> It's a real pity that many good legislative ideas seem to be susceptible to simplistic populist attack if you yell loud enough.

I'm having trouble finding it now (so please take it with a grain of salt), but I remember once reading a quote by a southern US politician in the 1950s that went something like: "I used to talk about paving roads and better schools and no one listened. Then I started pounding tables about [black people] and suddenly everyone supported me."

Similarly, Joe McCarthy (of McCarthyism fame) was a pretty unremarkable Senator for his first three years in office. Then one day, he claimed he had a list of known Communists working in the State department, and the next day he was a household name.

Populism has always been a really easy way for politicians to drum up fervent support. A shame that it rarely ever solves any problems.

I've been struggling with this concept for a while. How can we have an effective democracy when it's so easy for stupid, essentially malicious, but persuasive-sounding "political memes" to infect the working classes and derail processes which are actually in the country's interest?

I still don't know the answer but realising that the media were actually part of the effective bureaucracy was a revelation.

We've been lucky, for a long time, that the media has basically done the right thing for the good of the country. Collectively, they are in charge. They slip up every now and again, giving air time to toxic memes like the carbon tax thing, and of course the example you raised - McCarthy suddenly got traction because he comes bearing gifts of news. But generally it's been not too bad.

I hope we remain lucky.