Um no. I've been involved in several campaigns and organizations from state representatives up to volunteering for Trump's 2016 bid. Not least being an election judge and once ran for committeeman. For the record too, I formed my politics during the Bush 43 years. I've read books, watched news programs, documentaries and interviews, went to lectures and tried to understand both sides in viewpoint where I read the nation one day and national review the next. But even with all that, I don't claim to be an expert on politics, it's not my chosen profession, I don't see a future in participating further than what I already done, it's barely a hobby of interest nor do I claim to have all the answers to anything really. I don't. And I'll recognize that you know more about how politics works than me. Doesn't delegitamize my opinions or concerns. But even then that's not my central point of my gripe with you or Frenchy.
This is a narrow view of populism. Populism can take on many forms and modes to simply be characterized as a bunch of opportunistic demagogues. They can form in times of relative ease like how the US democrats began under Jefferson and Jackson or the LDP in Japan to an extent. They can also become a permanent political force like the Peronists in Argentina or a huge example but also the PRI in Mexico, the CPP in Turkey, Fianna Fail in Ireland, the Khomeini people in Iran, and the KMT in pre-communist China now Taiwan. One can make the argument that social democracy in Europe started out as populist. All can be a positive, negative or neutral impact in the aforementioned examples. But lets take your definition into account. You say they come about when people are scared or angry or desperate. The important question you should ask is why are these people scared or angry or desperate? Are these fake concerns gin up by these so called demagogues to be dismissed. Or maybe they are legitimate concerns of policies and actions of an established order that has failed them and such this order no longer works for, represents or benefits them. Like are the concerns of farmers and urban workers at the turn of 20th century America any less legitimate because of a short lived political party, a three time failed presidential candidate from Nebraska and the solutions they came up with? Populism is typically viewed as the people going against the elite. So the ruling order has two has two options to survive. Either address the concerns of said people head on and come up with solutions or make an impassioned and convincing case that the policies in place are good. The people who bemoan populism today are barely doing the former and suck at the later.
You can say Marx was a failed academic in his time. But he formed the basis of what we call communism today. One of the most consequential ideology of the last three centuries. Fascism and Nazism died with Hitler and Mussolini but they did leave an impact and informed the current global order. The fact of the existence of America's national parks, our food health regime and the Panama canal among others is all you need to know about the impact of Teddy Roosevelt. Ralph Nader was a consequential consumer advocate before he became lampooned as the Green guy that gave us Bush. Ron Paul is a tricky one but considering his ideas were the only other current the GOP wanted other than Trump post Bush 43, he does have some impact. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are still active so it's hard to say but seeing they are currently the driving forces of their respective parties and the people who oppose them are offering no attractive alternative, what does that tell you?
You make it seem like no one other than the "anointed" should come up with solutions when a country is in crisis. Which is bad thinking and just as dangerous to a democracy as a demagogue. So in truth unless the someone can come up with an alternative, yes populism is the future rather you like it or not. Rather this is good or not also.
But I give the floor to you. Since you think Trump and populism is so bad, what's your alternative? What is your vision of the American rights moving forward. How do you address the limits and failures of the policies of Reagan and the Bushes? What should be done on deindustrialization, mass immigration, economic disruption if at all? What do you think America's role as a global leader should be? How do address the concerns of intervention and the failures of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars as well as the burden the US takes as a superpower and the expense of ignoring domestic concerns. What of racial strife, the gender war, the LGBT community? You talk about "fundies" but is the proper role of religion in society if at all? What are the social norms your vision of the right should embrace? What should be done about the dominance of the left in our institutions, if at all? Like really what do you think the right should do and embrace? I'm waiting.