Retard here. I'm confused as to how normies have been convinced """populism""" is bad. To my understanding, populism is literally representative democracy.
>candidate campaigns on issue(s) being bullshit and fixing them
>gets elected because the population agrees issue(s) are bullshit and want it/them fixed
>candidate then attempts to represent the will of the electorate
How is this not democracy?
I wrote a paper on this for polsci during my stint in colleg. The paper was actually designed to gaslight the lib professor into saying "Wow, maybe extra requirements to vote (my requirements just might racefilter) are actually wholesome chungus because they help prevent populism!", but part of my point was that populism "dumbs down" politics. For example, in Michigan, we had an initiative called "Just fix the roads!" Every day, on the news, shequeeshas were shown squealing "jus fix da damn roads!". Anyway, in my 6th grade US gov class, we had a local politician show up and talk briefly. One of the questions I asked was "Why don't you JUST FIX THE ROADS?" to which he responded very succinctly with an answer about the weather, moisture content, weighing the use of certain types of salt between road damage and safety in very low temperatures, the very brief window in the spring during which road projects could be started, problems with construction unions, etc.
I was then stuck wondering "Why don't they just talk like this on TV? It would make things so much simpler and easier! My assumption from early childhood that almost everybody else is "really that stupid" is a narcissistic trait that makes people angry with me, I need to repress it!"
Throughout my life, on numerous occasions, when I have the occasional opportunity to interact with mid-tier politicians or candidates in small, closed environments, they have always given me extremely clear, intuitive answers to my questions. Yet, when they go on the debate floor, or when they make ads, or when they address ths public in any way, they turn into retards.
I'll give you another example. RFK saying "vaccines and tylenol might cause autism" without elaborating. I'd done some homework on this. My foid coworker mentioned it to me, expecting me to go on about how dumb he was. I gave a brief explanation on how autism is connected to systemic stress in early adolescence causing dysregulation of microglia (neural immune system which essentially shapes the brain by killing weak, redundant, or maladaptive connections and nodes), so a super common drug which causes systemic stress and disrupts healing could plausibly be connected. Similarly, artificial immune augmentation in the form of vaccination can, especially in early development, plausibly affect the glial immune system (in the brain) in ways science knows exists but cannot yet qualify.
Had he explained this, or had his lackeys explain this, people might not think he was so retarded.
Why do they do this?
Because of populism. Because the average person really is that stupid. Because they would need bold text, slow speech, maybe their reading glasses in the case of boomers, and a much longer attention span.
Populism should really only be seen as a bad-faith tool to hopefully degrade democracy until a highly audited merit/iq-based voting system can be implemented.
