After listening to you, intelligent, well-read (including social philosophy) liberal democrat, I was inspired to address a few issues which have deeper philosophical,  ontological basis. The basic  unspoken issue is; are masses irrational (conduct unexamined life as some philosophers will say) and the elite is rational thus superior (as Plato would say). Is the liberal democracy a system comprising the people led by a noble elite, elected in a democratic process? Is the populism a system, also elected, but consisting of the masses misused by unscrupulous elites? Often Orban, Putin, Trump, Lega, Front National, M5S,  are called populist leaders or movements. Dictatorship is not populism. Is populism a denigrating term  used by liberal democrats to distance themselves from the politicians which do not play the right game with the masses.

1. You say it is easy to bring people (masses) to rage and unrest but it is difficult to control and direct the anger and the unrest of masses afterwards.
Where the anger comes from? Does it mean that living in a society/State creates such a degree of frustration (many philosophers will agree - comparing involuntary submission of the citizen in a State with the hunter gatherers) so that it is always possible to use a suppressed anger-energy of frustrated masses for political purposes.  In order for a State to function, citizens must give up some freedoms. The State always represses some aspects of the human nature. This frustrated energy can be tapped and direct to the (self-) destructive, oppressive goals.

2. You talk about the role of elite. It is a paramount dialectic area of tension. Is it possible to define the role of elite apriori. Is elite created by masses or is the elite usurping its role in the masses. The game is never played according to this scenario "you (masses) are not very wise, you are irrational you are danger one to another -  if you elect us we will ensure that you can live good life"

3. You actually make an assumption about what a society should be. You say, and I understand that in some mystical way we conjure a set of values which are not subjected to the influence of the voters even if they are in majority - this is crucial difference to the populism.  For example, in liberal democracy it  will not be allowed to change minority rights whatever electorate wants. (Otherwise it would mean populism)  You say, liberal democracy is defined by the set of basic undisputable values. (Philosophical discussion what and how we construct values goes for thousands of years)

4. I understand from your lecture that the populists are the people plus elite who are ready to question the fundaments of the liberal democracy including the basic human right and the right of minorities.

 Concluding, I assume, (you may not be willing to admit it) you believe that the people/masses are not able to govern themselves. The (naturally) superior elite is needed to lead masses. Masses are ruled by elite elected in democratic election within the political corridor defined by the elite.

With great interest I have listen to your lecture/presentation. Let me express some spontaneous impressions. I was positively surprised by the precision with witch you use the economic and philosophical terminology. You have good tools but you “dig” only on the surface assuming some issues to be facts/axioma without discussion. All your logical sequences and analysis are consistent and logical.

The trouble emerges if you question some of your basic assumption. You do not explicitly state on what “ideological” assumption you lean on. I assume you promote and express the set of values and analysis based on the liberal model. I understand that you are paid for your opinions if expressed within well-defined borders. I do not think that you can reveal underlying reason and fears (on which your social fictions are constructed J-J Rouseau) as you may lose your position, identity and life subsistence.

You are always free to lean outside the social corridor if only for the purpose of the experiment. The social corridor is much narrower than the “law” allows as the masses have to be kept in insecurity and under constant coercion in order to prevent them developing strange ideas. But if you are educated to “love” the “law” (Plato) you are living in a perfect society as the “education” prevents you doing things outside of the social contract. This self-contained life, “I-stay-within-the-borders” and therfore all is perfect, is reserved for the elite.

 The site describes what happens if you insist to keep to the “law” and rules with the precision. As long as I was part of some kind of elite (having diplomatic badge) it was enought to follow law. All bahaviour was tolerated as it was assumed that I have the power to prove that i behave with the letter of law. After retirement some aspects of the the same behaviour was treated by the masses as trespasses.