There is an old social phenomena of people disapproving of elites and stigmatizing the 'undeserving poor' (sic). But as a generalization, it is just inaccurate. Clearly it applies to right-wing variants of populism. I've seen nothing to support its relevance to the pre-1900 movement.
The Peoples Party offered a rich stew of criticisms and programmatic responses to capitalism. It is bad politics to obscure this heritage with a negative generalization -- "producerism" as an alienated 'middle' -- that may not even apply to it. Even if prejudice towards the poor could be shown in the old movement, that still would not justify obscuring its historical contribution. Consider the CIO movement, which was loaded with race/gender problems. We do not stigmatize it by confining ourselves to the negative elements. Why do so for the Peoples' Party?
Part of my misgivings about the producerism rap is that I think the Peoples Party was in certain ways more advanced than some radical doctrines that came later. (Like "socialism"!) To some extent, the warnings about populism are obstacles to such a discussion.
I was careful -- but evidently not sufficiently -- to separate CB from what I described as a liberal elitist view. Nor did I intimate anything about his views of working people.
The dangers and damages implied by right-wing populism are mostly well-taken. I only say mostly because to some extent the struggles of working people that emerge in populist form get more 'left' criticism then is warranted, or criticism that is not warranted at all. A perfect example is all the kvetching about labor, Junior Hoffa, the WTO, and protectionism.
CB's survey is informative, no doubt about it. But it is subject to misuse as well. Coordinating opposition to free- trade legislation in Congress is the furthest the left-right alliance has gone, as far as I know. I don't know what else Nader is up to. "Nader and Fulani" is just inappropriate terminology. They are totally different animals doing totally different things. Arguably, the latter is not of the left in any substantive way. What Nader is is plain enough; he's a pill but he's done a lot of good things. He's capable of doing something awful or wonderful. We'll just have to hold our breaths.
My basic position on Buchanan/Fulani/Perot is shoot the messenger, figuratively speaking, but take a good part of the message seriously.
I do agree with CB that the work on the right is useful. Indeed, I've followed it for a long time. I don't fault his intentions in the slightest. I do think that in certain respects it is short-sighted, in terms of some of its political implications.
mbs