"populist" is just a word people use when they don't understand why people care about something and don't bother trying to find out. "popular" = "what people I like want", "populist" = "what people I don't like want"
It's unfortunate that populism has a name that leads to this misconception. People see the word and jump into discussion assuming that they know what is all about.
Populism is the claim that the people have a 'will'. There is no real disagreement of what the real people want or need for compromise. There are people who disagree but they are not the 'real people'. They are somehow compromised, the corrupt elite, misled or 'the others'. What 'people want' is already known, now you just need to vote populist into power to implement the will of the people. Laws and norms often make it difficult to implement this 'will' and they should be changed.
By contrast liberal[1] democracies are based on idea that the complex democratic process gradually produces something that people can live with. It's not exactly what anyone wants. There is no common agreement of what people want when people go and vote. The end result of working democracy is negotiated compromise. Laws and norms should be followed when this game of democracy is played.
---
[1]: liberal is another word that have different meanings in different contexts. Liberal does not mean leftist in this context.
All nationalists take a moral position. That's what nationalism is. And all nationalists think through the consequences as well. Just like globalists do.
Are you saying nationalists like washington, lincoln, gandhi, mandela, et al weren't taking a moral position or thinking of the consequences of their nationalism?
You surely mean "nationalist/globalist politicians", because in my experience, most people absolutely don't consider the consequences of policies that appeal to them. (Okay, maybe the first-order consequences, but not any indirect effects.)
The elites vs the masses thing is just a caricature to delegitimize political opponents.
(I used Tweed as an example because in addition to his "populist" appeals to the poorest of the poor, one of the major components of his scheme to stay in power was his relationships with the businesses he funneled money into.)
As for GP's point, it may be the case for Trump but not so much for the newest populist in Brazil, for instance, who's more or less a sellout to the US of A and giant platform companies as many a breed of politician here down south have ever been.