This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

I didn't mean it quite that complexly by ravenium

I realize my original statement was a bit opaque and came off incredibly pompous, so allow me to stand before you as the target of empties.

What I meant was more that the examples of populism I've seen appears to be more of a "Death of Expertise" - someone who directly claims they know better than an expert on the matter of policy, programs, and governing. This seems to be what we've received with populism from the time of the Know Nothings up through Trumpism and the like today. Examples such as "let's execute drug dealers", "build a border wall" and other oversimplistic solutions to complex problems.

What I did not mean was "the elected know what is best for the people" - this is why we have representative democracy. We elect people to serve our interests, and they in turn (should!) use their time and consultation of policy experts to enact policies that benefit us as a people.

I dislike both the extremes you listed - "trusted and free", taken to an extreme, leads to bad actors spoiling things for the masses. Think pre-EPA rivers and superfund sites. I also dislike big government - I think it lends itself to being wasteful, lazy, and corrupt. My local government is a great example of that.

I guess I'm a hopeless moderate, for lack of a better term.