Well, for one, it perpetuates the rather elitist view that the not-as-educated-as-me cannot make rational decisions for themselves. Anyone who follows a demagogue (not necessarily a true demagogue, but one defined by media or elites) is labelled as ignorant and unable to think for themselves. They are "fooled" by the demagogue. And the person labelled demagogue is presumed to only seeking power at the expense of those he is fooling, which may or may not be the case (i.e. the supposed demagogue may actually be passionate about his causes as well).
While true demagogues exist, the application of the label demagogue is largely political. In this case, she is clearly talking about Trump (but cleverly not naming him so has plausible deniability). She is pointing only towards things which draw parallels to Trump to the exclusion of the larger picture, and the implication is that people only support demagogues out of ignorance. But ignorant people don't support demagogues when they feel they are being adequately represented.
It is disenfranchisement that lead to popular support for emotional appealers. And not every person who rides to power on this wave of disenfranchisement is a automatically a demagogue (see current top comment about John Bright). When your options are "vote for the guy who says what feels good and might actually represent me" versus "vote for someone who has shown he won't represent me" (whether that thinking is correct or not), the supposed demagogue is the rational choice.
Education doesn't fix it in any case. There are many candidates who have run on platforms that appeal to educated voters, but have clearly only done so for power, because their actions in office have, at best, been neutral towards their supposed passionate platforms, but have personally enriched themselves. Educated voters still line up behind them.
While true demagogues exist, the application of the label demagogue is largely political. In this case, she is clearly talking about Trump (but cleverly not naming him so has plausible deniability). She is pointing only towards things which draw parallels to Trump to the exclusion of the larger picture, and the implication is that people only support demagogues out of ignorance. But ignorant people don't support demagogues when they feel they are being adequately represented.
It is disenfranchisement that lead to popular support for emotional appealers. And not every person who rides to power on this wave of disenfranchisement is a automatically a demagogue (see current top comment about John Bright). When your options are "vote for the guy who says what feels good and might actually represent me" versus "vote for someone who has shown he won't represent me" (whether that thinking is correct or not), the supposed demagogue is the rational choice.
Education doesn't fix it in any case. There are many candidates who have run on platforms that appeal to educated voters, but have clearly only done so for power, because their actions in office have, at best, been neutral towards their supposed passionate platforms, but have personally enriched themselves. Educated voters still line up behind them.