The first qualm I have is that they often use rhetoric associated with populism. Populism is not an inherently bad way to run a campaign. Bernie Sanders ran a benign populist campaign, unless you were in the 1 percent. Donald Trump, though, ran on a more negative platform. Among others, he verbally attacked women, Mexicans, Muslims — the list goes on.
With someone like Trump winning, it shifts the threshold of polite society. Someone with his history, with his statements and his divisive rhetoric should've never won a national election. But somehow, he did. There is no reason to believe that ends with him.
The danger of populism, fomented by now-mainstream sites like Breitbart News Network and Infowars, is that that it is recalcitrant. You can harness it, as Trump did, but you cannot control it.
Secondly, the establishment is better for gradual change over impulsive policy.
Whereas an insurgent candidate like Sanders or Trump might make a big splash, their ability to actually pass legislation is minimal. We see this to be true with Trump and some Republicans in Congress. Even though the GOP controls both the House and Senate, their slim majority in the latter is unable to agree even on an Obamacare repeal.
Finally, anti-establishment types run on lofty goals, such as a huge border wall funded by our southern neighbors or deporting every illegal alien. In practice, these promises go unfulfilled, which only furthers anti-establishment vitriol.
The whole process is a vicious cycle that results in no tangible progress. It’s a good way to get elected and a bad way to run a country.
Establishment types, and here I’m thinking of Sen. Chuck Schumer or Sen. John McCain, make slow and steady progress. If you know your fables, those are the ones who win the race.
It’s easy to make big promises and then flop, but what is more difficult, and I would argue more admirable, is making gradual progress. I would take measured progress over hasty action any day.