As you point out later, populism was not only about small producers. It's about labor too, but now more than ever.
People are antsy about nationalism, and not for bad reasons. But a national government is a crucial buffer for workers against amoral global capitalism (AGC).
Fact is that "internationalism" often devolves to being squishy soft on AGC. The idea that trade unions, mythical bolshevik formations, or street carnivals will do against AGC is a cop-out.
Connection of nativism, crankery, malignant views of immigration with so-called protectionism or populism is a left cover for acquiesence to AGC. It's the game of the liberal elites (like Hofstadter) -- those who use their social liberalism to mask their economic (classical) liberalism. That's why the neo-liberal elite media has crowned Pat Buchanan as the king of trade critics, rather than Nader or Jeff Faux.
Free movement of people and goods is simply laissez-faire by another name. Should striking workers allow "free movement" of substitute workers into their shops? Should we allow unfettered immigration of skilled workers, rather than forcing the Gov to support training for the unskilled? Hell no.
Ersatz internationalism is simply wrong from a working class perspective. The fact that it concedes a crucial field to Buchanan is only the icing on the cake.
I have no reason to dispute Josh's reference to the KoL's self-conception as a 'middle,' but it is not on point. The negative connotation of 'middle' is that it is exclusionary, that it is based on vilification of some lower group. There has been no support for this description with reference to the old pop movement. It clearly has some resonance today re: the angry white guys, but that's a different matter. Historic populism embraced the most impoverished tenant farmers, for whom starvation was not a liberal cause.
I appreciate JM's elaboration on the race dimension.
The conflict among workers, typified by the AFL/CIO division, or within the TEamsters, helps to explain the fragmentation of labor. It does not mean there is some constructive meaning to a purported dividing line between capital and labor that supports the separation of, say, the self-employed from their social peers in trade unions.
There is actually less of a working class outside the category of wage and salary employees in the U.S. than is often imagined. Less even than in European countries. So it wouldn't do to magnify this group as something special to the U.S. that merits a departure from what I would characterize as European socialist norms of program and organization.
But this segment of the working class constitutes a crucial swing component politically. The other part of the working class with less of a grip on standard employment (i.e., full time, year round) happens to be non-white minorities in so-called inner cities. These folks will not flourish by waiting for capital to come waltzing into their areas and providing decent jobs.
The fundamental failure -- thus far -- of the welfare state to deliver public employment to areas of highest unemployment and under-employment makes a populist, enterprise-friendly approach relevant to oppressed minorities. I didn't figure this out myself. They told me so.
mbs