> Can you give me an example of a politician who is not populist?
One example that comes to mind is states with both a president and prime minister, and the president is meant to remain somewhat outside the political fray.
> is not a pivotal leader in the political portion of the movement
I don't agree that this matters, but if it did, then certainly DPR is a pivotal leader in the "political portion" of the movement. I'm not sure how you can say he's not?
> he also knows that his ultimate job as a politician is to make arguments that will resonate with his constituents
Wider context check, his job as a politician is to serve his constituents by leading, even when it may be difficult. Pandering to the lazy and ignorant in a state of perpetual campaigning is an utter dereliction of duty.
> It's basically a complete support of the status quo.
I've seen many people spout this off as if it's self-evident, and I can't for the life of me understand why.
The status quo isn't some neutral, natural resting state that will continue on until otherwise affected, it needs to be _constantly_ maintained.
Being non-political doesn't maintain the status quo, because maintaining the status quo is an _active_ endeavour, in the same way a plane doesn't keep flying forever just because its engines turn off.
> A demagogue ... is a leader in a democracy who gains popularity by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation.
Where is he doing anything other than furthering his interests?
and how is he still relevant?
reply