"

Palin’s populism bridge to nowhere

WASHINGTON - The Republican presidential nominee, an Arizona senator, was a maverick, which was part of his charm. He spoke and acted impulsively, which was part of his problem. Voters thought his entertaining dimensions might be incompatible with presidential responsibilities. For example, he selected a running mate most Americans had never heard of and who had negligible experience pertinent to the presidency. This was 1964.

Barry Goldwater, whose seat John McCain occupies, chose to run with Bill Miller, a congressman from Lockport, N.Y. After the Goldwater-Miller ticket lost 44 states, Miller retired to Lockport where he practiced law and lived in dignified anonymity until his death in 1983. No one suggested he should be considered for the 1968 Republican presidential nomination.

Yet Sarah Palin, who with 17 months remaining in her single term as Alaska’s governor quit the only serious office she has ever held, is obsessively discussed as a possible candidate in 2012. Why? She will not be the Republican nominee unless the party wants to lose at least 44 states. (Emphasis added)

Conservatives, who rightly respect markets as generally reliable gauges of consumer preferences, should notice that the political market is speaking clearly: The more attention Palin receives, the fewer Americans consider her presidential timber.

This is not her fault. She is what she is, and what she is merits no disdain. Millions of people vibrate like tuning forks to her rhetoric. When she was suddenly forced to take a walk on the highest wire in America’s political circus, she showed grit.  (Emphasis added)

She also showed that grit is no substitute for seasoning. She has been subjected to such irrational vituperation - loathing largely born of snobbery - she can be forgiven for seeking the balm of adulation from friendly audiences. (Emphasis added)

America, its luck exhausted, at last has a president from the academic culture, that grating blend of knowingness and unrealism. But the reaction against this must please him. That reaction is populism, a celebration of intellectual ordinariness. This is not a stance that will strengthen the GOP; full-throated populism has not won a national election since Andrew Jackson was re-elected in 1832. (Emphasis added)

"