In order to explore the semantics and implications of the word, let's start with the second of [Merriam-Webster's definitions of *populist:*][1] > 2 : a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people. To me it seems obvious that a believer in the wisdom or virtues of the common people is up for disappointments. That's why many modern democracies are representative: The elected representatives mediate, filter and level out the electorate's wishes. I suppose that not many political leaders fall under this definition of populist. There is only so much disappointment one can sustain, and only so much good will one can muster in the face of it. O.K. then, what about the first definition: > 1 : a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people; [...] The key word here is *claim*, and that is where the negative connotation comes from. Because the common people's wishes are often not reasonable or practicable, and because representing the common people doesn't make you rich, it is safe to assume that most rich populists in power are liars. Yes, they *claim* to believe in and represent the common people, but that is just a big publicity show. In fact they are mostly interested in their own power and wealth (and, sometimes, reputation). One would think that the people eventually see through that betrayal and throw them out; but there is a mechanism of populist self-preservation which makes some of them surprisingly persistent in office. The populist leaders rely not so much on fellow politicians, other influential people or the political institutions but rather on elections and plebiscites. Their popularity is their main political capital. Elections can be won initially because the populist appears as the only candidate who takes the common people seriously. Once in power, the leader can then use the people's backing to weaken the institutions, rules and mechanisms which keep the democracy alive. They all have a common purpose: To curb the leader's power. Weakening them reduces these checks. This can currently be observed in places like Hungary, Turkey, and perhaps the U.S. Usually the judiciary is weakened, the independent press is intimidated or outright persecuted, political friends rewarded and foes reprimanded. The result is a situation which makes a correction hard. The common people hear what they are supposed to hear from the streamlined or simply owned media and thus continue favoring the controlling leader. The emaciated judiciary is unable to prevent or prosecute executive transgression and corruption. The weakened opposition is unable to use the weakened institutions to correct the course from within the government, or to alert the people. Many adverse effects of populist policies, like increasing the national debt in favor of consumptive spending, are long-term enough to become a problem only for their successors. Some of these strategies are, of course, not unique to populists, but they have greater leverage in rule-violating and attacking the institutions because they enjoy the backing of the public opinion. [David Frum][2] has written an [article about Donald Trump][3] in *The Atlantic* which has become popular quickly. It covers some of the topics I touched. [1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/populism [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frum [3]: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/