Can social liberalism truly be populist?

Now I have seen people a million times say the party should play to populist themes.

Now this sounds great in theory, but it's worth asking - is social liberalism truly populist, if the popular agenda is actually at odds with what's right.

Like take gay marriage for example. A large part of society opposes it. It just makes them feel uncomfortable and so in most states a referndum comes up against it, it passes, often by huge margins.

Now, most of us support gay marriage because we know it's the right thing to do. We understand that it's not about special rights, but EQUAL rights.

But is this populist though? What about environmental issues? Logging, ANWAR, etc, where there may be some jobs, but the environmental damage is too great.

How do we bring social liberalism and populism together in a coherent political and ideaological strategy?

pop·u·list (pŏp'yə-lĭst)
n.
A supporter of the rights and power of the people.

http://www.answers.com/topic/populist

Webster's 1913 Dictionary

Definition: \Pop"u*list\, n. (U. S.
Politics)
A member of the People's party. -- {Pop`u*lis"tic}, a.

Synonyms: Democrat

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/populist

Yes bigotry of all kinds is rampant still. Its all about combining progressive and populist ideals.

etc, can be fanned -- or they can be squelched.

A progressive populism would work (generally) to squelch these flames.

However, in these circumstances, it must not always be shy about using these flames, if this is necessary for some good end -- and when this can be done without whipping up those flames (unduly). (And especially when it simply has no choice.)

Suppose you live in a city, with you living on one side and your enemies living on the other. And suppose that your enemies have started a great inferno burning in the middle between you -- an inferno that will (largely) just burn out of control until it consumes itself (and which consumption may or may not include you -- depending on how wisely you react).

In these circumstances, one could run wildly around trying to put the flames out and trying to save everything -- or one could look to direct these flames toward those (arsonist) enemies -- and consume them in the conflagration that they have started. And this doesn't mean that one doesn't try to put the fire out and save what one can -- just that one splits one's energies between the two projects -- and that one concentrates on putting out that part of the fire that is burning towards him -- not towards the enemy.

Hey, we didn't start this fire -- and we have fought it zealously until it threatens to consume us.

Time to try a new strategy, I'd say. (Within reason and wisdom, etc.)

And yes, creating the correct mix of the populist and progressive will be difficult. A great deal of educating the people will be necessary -- but some of this will take longer than we (or they) can afford. And if we wait until we have unanimity -- and even then use only means that are beyond any possible reproach -- then we are finished. The enemy is blitzkrieging us even now. And we have to fight with whatever comes to hand -- and that works.

And yes, we will probably have to "shoot" a few of our own war-fighters for their excesses when the war is won -- but, generally, they know that this will happen... It's war -- and they are soldiers. And there is "historical" necessity to consider. (This is all rhetorical of course.)