Sociopaths (and I'm being kind) like Trump, and others who present simple 'black and white' solutions, are not refreshing, they spread a kind of neo-facist populism, which poisons coherent societies. Studies have shown that they do not perform better than others, they only have no remorse when things go south. They usually leave a trail of casualties.
I can recommend a book called "Snakes in suits" (summary review) for those who prefer to think twice, instead of going for the simple solutions (which are often the wrong solutions).
As a politician, there must be a tension between being ideological vs pragmatic.
The ideological politician has a lot going for her. By studying a compact set of ideology, one can (fairly accurately) predict her opinion in a range of questions. For me, that is efficient. I don't have the time (or inclination) to dive deeply into the fine details of trade deals between the EU and the EEA (European Economic Area). I trust that a politician who get my vote have a general view that makes her (with help from her people) dive into the matter, make a choice, and debate that view with other politicians in such a way that we the people are educated. On the other hand, when things go bad with ideological people, things tends to go really bad. Be it religion, politics or camera settings.
The pragmatic politician is more of a "car mechanic" in that whatever works, works. This tends to correlate with the "populist" label, meaning that instead of following a (hopefully deeply though out) consistent ideology, their opinion can swing any which way the people swing. For a democracy, this can be a great thing. So what if our leaders decide that some line of thought is below them ("having large predators in our nature is potentially dangerous to our kids. Lets eradicate all of them"). Even though I am against this particular thought, I see the problem with having large parts of the voters swaying one way, and nearly all politicians swaying the other way. The "populists" come to the rescue by perhaps good gut-feeling, perhaps carefully analyzing the "market" and finding the blank spots.
I don't know or understand the fine points of US politics (why should I, it is not my country). I do believe that my own country and neighbors have had our fair share of right-wing, anti-establishment populists, though. They don't get my vote for a number of reasons. While I have liberal and liberalist tendencies compared to the political centre of gravity in my country, I think that these guys tick all of the wrong boxes. Cheaper alcohol, more repression in schools and refusing working foreigners access to our country is probably not what would make my country "great" instead of merely "good".
Having a particular sociolect or dialect does not make you any better (or worse) as a politician. Everything should be stated as simple as possible, but not any simpler. By this, I mean that some things are inherently complex. I would rather have a politician who says that "global warming is complex but we should do as best we can with the knowledge that we have", rather than one who says that "it is all lies" or one who says that "abolish your lifestyle today, or else the world is doomed". I do acknowledge that some of them are annoyingly un-inclusive, or rather: their political training have taught them how to avoid offending anyone or admitting that any action they do will have any negative consequences for anyone. Thus, the information content of their speech is close to zero.