Perhaps the opposite of a populist is a technocrat: a leader who works quietly behind the scenes to build trust and consensus with other parties and stakeholders, while respecting constitutional norms and the separation of powers.

As such, good examples of non-populist politicians would be, by definition, leaders that don't generate a lot of clickbaity headlines and don't achieve a great deal of global attention, although perhaps Angela Merkel is a good example.

The defining characteristic of a populist leader is that they claim to have the backing of The People (often, in practice, a minority of voters, much less of the populace) who uses this supposed mandate to dismiss any checks and balances against their power, while consistently presenting a divisive "us versus them" narrative often one-way directly to the public through uncritical broadcast media or rallies, rather than accepting public scrutiny from journalists or opposing politicians.

But sure, maybe you think all politicians are equally bad that way.

> Perhaps the opposite of a populist is a technocrat.

Aside from possibly Angela Merkel, can you name some technocats that are good examples of what you describe?

My impression is that technocrats, generally, are just as populist as all the others, if not more deliberately so.

The amount of time spent on voter sentiment and polling data, not to mention a target audience of 'intelligent, enlightened voters', makes me almost as suspicious of 'technocrats' as they make of the typical populists.

Many examples:

Angela Merkel - formidable and respected even by her opponents, but never one to take the easy, populist route. Has called populism "poison"

Tsai Ing-wen (Taiwanese president, running for her second term this weekend) was a law professor. She's not a great public speaker.

Malcolm Turnbull, former Australian Prime Minster. Former investment banker. Had a tendency to have complicated policy positions which most people who worked in whatever field he was forming policy for would consider technically correct, but were hard to explain.

Hillary Clinton - terrible public speaker, overly concerned with polling and unable to read people (in complete contrast to her husband who was very much the populist)

Mario Monti - former Italian Prime Minster and economist.

I've tried to find examples from all sides of politics.

> Can you give me an example of a politician who is not populist?

One example that comes to mind is states with both a president and prime minister, and the president is meant to remain somewhat outside the political fray.

I have nothing wrong with populist presidents. In fact, I want populist presidents, as until Trump the Republican party was dominated by ideologues. The Democratic party has begun descending down that path, which IMO is one reason why Jerry Brown--or his more ethically challenged twin, Willie Brown, for that matter--isn't getting many visitors in retirement.

A good leader is responsive to manifest problems, as opposed to problems in the abstract (which are often manufactured and non-existent); prefers evidence-based policies; and most of all is willing and eager to make course corrections (reality is messy and dynamic). In general it's difficult to do that today without being populist, as a populist almost by definition enjoys greater independence from the political machine and special interests. (Not that political machines aren't important! Hillary was nominated by the DNC machine over Sanders because the DNC machine was built to prevent someone like Trump from being nominated.) Of course, being populist doesn't mean you'll be a good leader; it depends on the character and ability of the person in power, and the extent to which their personal ambitions can be checked by the system--i.e. by making success the only option, as opposed to permitting a populist leader to manufacture success through lies and deceit.

A non-populist president would be someone like George H. W. Bush (the first Bush), who clearly represented elitist interests, albeit an enlightened elitism. America has a long history of this sort of elitist politician, largely to our[1] long-term benefit, starting most famously with George Washington. But H. W. Bush was the last one. Now we have a mix of ideologically (George W. Bush, on balance) and populist (Obama, on balance; Trump as an archetype) driven leadership, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[1] Notwithstanding that some groups do better than others. But so much about healthy democracy is about minimizing the risks of majority power, and minorities are often at their most vulnerable when populism controls. See, for example, Andrew Jackson, whose politics and character may be the closest to that of Trump. Or consider that during the heyday of union power mid century, big business and African Americans sometimes had an enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend relationship, as unions were notoriously racist. Look at how minorities have faired in the Middle East when populist governments come into power in Iran, Iraq, Israel, Egypt, Turkey, etc.