Silly arguments that do not make sense, now this is the language of the left. American populism has always been a conservative concept. It is in the south anyway. Go Newt, tear his heart out.
It was big in the south at one time, hence George Wallace doing so well in a presidential election.
But there is a reason for the label “conservative populism”. IT’s because “populism” is not conservative. It’s not particularly “liberal” either. It is more of an appeal to the majority opinion than a coherent political philosophy.
GIngrich’s statement is “populist” because at this moment, many people feel put out by rich people, and therefore it resonates with the “common man”. It doesn’t make it conservative.
It is also true that conservatives have had a populist streak, like Teddy Roosevelt, although he’s not held forth as a conservative icon. It is revealing that GIngrich likes him so much. And frankly, Sarah Palin is a bit of a populist in her conservatism, although in her case it is “at odds”, and creates a tension between her strong desire to take a solid conservative position, along with her inclination on the edges to appeal “to the masses”, to speak for the “ordinary folks”.
But the “ordinary folks” aren’t particularly conservative, or liberal, or anything. And OWS is a perfect example.