With all the discussion of the rising tide of populism taking over both political parties — at the federal, state and local levels — now is the time to take a look at what populism is and is not.

It’s a style of politics, not an ideology — that’s why one can find populists in both parties. Populism is not, as many seem to often presume, politicians doing what their constituents want. A politician can do that without being a populist.

Embracing populism requires a politician to embrace a particular approach: convincing voters that there’s an established elite that seeks to control them. If you can frame that elite as also being corrupt and self-serving, so much the better. The “elite” can be anyone: the wealthy, career government officials, a certain ethnicity or religion or any combination thereof — you get to pick your own villain for your narrative.

This can be an extremely effective technique for winning an election. Tapping into people’s latent anger against a particular group, whether it’s based on their race, religion or wealth, can be extremely motivating.

Rather than trying to form a broad coalition across all groups, the populist politician works to convince a majority of voters that one particular, smaller group is causing all problems in society.

Other than it being morally questionable, there are a few problems with this approach — even if it does secure populists the victory.

One is that, once elected, an elected official is supposed to represent all of their constituents, even those who didn’t vote for them. I believe this is why Sen. Susan Collins has voted to confirm Supreme Court justices and Cabinet officials from presidents of both major parties — even if she didn’t completely agree with a particular nominee.

Collins’ populist opponent who had to have his Nazi tattoo covered up, Graham Platner, has attacked Collins for those votes and pledged to oppose any nominations Trump makes. Platner doesn’t care about those nominees’ views or their qualifications. He simply wants to oppose them to oppose the administration.

To be sure, many Republicans wish Collins had taken this approach with Democratic nominees in the past. If she had, however, she’d have been ignoring more than half the state.

Similarly, by pledging to simply oppose the Trump administration at all junctures, Platner is essentially promising to ignore the 45% of Mainers who voted for Trump. This is, essentially, performative outrage that will accomplish nothing. And it’s a hallmark of populism.

In the case of Platner and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Troy Jackson, apart from the Trump administration, their favorite villains are billionaires and “oligarchs.” It’s not entirely clear why they toss in the term “oligarch,” other than at the behest of their mentor, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who uses it constantly.

Even with the rise of left-wing populism, it’s not a particularly common term in American political discourse. It likely leaves many people scratching their heads. In this context, it essentially means any wealthy businessman who liberals don’t like: they’re an enemy for them to focus their rage on. It applies to tech billionaires, for instance, but somehow not to wealthy businessmen who support Democrats; it’s purely an ideological term used to categorize their opponents. 

A big problem with dividing the world into an “us vs. them” narrative is that it precludes the possibility of working with those with whom you disagree to make progress toward your goal.

That doesn’t mean they won’t ever be willing to work with the other party on anything. Rather, it means that they’ll be willing to work with the other party when it’s convenient for them politically or they happen to be useful. Like Platner’s promise to oppose all nominations, that’s a commitment to performance, not governance.

Many populists promise to be fighters. In their view, they have enemies to vanquish who are also crushing your hopes and dreams. While that promise might get somebody elected, it doesn’t lead to good, productive policymaking if the populist wins: it leads to more gridlock.

We already have more than enough people fighting in Augusta and in Washington. We don’t need more fighters. We need people who are interested in doing hard work to get things accomplished for all of their constituents, not just their base.