You see, the problem here is one of the most common problems with current political debate -- the author creates his/her own definition of words that differs from what many have agreed upon previously. In this case, it appears the author is assuming the term "populist" is owned by the right-wing and can only refer to anti-democratic forces. That of course is baloney! "Populist" in its original and lasting definition refers to those forces who try to force open elite institutions to bring into existence a "popular" -- i.e., citizen-based democratic movement for political control. It is in fact the right-wing who have co-opted populism for their purposes that run counter to the true meaning of the word -- and as we might have expected -- liberal media mouthpieces of corporate elitism are falling over one-another to win their approval, lest they be called "radical" or "politically-correct" by the same forces they would hope to reform. But "liberal reform" is another matter -- perhaps an oxymoronic one.