THE POPULIST MIRAGE

THE POPULIST MIRAGE 

She praises the "pro-America" parts of America. He turns an unlicensed tax delinquent into "Joe the Plumber." She touts a "you betcha" "doggone it" anti-intellectualism decrying the putative snob who "pals around with terrorists." He recasts his opponent as a socialist who wants to "redistribute wealth." She disdains the "gotcha" media who never actually "get it" in the real America beyond the beltway. He claims she is "absolutely" qualified to be Commander in Chief on day one by lambasting those who disagree as liberals who can't abide a pro-life woman from the tough tundra. 

Welcome to the Republican Presidential campaign, circa 2008. 

All populism all the time. 

If you are wondering what this has to do with the economy or Iraq, don't waste a lot of time working the question over. The answer is simple. 

Nothing. 

Back in law school, I read a book called "The Populist Moment". It was largely about the agrarian movement of the 1870s and 1880s. That movement was grass roots and creatively practical. With its democratic (small "d") participatory ethos and willingness to experiment with cooperatives and the inflationary bromide of free silver, it connected to people's lives. While it did not win a national following, and was fatally tainted in the old Confederacy by Jim Crow, it was in many respects a precursor to the first wave Progressivism of the early 20th century. In other words, it had some heft. 

The McCain version is not even a pale imitation. Exhibiting a weird lack of verisimilitude, it pretends we are still fighting Communists (hence the "socialism" charge)or the Weathermen (hence the Ayers brouhaha) or some citadel of left wing anti-American thought alive and well in the Ivy League (hence the anti-intellectualism). It rails against the media in the age of Fox, the New York Post, Rupert Murdoch, and right wing radio. It pretends to be under siege when its captains have been running the show for the last eight years and its ideology has been ascendant for the last thirty. 

And now, even some of the old GOP warhorses are calling them on it. 

Last week, Christopher Buckley endorsed Barack Obama and yesterday General Colin Powell did the same. Each endorsement was earth shattering for the GOP, albeit in different ways. 

The Buckley flight from the right was largely a cri de coeur from the grave of his father. Whatever William F. Buckley was, anti-intellectual was not one of them. He was very smart, and really liked very smart people. He would never drop a g or lapse into some uncharacteristic slang, and there was never a multi-syllabic word he would not use when a simpler alternative was available. Generations of would-be students have improved their SAT scores merely by listening to Buckley's diatribes on "Firing Line". He founded "National Review" as a rigorous intellectual alternative to the then available liberal offerings in "The New Republic" or "Nation". He thought conservatives were smarter, not just snarkier, and he was willing to try to prove it. He did not avoid debates. He loved them. 

Powell's endorsement was sadder. It had the feel of an apology. For the absence of WMD (without which, Powell candidly admitted, there would have been no Iraq war). For having given his Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval to a man who turned out to be a dangerous bumbler. Perhaps for not having spoken up sooner. But finally, and unmistakably, for what the Republican Party has become -- a citadel of extremist pablum. He wondered why McCain kept telling us the election should not be about a "washed up terrorist" even as his party made millions of robo-calls linking Obama to Ayers. He questioned McCain's "erratic" approach to policy and stated point blank that Palin was not qualified to be Commander in Chief. He also said later in the day that he was still a Republican, more or less serving notice on the right-wing that it does not get to determine membership . 

Each in their own ways, the Buckley and Powell endorsements define the huge gulf between the GOP of today and . . . its past. Between the party of Palin and the party of not just Lincoln but also Reagan. In fact, perhaps the oddest feature of this years GOP spectacle is how much it does not have in common with the career of its putative hero. Like Bill Buckley, Reagan invariably thought it better to be governed by the first two hundred names in the Boston phone book rather than the Harvard faculty. But also like Bill Buckley, Reagan read voraciously, wrote large parts of his own speeches, and always debated (Bobby Kennedy called Reagan his toughest debate opponent ever). He was no dummy and did not pretend to be one or to appeal to one. In his America of individual responsibility and Horatio Alger possibility, the picture of progress was Lincoln under a tree reading a book. 

But that's all gone from this year's candidates. They have largely substituted insult for analysis, sass for smarts, and Rove's base for Reagan's coalition. Despite unbridled appeals to average folks, their words ring hollow. Everyone knows Communism died in 1989 and the Weatherman a decade and a half earlier; that neither a son of William Buckley nor an ex-General named Powell would endorse a share the wealth socialist or a "pal" of terrorists; and that labelling opponents as effete won't create economic recovery, fix the health care system, or send the kids to college. 

Here's another thing they know. 

Joe the Plumber isn't making 250k. 

This is not a moment. 

It's a mirage.