>It has recently become commonplace for elected officials to get away with arguing that they have a moral imperative not to listen, and not to give a greater opportunity for people to voice their views. Each of these topics is frequently decried not just as wrong but as "populism".
Well yes, of course. If you actually listened to the people, you'd have to stop passing trade deals that put capital over labor and the environment, pass universal health care, fix public education, fix basic infrastructure, tax the rich and the upper-middle class more (not out of justice, but because that's where the money is), enforce corporate taxation for once (again, because that's where the money is), stop wasting money on "military" projects the military itself doesn't even want, and numerous other policies about which there is a large consensus among the bottom 90% of the population but apathy or controversy among the top 10%.
So instead we hear about the dangers of "populism".
Then you'd need to pass some counterproductive feel-good measures that make white non-workers feel like they have a higher status. E.g. build a giant wall patrolled by bastards and rapers to keep out Osama bin Lopez.
You'd have to make peaceful Chinese, Indians and Africans poorer, just so that a few wealthy Americans could maintain their existing social status. The consumers of goods produced by the Chinese are harmed by this, but that's a diffuse harm that's too complicated for most people to understand.
You'd have to Leave, because a bunch of voters think "Leave" means "Pakistanis leave the UK" rather than "you need a visa to take a weekend Ryanair to Amsterdam". (I suppose that last bit would be good for Amsterdam.)
You'd need to throw more money at education and eliminate all accountability (it makes me angry little Johnny isn't in the 95'th percentile? your standardized tests are broken!), and ignore the unpleasant sounding policies that would really help (e.g. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/09/value-added_and.... ).
Oh yeah, and we'd spend more money on all the free ponies, while simultaneously lowering taxes on ourselves and only raising them on other people. You want to raise taxes on the rich, I'd like to raise taxes on gays and Mexicans, so we'll split the difference and only tax rich gay Mexicans.
If we listened to the people, all we'd do is push policies where the benefits are obvious and the harms require a little mental effort to understand (or are only inflicted on unsympathetic minorities). We'd push policies based on being emotionally pleasing rather than actually being beneficial.
Well yes, of course. If you actually listened to the people, you'd have to stop passing trade deals that put capital over labor and the environment, pass universal health care, fix public education, fix basic infrastructure, tax the rich and the upper-middle class more (not out of justice, but because that's where the money is), enforce corporate taxation for once (again, because that's where the money is), stop wasting money on "military" projects the military itself doesn't even want, and numerous other policies about which there is a large consensus among the bottom 90% of the population but apathy or controversy among the top 10%.
So instead we hear about the dangers of "populism".