The word “populist” has been heard often during this presidential political campaign season and it has been applied to the final three candidates, as well as some of the previously engaged Republican primary candidates, but what does the word mean?

Mostly, the word has been applied to Senator Bernie Sanders, who described himself as a Democratic Socialist, and more surprisingly, to Donald Trump, as if a multi-billionaire could be described as populist in his philosophy. And although some pundits have described Hillary Clinton as having adopted some of Sanders’ “populist” positions on a number of issues, she should only be described as an “incrementalist,” which means simply that she would rather see improvements accomplished over a long period of time.

Even though Sanders is the closest thing to a populist that there has been in many years, he does not fit the description properly, for populists in U.S. history have existed to radically change the way the country is governed, including its political system and, more important, its economic and monetary system. None of the candidates in the wide array of candidates in both major parties have even suggested that they want that kind of change.

Now that the Democrats and Republicans have winnowed the field down to Trump on the GOP side and Sanders and Clinton on the Democratic side (even though most observers do not give Sanders much hope for overtaking Clinton in the race for delegates), we’re about to see how many times the word “populist” shows up. Trump and Clinton, if they are not pushed to raise the issues that Sanders has forced upon them, will not again raise the issues that could be described as populist.

Sanders has promised to continue his campaign right up to the Democratic convention this summer, so his effect on the discussion could push them to at least skirt the issues that pundits love to call populist.

A Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of “populist” holds that it is “a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people; especially often capitalized:  a member of a United States political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies.” And a second defines a populist as “a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people.” This definition does not identify a populist as left, right, or center, and there can be populists of any stripe, but the key usually is that adherents to a populist philosophy aim to return power to the common people.

During the past year, when potential presidential candidates were campaigning in their various primaries, there was little rhetoric raising the problem of the anti-democratic direction of the U.S. over the past half-century, little talk about “returning the power to the people,” which is something reminiscent of the 1960s, but the intervening years have only seen what little power the people had at that time slip further and further away.

This campaign season is not like most other seasons of high rhetoric and bushels of promises to the party members and the electorate, in general. Rather, this campaign year highlights the disassociation of the people from the political process. A few candidates have brought new people to the voting booths, but still only about half of eligible voters turn up at the polls in the general election, a sure sign that the people do not feel that they have any power in the political process. And why should they, having been left out of economic decisions that are made by corporations and governments, all the while having to suffer the results of those decisions?

Populists of the past in the U.S. wanted radical changes, yes, but they wanted to be a part of the decisions that would bring about those changes. Today’s populists, if many exist, want such things as: Having their votes count; a sharp narrowing of the disparity in wealth and income; free universal education from K through college; the banks and insurance companies brought under control; the pharmaceutical companies brought under control; universal health care, such as an expanded and improved Medicare program for all; adequate housing for all; jobs for all, and equal opportunity for all, which is a goal that has been long in the seeking, but not achieved fully to this day. Sensible populists would now want to have some control over their environment, with clean air, clean water, and wholesome food.

In other words, it would require a change that most people think is unachievable at this time, because the people are left out of decision-making and are seeing the futures of themselves and their children become dimmer and dimmer. For many of them, it is the problem of capitalism, itself, an economic system that requires continued growth, the faster the better. However, that also is the definition of cancer, rapid and uncontrolled growth for the sake of growth. It’s unhealthy and can only lead to collapse on a planet that is finite. The planet can take only so much abuse and, in the pursuit of profit and consumption, transnational corporations which control much of the world already have plundered the oceans, the forests, the arable land, and all of the inland waters. But they want more and they will continue to seek more, because that is their nature. When will it end? When it is stopped in its tracks by the mass of humanity, which right now seems to be awakening to the threat to their lives and the life of the planet.

That kind of massive change is not being discussed on the campaign trail, with exception of Sanders, whose primary campaign from the very start was given little chance for survival. He has fought from the very bottom of the political heap to near closing in on the ordained front-runner in the Democratic Party, Clinton. What’s interesting is that both Sanders and Trump have been described by the pundits as “populist” in their campaign rhetoric, Sanders on the left and Trump on the right.

Clinton has been doggedly pursuing the status quo: center left, center right, dead center, or anyplace that would make it seem that she was for progress, but not at any great speed. She may have been moved toward a populist-appearing stance on a few issues by Sanders’ campaign, but she could not be considered a populist of any kind, and she would want to be seen that way. Her mantra is that she has experience and she “knows how to get things done.”

Often, the word populist has been used as a pejorative, as a way of accusing candidates of pandering to the people, of telling the people what they want to hear without having any intention of actually developing programs that will provide what the people want and need. It has been used that way, from time to time, in describing both Sanders and Trump during this long and tedious campaign season. It might describe Sanders, who has actively campaigned for massive changes to the system, nearly all of which would benefit the average person, rather than the 1 percent who are firmly in control. But it’s hard to imagine that Trump, a product of Wall Street and a multi-billionaire, would in any way try to level the playing field to benefit 320 million citizens. Rather, he would do everything in his power to protect himself and the few at his level of income and wealth or the others in the top 5 percent who would defend him (and vote for him) as their champion.

As for the people who voted for Trump in the various primaries, they are angry at the political system, they are angry that they have been allowed to stagnate economically for the past 40 years, they are angry that their middle class status is fast disappearing. They are just plain angry and Trump is feeding into that anger, but that is not populism, because he is not promising them a way up and out. Rather, he is painting pictures of their anger and faintly promising to allay their fears and make it better. And they believe him.

Clinton has had the power of the Democratic Party behind her for the past two years, she had had the media and its pundits with her (those who don’t gratuitously vilify her), and she has had immense amounts of money and support from the moneyed corporations and the wealthy. She was the chosen one by all who do not want to see much change in the way things are going. She makes no pretense to being a populist of any kind. What she promises is a vigorous fight for the status quo. The only one of the three remaining candidates who moves in the direction that populists would approve of is Sanders.

Populists have run the gamut of the political spectrum over the generations, from left to right, but always its adherents have fought for a return of power to the people, something that has not existed in the U.S. for a long time. When and if the power is returned to the people, whether it is after this November’s election or in years to come, it will be up to the people to make of their new found power and democracy what they will, keeping in mind that it is very easy to slip from populism into fascism.