What are the rules and consequences of populism?

Answer 1

There are no "rules"other than the ones applicable to the standard political system.

There are no consequences to populsim. Populism is a political philosophy that identifies with the masses rather than with the establishment, often consisting of politically powerful elites who are, coincidentally, in the minority.

William Jennings Bryant was a populist, and campaigned several times on that platform. He was not successful in toppling the politically entrenched elites, but he paved the way for another populist, Theodore Roosevelt to sway the nation when he took office upon McKinley's assassination.

When TR ran again, he ran as a populist under the Bull Moose Party platform. He defeated Taft, a Republican but got Woodrow Wilson elected.

Populists traditionally lose elections, but the consequences of their politics and platforms have historically moved and shaped long term policies of the nation.

Bryant reshaped economic policies all the way up through the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration.

Theodore Roosevelt changed the way we look at our national resources, principally what are now national parks, monuments, and game reserves. TR's policies also signaled the end of business trusts, which Taft and later Wilson reshaped into more powerful anti-trust laws.

Roosevelt also reshaped labor laws, and other systems that placed the common man on as close to an even footing with big business as was possible during his times.

Franklin D. Roosevelt became a successful populist, serving the most terms of any president. His programs were not successful, with the exception of the reformation of the stock markets (Securities and Exchange Commission), the reformation of the banking industry (Federal Reserve System, FDIC, SPCI) and the creation of Social Security, railroad pensions, and other financial security devices.

Populism has seen others come and go. But the consequences are clear: populism fuels and inspires change. It is a catalyst.

Answer 2

Populism, by its traditional definition, is a political doctrine or philosophy that aims to defend the interests of the common people against an entrenched, self-serving or corrupt elite.

Recent scholarship, however, has discussed populism as a rhetorical style; as such, the term "populist" may be applied to proponents of widely varying political philosophies. Leaders of populist movements in recent decades have claimed to be on both the left and the right of the political spectrum, while some populists claim to be neither "left wing," "centrist" nor "right wing."[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

Leaders of populist movements have variously promised to stand up to corporate power, remove "corrupt" elites, fight for the "poor people of the country", and "put people first." Populism incorporates anti-regime politics, and sometimes espouses, especially among the right wing varieties, nationalism, jingoism, racism or religious fundamentalism.[9] Often they employ dichotomous rhetoric, and claim to represent the majority of the people. Many populists appeal to a specific region of a country or to a specific social class, such as the working class, middle class, or farmers or simply "the poor".

Populists often claim that standing close to the people and having a fierce and obvious opinion is something democracy encourages.[10] On the other hand, more traditional politicians say that populists often do not stand for their principles or aren't able to do any concessions, and only have a specific opinion for the purpose of gathering many votes