And again, just because the experts are sometimes wrong does not mean that you should bet against them.
The point is that when intelligent and motivated people put in massive effort to try to figure out how to understand the complexities and get it right, they are a LOT more likely to consistently produce better solutions than random opinion-holders.
It you have a software problem to fix, do you go to one of the developers, or just pick the loudest Karen/Kevin on the customer service line and have them fix it?
That is really the choice. Of course developers made the error that put the bug there in the first place, but that does not mean that the complainer has an actual fix.
Narrow fields like these are usually non-controversial. Populists don't run around screaming about abolishing the traffic lights or veterinarian checks on meat. There are exceptions like "chlorinated chicken", but these are the exceptions that prove the rule.
The controversy usually involves the macro stuff where value of expert judgment becomes questionable. Like "how many soldiers and bases worldwide do we need"? "Should we confront China/Russia or appease it?" "Is mass immigration from the Islamic world desirable and how should it be managed?" etc. These are the real flashpoints of modern politics.
These were just obvious examples, and you are correct that populist politicians may not primarily campaign specifically on reducing regulation, but they consistently DO mention it in campaigning and consistently do it once in office, because they're usually sponsored by moneyed/corporate interests.
>>"how many soldiers and bases worldwide do we need"..."Should we confront China/Russia or appease it?"
Yes, the populists are consistently gong for appeasement and the "why should we spend money abroad", and opting to allow (or in the 2017-21 admin, actively curry favor with) authoritarians, because populist leaders are almost always authoritarians (whether rightists or leftists), as populist leaders want the simplistic solution of "strongman leaders".
This consistently leads to far worse results within a decade or two. Short term, less is spent overseas. But then the authoritarians make gains and start creating problems that cannot be ignored, and the cost of pushing back has grown far higher. That's the problem with authoritarians; they DGAF about words of concern or condemnation. If they break international law and only get words of condemnation and slap-on-the-wrist sanctions, they read this as approval to go further. Then they do. This is exactly what happened with Putin. He bombed civilians and/or illegally "annexed" territory in Chechnya, Syria, Georgia, Crimea, Donbas, etc. and got no real pushback. So, the thought it would be OK to invade all of Ukraine. This is a rolling disaster for everyone, brought about by failure to push back in earlier administrations (including the 2009-17 admin failing to push back in Syria & Crimea).
Are there even such experts with regard to the economy? The economic academia is full of competing schools of thought which prescribe completely incompatible recipes how to run things.
Which of those are experts and which are fakes? Which one of those schools would you choose to run things in your country?
There was an interesting example of Pinochet choosing the Chicagoans to run the economy in Chile. Chile certainly grew in GDP, but it also grew a bunch of societal problems coming from inequality, and once Pinochet was gone, the Left resurged, though arguably not to the levels seen before.