To be both internally consistent and compatible with liberalism, populism would have to take “the people” in the plural and liberal sense of “individuals,” with none more deserving of power over his fellows. It would not be “populism” anymore.

Theseus’s Paradox.  You’re effectively replacing a main plank of populism with one from classical liberalism.  This is transformative and would, as you say, redefine the concept.

Populism is whatever opposes Party line as promulgated by NY Times, CNN and BBC.

Let the people be plural, that is, a collection of individuals

And if this collection of individuals forms a social contract a la Buchanan, what would you call it?

These sorts of articles ignore the pesky fact that attacking populism and tribalism is inherently tribalistic and us versus them since you are still splitting the world into good people (cosmopolitan classical liberals) and bad people (populist nationalists).

Second of all classical liberals of the past were very populist. How many of them didn’t complain about how corrupt, immoral and bad the church, monarchy and aristocracy were and how the decent people were being oppressed by them? They sure embraced an us versus them philosophy.

Also classical liberals of the past were quite open about how civilized they were and how their opponents were barbarians. Hayek for example was one of them. This of course is still an us-versus-them philosophy. John Bright and Herbert Spencer were perfectly fine with British Imperialism as long as was directed against the barbaric Irish Catholics.

Also much of the attacks on populism seem to be predicated on the assumption that our present elites are somewhat classically liberal (see Fukuyama). This is nonsense as our elites’ rejection of freedom of speech alone is enough to disprove of this contention. Or how Lemieux himself has on more than one occasion bemoaned how people ought to listen to expert economists. This is predicated on the assumption that these experts are ones he agrees with (as opposed to say the likes of Cass, Piketty or Stiglitz) or that the elites will listen to the economists he agrees with.

Scott Sumner today has a post in which this statement occurs

We are now the world’s leading producer of both oil and gas.

So Sumner is a collectivist? There are other statements betraying collectivism. In fact, can one do economics without being a collectivist? After all, Adam Smith titled his book The Wealth of Nations so presumably he has a concept of Nation and I suspect he doesn’t mean anything peculiar with the concept Nation.

I come late to this blogpost about populism, but would like to add a comment nonetheless.

Populism has strengths and weaknesses, from the vantage point of classical liberalism or libertarianism.

Strengths:

Populism mistrusts the motives and competence of the establishment. Thus it dovetails with public-choice theory and with skepticism of ‘the deep state’ and of ‘rule by experts’. Occasionally, a corrective to smug technocracy.

Populism discloses previously suppressed grievances about major problems (e.g., economic and cultural dislocation caused by automation and trade). Not always pretty, but at times refreshingly frank. A counterweight to what Hume calls “the civilizing force of hypocrisy”?

Weaknesses:

Populism focusses on simple (perhaps symbolic?) solutions to complex problems. The solutions then will miss the mark and foster more political frustration.

Populism abhors cost-benefit analysis, which deserves a place in policy-making.

Conclusion: Populism requires a wise leader who inspires ‘the people’ enough to earn elbow room in policy-making.