The actual title of the linked article is *Chlöe Swarbrick, how should we define her contribution to politics?* That isn’t what it’s really about though. This is Damien Grant’s weekly column and it’s way less about Chloe than it is about Gaza and mental gymnastics on the definition of genocide and an alleged surge of anti-Semitism. 

Towards the end of the piece he poses a kind of rhetorical question around whether Chloe’s a populist. He doesn’t explore it in any depth other than offering the following definition:

>a populist, a benign actor who reflects the wishes of the crowd

I don’t know what kind of dictionary or political science textbooks Damo’s reading but populists are not ‘benign’ nor do they necessarily reflect the wishes of the crowd. The Oxford dictionary defines a populist as:

>a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.

I’d argue the politician in Parliament who best fits that description right now is Winston Peters. It’s interesting the right is currently busy trying to pin vandalism of Winston’s home on Chloe. And here we have Damo demonising her alongside the Gaza conflict in his column. 

Mostly I just really loathe it when people fuck with words and manipulate their meaning to suit their own purposes. That’s the part of Damo’s opinion piece I choose to care about because the rest of it is too infuriating for a Sunday morning. 

Damien Grant using Chloe as a vehicle for a Gaza rant