Such theorists believe that "populism is first and foremost an ideology or strand of an ideology which asserts that political conflict is between 'the people' (who are seen as the 'nation') and the 'oligarchy' or 'imperialism". If we take this definition at face value we can easily maintain that whenever a political leader steps up to make his/her appeal to the people, to which there is an overwhelming agreement from the people with regards to the context of that appeal, then the politician in question can be seen as a populist. This is regardless of the context of the appeal or the political background and organisation structure of the person appealing. So in reality the definition of the word 'populism' is a minimalist one. However, some theorists would argue that populism is much more than this, but none would argue that it is anything less. .
Another consideration to take in when study populism is the fact that populism is an appeal to people and there is no real guaranty that the appeal will be heard by those it is addressed to. The choice of the people will always underline the validity of the appeal and the populist approach of the speaker, whether it is because the people believe in what is being said or simply because there is no real alternative. Therefore, it can be said that populism is a descriptive ideology and can cover the political spectrum from as far reaching as socialism to nazism. .
However, it is here that we have to be careful. One might think that due to his mass support in the 1930s Hitler could of been regarded as a populist during his rise to power. Whereas, in reality Hitler only appeased a certain type of peoples in the German nation i.e. white Ayrians who were not a true representation of the German nation although a large majority. Therefore in hindsight we could call Hitler a monopopulist, if such a word exists. The same could be said for the communist party because again they only appeal to one type of social class who see there goal as the overthrow of the another class.