This paper asks whether history should change the way in which economists and economic historians think about populism. We use Müller's definition, according to which populism is ‘an exclusionary form of identity politics, which is why it poses a threat to democracy’. We make three historical arguments. First, late-nineteenth-century US Populists were not populist. Second, there is no necessary relationship between populism and anti-globalization sentiment. Third, economists have sometimes been on the wrong side of important policy debates involving opponents rightly or wrongly described as populist. History encourages us to avoid an overly simplistic view of populism and its correlates.

中文翻译：

---

历史是否应该改变我们对民粹主义的看法？

本文询问历史是否应该改变经济学家和经济史学家思考民粹主义的方式。我们使用穆勒的定义，根据该定义，民粹主义是“身份政治的一种排他性形式，这就是它对民主构成威胁的原因”。我们提出三个历史论证。首先，十九世纪末的美国民粹主义者并不是民粹主义者。其次，民粹主义与反全球化情绪之间没有必然联系。第三，在涉及对手被正确或错误地描述为民粹主义者的重要政策辩论中，经济学家有时会站在错误的一边。历史鼓励我们避免对民粹主义及其相关因素过于简单化。