Populism has become a pejorative. It's said to be dangerous or dismissed with palpable condescension. But Americans indictment is not only spirited; it is also merited. And that indictment has awaited an executive who will take up the people's case.

Populism has rare moments of resonance in American life. Hard-left economic populism has proved unable to win the presidency. It is surely no way to govern. But there are times when an elite games the system. There are times when most people have gotten a raw deal. And it's these times that call for a reasonable populism.

Many today view "reasonable populism" as an oxymoron. Populism is forever ascribed to its most extreme forms. Representing the people, when their cause is against the powers that be, is treated as more demagogic than democratic.

Too many forget that William Jennings Bryan's dangerous extremes became Teddy Roosevelt's reasonable reforms, that Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal carried some of Huey Long and Francis Townsend's good ideas.

So it can be for Barack Obama as well. Populism is not the provenance of pugilists alone. He need not exude the everyman. If a plutocrat can become a populist, as FDR did, if the most radical populist can wear new suits and diamonds, as Huey Long did, so too can the professor of law who became president. He can take the nebulous cause and find the good case. It's a case Obama can passionately make, armed not with anger but reason.

This is not the Great Depression. There are no Huey Longs today. But this is one of those rare moments when Americans are not looking up but down.

Nearly one in five Americans are unemployed or unable to find a fulltime job. Nearly three in four Americans believe the bailout has "mostly" benefitted Wall Street, according to CBS News. About seven in 10 voters are "angry" or "bothered" by the record bank bonuses, even when they are told that many of the large banks have paid back bailout money.

Six in 10 adults believe Obama has "paid more attention to the problems" of banks than the middle class and that "major banks and insurance companies" have "too much influence over decisions made by the Obama administration," according to CNN.

The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll reports that 84 percent of adults believe special interests wield too much influence over legislation. Nearly three in four Americans want financial reform. And a CNN poll shows half the country is "angry" with both parties.

Obama appeared to finally get it this January. First, Obama proposed a "responsibility" fee to recoup up to $120 billion in bailout losses from the major financial institutions. The next week, Obama told ABC News he was going to "get into a big fight with the banks." The following day, Obama proposed substantial but measured financial reforms. The Economist headline: "Glass-Steagall lite." Then by week's end, Obama proceeded to use the word "fight" nearly two dozen times in an Ohio speech (that was a bit much).

Here is how CNBC anchor Maria Bartiromo interpreted the events: "By the way, there still is this class warfare going on. That is somewhat unnerving. All business is not bad, and I think putting this class warfare and firing up the flames in terms of us versus them continues, and it's very dangerous."

Influential New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote: "Politics, some believe, is the organization of hatreds ... The people who try to divide it on the basis of social class we call either populists or elitists. These two attitudes – populism and elitism – seem different, but they're really mirror images of one another."

Of course, ignoring the popular will is itself elitist. Sometimes a politician must take the unpopular stance. But sometimes, believe it or not, the people are right. And if elites dismiss that cause as a series of "hatreds," they will fail to recognize the substance of the cause. This too is dangerous.

Brooks went on. "It's easy to see why politicians would be drawn to the populist pose." Populism "absolves voters of responsibility" but "bashing the powerful," with an "Us versus Them mentality," accomplishes nothing and stokes the "pervasive feeling of uncertainty" that can undermine economic recovery.

But most people are far less to blame. It was, above all else, Wall Street that brought us down. It was Americans' tax dollars that bailed out the big banks – radical measures to save the financial class, conventional half-measures for most others. And not all responses are reckless. Capitalism has withstood clear and reasonable reforms before.

Not all populism is also class warfare. A president can sensibly represent his people's great concerns. Some call this good democracy.

Yet Obama's mild populism is received like the plebeians have their pitchforks out and the manor is threatened. Imagine how FDR's more extreme rhetoric would be received today. Roosevelt railed against the "practices of the unscrupulous money changers" and the "privileged princes of these new economic dynasties."

By the State of the Union address, Obama felt compelled to place his mild populism in context. "Look, I am not interested in punishing banks," he said. "I'm interested in protecting our economy."

Thus far, Obama's biggest mistake was ignoring the people. He placed health care before a big jobs bill. Now Obama can do far less. His failures have dearly cost his political capital. And the timing of his pivot is conspicuously political.

But this president should, nonetheless, take on this fight – in the language and terms that are true to his character. And Roosevelt, on a smaller scale, can still be his example.

FDR stretched the limits of his power as presidents typical only do in wartime. His inaugural address effectively declared war on the Great Depression. He tossed out new policies like darts at a board. And some policies did not connect. But many did. And all the while, most people believed he had their cause in mind. So they rewarded him for it.

Obama has begun to speak like a president who understands his people's cause. Now he must resolutely prove it.