I think populism is more accurately defined in its rhetoric against a "group of elites" that must be fought. Sometimes that's based in reality, sometimes it isn't. Trump's brand of populism, for example, pushes this idea of a group of out of touch pedophilic liberal elites who want open borders and who want to redefine traditional gender and sexual roles. The Bernie Sanders style leftist populism defines the group of elites as the billionaire business class controlling the economic system of America such that they avoid taxes and write laws through legalized bribery. I would argue that Bernie's populism is based in reality and Trump's is based in exaggeration and fear mongering. But that's my take as someone who leans left.
In both cases the populism itself is appealing to the masses, yes, but it's specifically appealing to them by drawing clear lines around an enemy that needs to be fought. Trump's exaggeration of this enemy is where populism becomes dangerous. As someone who has recently been studying the French revolution, I can also point to that as a great example of populism that started with an accurately defined enemy (monarchy) and over time morphed into something that was really just vague calls of "treason" aimed at anyone and everyone who could be made the subject of ill defined conspiracy theories. Populism can be a powerful force for good when the enemy is real and the ideology is clear, but it can be just as powerful a force for evil when the lines are obscured or invented whole cloth.
So the question in this case is who the enemy is. Who would a populist replacement for Trudeau be fighting and how would they define their ideology?
Smartphones (and the Internet more generally) have led to a major decline in reading books among the American public. I think this plays such a huge role in the absolutely batshit crazy cultural shift we've seen.