> What I say is that holding the general public in low esteem while at the same time holding democratic values sacred is, as Spock would say, illogical.

I fully agree. The last year has shaken my confidence in democracy more than any other time in my lifetime. Not because of threats of war or revolution, but because what is the point of elections if the majority is chronically misinformed? Why have a yes/no election if no one knows what the question is?

It's still the best worst system, and i'm still going to vote in 2 years and again in 4, but my faith is low.

This leads to why the US didn't setup a pure democracy. The job of certain long term branches like the senate, supreme court & certain unelected positions is to be able to think long term & say "eat your veggies" without the worry of losing there job because someone else is offering nice European chocolates.

Democratic values are good but not without flaws.

If you acknowledge that all humans have a lot of cognitive biases and information processing weaknesses, acknowledging that these are easily exploitable is not holding people in low esteem. It is taking a realistic stance on how open all of us are to being influenced in ways that we will not notice and barely understand.