Considering that Mr Lind is one of the authors of a book about the "radical center" I'm surprised that he has drawn such a grim, and I am afraid true, picture of the US polity, because it is clear from it that far more than the politics of centrism or "moderatism" will be needed to bring the US out of the grip of plutocracy it has been in for the past quarter-century or more. That said, I think he is being unfair to American conservatism in neglecting to mention two important moderate forms that are also in many respects progressive, Eisenhower and Rockefeller Republicanism, which admittedly have been defunct at the national level for several decades, though not I think in some states (see the July 7 NYT Op-Ed section). It appears that just as a national movement was necessary to end the oligarchy of the trusts in the early 1900s, a new one will be necessary to bring US democracy out of its present decrepit state. Perhaps as economic times worsen, Americans will throw off the opiate of consumerism they can no longer afford for what really matters in their lives. If the "progressive" elites are as disinclined toward real reform as Lind says they are, they're going to need a big push from public opinion and civic activism to be persuaded to think and act otherwise.

My understanding of populist has been a politician who harangues on popular themes without regard to logic. I have no idea what dictionaries say, and I don't care -- the phrase as I have always used it, and heard it, refers to anyone who tries to win influence by kissing up to popular ideas by intentionally putting down any kind of intellectual backing. Huckabee's national sales tax fits into that scheme perfectly, since his 23% was actually 30%, and if you didn't include housing and cars, would have had to be 50-60%. But that was logic, or at least rational thinking, and therefore not part of his populist demagoguery.

It's morphed into the worst of conservatism AND the worst of big government liberalism. Down here in Helms home state and hometown the government is booming while it looks for new ways to chisel a dollar from everyone in order to hire more cops to provide the illusion that its some fine Libertarian paradise replete with freedom and small government. It's basically turned into Mussolini without the cool uniforms. I have Democratic governor and a democratic state assembly (both houses) that sees nothing at all wrong with raising taxes this year to pretty much whatever they want in order to fund public safety while at the same time they're cutting practically every social program on the books. Except of course for all education salaries which are going up 8-10% per year every year. Our public mental health system is 45th in the nation. But Raleigh has at least 5 overlapping police forces and we're one of 7 states with NO juvenile justice or court system.

Our two Senators, Libby Dole and Richard Burr basically exist to generate cash for the GOP money making machine while they prattle on about Jesus and Family Values. But at the same time our Democratic Governor is semi-sort-of-pro choice don't ask don't tell at the same time he slapped down a state legislative proposal that would at least put a temporary moratorium on the death penalty. Because apparently soccermoms want nothing less than public lynchings to ensure their little snowflakes are safe and snug.

And where does any remaining cash go? Road 'repair' of course. Some sections of the interstates in NC have been under constant never ending 'repair' or widening since 1995. We're the home of THE most expensive highway, per mile, ever constructed in the US; I-540, at more than $35 million per mile. And after almost 30 years of 'development' it's only half done and the state has decided to even do another 25% of it it will have to be privatized on that section and run as a private toll road. You don't have to be Descartes to know that the money is going to crony construction companies and real estate holdings.

And oh yes, NC has had ONE black officeholder of a statewide office since Reconstruction. He was voted out in 2004. Also in 2004 which didn't make the national papers, we had more than 10 state and national elections which took more than TWO YEARS to finally settle, in the courts and then by re-voting. Two years.

So if anything else, Helms didn't make the South, he came FROM the South and all that it is.

Leftist, America/Normal-phobes are a trip!

Jesse Helms was an imperfect human being, as are we all.

Nevertheless, he was a man who loved his country and who wanted America to cease murdering defenseless pre-born Americans (we're up to 50,000,000 + "legal" abortions to date.) He also wasn't a big fan of homosexuals and their sickness.

What's telling and indicative of the leftist mindset is that, even after the guy dies, you just can't resist attacking him.

Your idol, the philandering, alcoholic, unindicted murderer, Ted Kennedy, is approaching his death bed. When he does die, I don't plan to assault his memory when he's barely buried. Leftist ghouls attack Jesse Helms as soon as they hear of his passing.

You need to look into your souls.

I find it a bit disconcerting for Lind to offer up a comparison between the dixie demagogues and William Jennings Bryan that puts Bryan in a positive, progressive light. I've long been an relecutant admirer of Bryan, for many reasons, but I suffer under no illusions about his actual record. Even if we choose to forget what was probably Bryan's most successful and certainly longest-lived political campaign -- the campaign against teaching Darwinism in schools -- despite its success and his subsequent canonization by evangelical Christians (a group to which he belonged) we're still left with a man whose political theories were naive at best.

There was "free silver," a brazen attempt to create enough inflation to render farmers' debt meaningless. That's good enough for the farmers, but not necessarily good for the American economy as a whole. This was no serious attempt at reforming our basic economic forms -- such as the vital role of debt and credit in maintaining American wealth and prosperity -- it was merely an attempt to alleviate a very particular need of Bryan's supporters no matter what cost it might have had on anyone else.

And there was isolationism, which while certainly a good enough stance to take in 1916 was deeply shortsighted in its understanding of the European crises then unfolding.

Someone else here has commented that populism means campaigning on popular issues regardless of logic, and while that's not the precise political science definition it seems to fit the facts as well as anything else. Populism, which properly speaking is the fusion of socially conservative beliefs with economically liberal policies, must always defy logic in order to thrive. And Bryan was the leader of that entire movement.

Neither Jesse Helms nor the dixie demagogues sprouted from sown dragon's teeth. They were following in the vain, dull-witted, pious shoes of Bryan. The mere fact that Bryan actually believed in what he said and many of the latter-day Bryanists probably didn't, only makes Bryan look that much worse.