Zitat

---

On Thursday night, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin took on the rising tide of “populist nationalism” with a history lesson.

Populism, Levin explained, is really just progressivism. The populist movement in America was the forerunner of the progressive movement, and both populism and progressivism share the same disdain for constitutionalism that conservatives reject.

Listen:
- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/comme...h.uWsKiVDK.dpuf

---

Depends on HOW populism is being defined, but historically, he's wrong. Populism goes back to the split between the Federalists and the Republicans. As one historian ably put it, the Federalists feared the public, the Republicans feared the government. With Jefferson's election in 1800, populism won, and continued to grow [Jefferson went from aping the fashion of French nobility when he was Ambassador to eating in the common room of his boarding house when elected President, opening the door to the White House himself, to wearing plain clothes and no powdered wigs]. Republicans held the White House for the next 24 years. And Andy Jackson brought populism to America in Spades.

As for distain for Constitutionalism, that thread, interestingly enough, got a lot of help from one A. Lincoln. Suppressed Habeas Corpus, exiled Americans favorable to the Southern point of view, generally ran roughshod over the Document.

Levin is correct when he refers to , say William Jennings Bryant, Bob La Follette and those guys. BUT Woodrow Wilson was a Progressive, and was NO populist. So even there, care needs to be taken.

In the context of today, I see the argument more in the terms of Federalist-Republican. Our putative masters are concerned that the peons won't go along with their choice. Tough.

So sorry...editing. BBL