George Wallace Redux?

CW has previously stated that the Tea-Partiers would have influence in the GOP, but be ineffective as a third party movement. The author of this article in National Journal suggests that the champions of true conservatism should be wary of too much influence. He sees elements of George Wallace in today's Tea-Party populism (less the racism).

I am not saying that today's Republicans are a bunch of Wallace clones. Or that everything Wallace did or said was wrong, or that Republicans should shun all of his themes just because he used them. I am saying three things.

First, with the important exception of race, not one of Wallace's central themes, from his bristling nationalism and his court-bashing to his anti-intellectualism and his aggressive provincialism, would seem out of place at any major Republican gathering today.

Second, and again leaving race aside, any Republican politician who publicly renounced the Wallace playbook would be finished as a national leader.

Third, by becoming George Wallace's party, the GOP is abandoning rather than embracing conservatism, and it is thereby mortgaging both its integrity and its political future. Wallaceism was not sufficiently mainstream or coherent to sustain a national party in 1968, and the same is true today.

Conservatism is wary of extremism and rage and anti-intellectualism, of demagoguery and incoherent revolutionary rhetoric. Wallace was a right-wing populist, not a conservative. The rise of his brand of pseudo-conservatism in Republican circles should alarm anyone who cares about the genuine article.

On Lou Dobbs' Political Aspirations

Lou Dobbs is exactly the kind of guy I don't want in politics, and I hope his quixotic musings about entering the fray are designed to support a book sale or some other business proposition.

I have two basic problems with Dobbs--his attitude and his politics.

1. Dobbs is the quintessential angry white man. I mean this from the standpoint of temperament, not politics. On the occasions in which I've paused long enough on his former show to evaluate him, I've come to see the furrowed brow, the agitated tone, the "who should we blame" approach. This man does not inspire; he does not lead; he does not evoke the "better angels" of his viewers nature. He whips them into an emotional frenzy of blame, anger, and negativity. He does a fine job of letting "us" off the hook while blaming "them"--whoever us and them may be. America does not need politicians who play to the crowd. America needs politicians who lead the crowd. Sally's fine job analyzing the 2009 Virginia Governor's race here on this blog (re)introduced us to a politician with solid conservative instincts AND a positive message of progress in Mr. McDonnell. We need more McDonnells and fewer Dobbs.

2. Dobbs is what Ross Douthat calls a "radical center populist"--you know what I call a "radical center populist? A political weather vane. Radical center populists stick their finger in the air, test what is popular with the electorate, and ride the wave. They have no fundamental, unshakable political beliefs from which enlightened policy springs. This is a particularly dangerous brand of politics, as one comes to surf the wave-tops of whatever passion is currently animating the masses without ever really moving in a substantial policy direction.

I'll not be jumping on the Lou Dobbs bandwagon, friends. Would be interested to read opposing viewpoints.