So what I meant is: this article is sophistry grounded in US team-style politics, so the bias (or, uncharitably, manipulation attempt) has to be made explicit.

So what I meant is: this article is sophistry grounded in US team-style politics, so the bias (or, uncharitably, manipulation attempt) has to be made explicit. I do frequently see articles/posts criticising the dreadful illusion of US democracy. They come from thinkers and activists who identify as being left (not liberal), mainly, but also anarchist, libertarian, independent, or simply anti-genocide. Here, I see an article that panders to one side, behind a veneer of sophistication and democratic ideals, and gestures at the ideology that is corrupt to 95% without mentioning once the one corrupt to 90%. > populism but that term has as many meanings as people talking about it Agree completely, but think the author reduces it to "bad thing for the unwashed" by not defining it.