many ordinary people as a revolt against elites does, in my book.
> 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.
No disagreement on your last point, nor on the whole with the view that Armey is not a very good example of a right-wing populist type.
mbs