In 2016, something extraordinary happened in the politics of diverse countries around the world. With surprising speed and simultaneity, a new generation of populist leaders emerged from the margins of nominally democratic nations to win power. In doing so, they gave voice, often in virulent fashion, to public concerns about the social costs of globalization.
Why does this person insist on using the word populist ( I got tired of counting the many times he used it in this article ) to describe these autocratic strongmen? By his definition, Trump is a populist but in this country during the last election cycle it was Bernie who was referred to as the populist - the people's candidate etc. the sheer number of times Prof. McCoy uses the term is somewhat inexplicable. What was his point? Why conflate the term applying it against the grain in this country regardless of the classic use of the term. It wasn't used that way during the election and the term populist means something else at least it did in our country.
One can only wonder at the applied confusion this article causes by using the term in such a way... or rather... in so often a repetition. Semiotics supplies a critical analysis of advertising or propaganda but hey Prof. "Give us a sign" ( actually once or twice would have sufficed).
Just remember that "Trump is Hitler."
Thinking just gets in the way of that narrative.
"We are at war with populism. We have always been at war with populism."
Not only is 'populism' conflated with Right Wing populism, but 'globalization' is conflated with multiculturalism. There is 'good' populism, and very, very evil globalization going on in the world.