Populism is defined as "a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups" but taking a definition of it at face value is pointless because what populists do when they get in power, how they try to achieve it, and the real world consequences of their actions shows the true picture of what populism is. Populists sometimes pride themselves as 'beyond ideology' but ends up being their weakness because without any ideology there is no foundation from which goals and prescriptions. Instead it comes from whatever the fuck they want it to come from.
Populism is a divisive narrative that consolidates power by unifying the majority against some group and blaming all society’s problems on them; using the church as a tool of the state to unify the masses, often to provide a pious-sounding justification a war or persecution of an unpopular and relatively powerless minority; fostering rabid anti-intellectualism, not just against snobs who think they know more than you but also against subject matter experts who actually DO know more than you; and a disdain for the due process and rule of law, institutions which are rife with examples of injustice—but still far better than the alternatives.
Practice vs Theory
Saying you're "for the people" is not helpful because all politicians claim to be "for the people". Trump got elected on 'draining the swamp' but ended up being the most corrupt, swampy president ever even though he ran on a populist platform supported by populists. People can have feelings about how they're being screwed over but they don't exactly know how so they want to burn down the system, even if destroying law, order, civilization is just part of the lols.
In practice populism is more of a cleansing process that doesn't offer any real solutions to current problems and often leaves behind a wasteland to clean up. It feeds people shallow ideas they want to hear that are heavily biased towards their worldview without discerning truth from falsehoods. It allows us to cling on to our base instincts of believing what we want to believe, making us more suscepitble to misinformation from malicious actors.
Anti-Intellectualism
Ideally a representative democracy allows everyone to seek expert opinions and learn about the risks and benefits of various legislation based on outcomes rather than the ideaological method. In practice the typical person working 40 hours a week doesn't have time, interest, or energy to learn all the issues which is itself a full time job. In practice people vote based on soundbites and phrases that appeal to them emotionally.
In a typical classroom the students will outnumber the teachert. If populism reigned, you probably wouldn't learn much in this environment. We don't want "the people" to directly vote on everything. Should the people mopping the floors at TSMC headquarters have a say on how their latest process node should be carried out? Should the janitor of a hospital decide how heart bypass should be done? Should overly emotional consumers of fearmongering news get to essentially carry out vigilante justice towards alleged criminals?
The lack of respect for rule of law and institutions led to Donald Trump getting elected, trying to overturn the result of the 2020 elections, and the storm on the White House. We were lucky that Trump is incompetant at gaining power. We might not be so lucky again. Trump taught us that a lot of what we take for granted in government comes from norms which populists are all too happy to break if it serves their interest. We can't see people in other groups, socialeconomic status or otherwise, as the evil and us as the 'the good guys'. Different people can have different life experiences and interests than you but not be evil. But seeing them as evil makes violating norms and rule of law easier.
Populist political leaders are demagogues: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument. It's true that well educated, well-to-do people might have different concerns and priorities in spite of or against the interests of very poor people. It's also true that very poor, uneducated people have a poor understanding of banking regulation or the difficulties of implementing a wealth tax.
Neither might the common man vote in favor of what must be done even if they knew and believe all the facts. Austerity measures may be necessary to get the country out of an economic slump, but people are never going to be okay with earning less and paying more taxes, by and large.
Nuance
Populism destroys nuance. Anything that isn't simple and easy to digest and immedaitely makes people feel good gets dismissed in favor of idea that their concensus leads to correctness. Everything is framed as their pet issue. In this case it's elites vs comman man. We must eat the rich and tax the rich, but how exactly that should be done in a lawful manner is not important. Just do it, somehow. Specifics of policies are boring and yelling for death to rich people is sexy. This lack of nuance leads some populists to believe in some savior who will solve all their problems. This allows for cunning, opportunistic leaders to come in. Anybody who disagrees with them is part of the establishment!
"Me First"
Too often populism ends up being a 'me first' form of politics no different than what "the elites" practice. Looking at various prominent populist leaders like Hitler, Lenin, Chavez, Trump, bad outcomes were associated with every one of them. "The people" ends up being "my group of people" who are the "real Americans" that need more focus than other groups of people. It's the same self-centered politics dressed up as being more. Other times, populism comes at a cost of ignoring all people who have experiences who run contrary to the mainstream view.
Democracy
Liberal Democracy is about accepting pluralism. We have different views, opinions, and morals but we can find some common ground so each side gets some of what they want and neither side is happy. By painting others as the enemy and their solution as being the unfalliable and the only, there is no space for debate.
Complex problems have complex and boring solutions. The world is too complicated to be analyzed through any one lens or for its solution to be one solution. Capitalism, feminism, socialism, populism, and yes, establishtarianism: None of these are a cure-all for all of society's issues. Don't reduce every issue to your pet cause and try to understand the difference between how we wish the world is, the specifics of how we should try to make it so, and why government is slow rather than run by Twitter polls.
Platitudes don't fix the world. Boring, carefully crafted legislation based on what actually works to achieve the outcomes we want, passed through infuriating give-and-take process of politics is what actually takes some steps towards fixing the world. It's not sexy and often involves compromise which nobody wants to do.
