It'll take a generation to undo the damage -- it took a generation -- from Reagan till today -- to do the damage in the first place.

We're riding this one all the way down.

Interesting parallel. I was drawn to read a history of the populist movement after working Dean's campaign, and working as an editor in politics, but I didn't find the time. The recent revival of thinking along populist lines for the Democratic Party and my recent unemployment gave me occasion to read one -- I've gone with Lawrence Goodwyn's book, which basically refutes the notion that William Jennings Bryan was one of the populists, and makes the idea that the Democratic party should "try populism" appear ridiculous to me.

 I'm not finished with the book, but I've learned that the real populist movement was basically a cooperative and communal approach to society that grew indigenously. It was the birth of a new social order. It lost its speed when it got involved in politics... guys like Bryan coopted the movement. Interestingly, Goodwyn says that it was the monied men like Mark Hanna who labeled the populists as Progressives. The two real bad asses of the movement were William Lamb and Charles Macune.

But the idea that Bryan was a true populist is kind of like a music critic telling you that the Monkees were the greatest band of the '60s.  Also, you mention the Radical Middle. I have also been drawn to understanding this part of the electorate, and so I've just finished reading Donald Warren's "The Radical Center." Totally amazing book. It came out in 76. Pat Caddell assisted in its creation. Did you know that in the `60s the top two preferred presidential candidates in the heartland, southwest and south  were 1.George Wallace and 2.Bobby Kennedy? There's this strain of politics in America that the two parties don't really touch. A slightly racist (call it a `law and order' platform), nativist, isolationist, anti-deficit, pro-social programs, pro-privacy candidate -- even a 3rd party one -- would get between a third to 45 percent of the national vote. A fusion of Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Teddy Kennedy.

A huge fact that both parties tried to make disappear is that at one point Ross Perot was leading in the national polls in `92 w/ 34%. Can you dig it?

It doesn't make any difference how we get it done, it just has to be done. The real Social Security crisis is the possibility that a few Dems will attempt to negotiate "centrist" reforms. It's hard to believe they could still be that naive, but I don't know any other way to read it. Their deluded belief that Bush will cooperate in their desire for "good governance" is astonishing.

Ever since 2003, I've been stumbling upon articles in various publications and finding myself nodding in agreement, then being stunned to find out that it was written by Pat. When it comes to many of his foreign policy opinions, particularly regarding Iraq and the Israel/Palestine issue, I find myself agreeing with him more and more.

Back in the 1990s when I considered him a right wing extremist, I'd thought hell would freeze over before I saw eye to eye with that man on ANY issue. Today Pat looks like a moderate compared to the neocons. At least you could debate issues with cons like him. I saw him spar on different networks with Newt and he'd get treated like a liberal.

I'd be interested in your thoughts not with comparisons with the 1890s, but the 1920s.  There, the Dems. were bereft of ideas, against a popular but somewhat detached president.

I agree with that the thought is that political eras end when one side suffers from hubris and overextends themselves domestically or militarily and face a backlash.

1. The democrats have to start mocking Republicans.  Newt Gingrinch wants God in our lives and wants to talk values?!  The man who divorced two women in the most classless way possible?  One on the hospital bed the other through a public affair?  That's funny.

2. Notice the end of the Progressive era?  1920 - the end of Woodrow Wilson's Presidency.  Everyone talks about Woodrow Wilson as this great idealist - but he wasn't.  He was a dangerous incompetent who's grip on reality wasn't too strong.  Look at his actual record:
   

Progressives now need to stop idealizing Wilson's claptrap and look at what he actually did.  He was a disaster - and yes the comparison to the present day occupant are obvious.

1.    Terrorism - There is a problem we must face, I actually agree with the President on this point.  Terrorism grows where tyranny lies.  As a tool to control the people make what is best for them evil and they will hate it instead of the despots that control their lives.  I have no problem with saying freedom is the best for the people of the world.  Get on board with this and we will begin to gain with the American people who easily see this.
2.    God in the public life - I understand that societies are kept in check either by force or by their own free will.  Religion teaches people to treat others as they would be treated themselves.  Which do you prefer self rule or iron fist?  Laws and force are not the answer.
3.    Reforming social security - The fair solution is to allow people to make their own mistakes and good choices.  Continuing to reward bad choices may grow the base, but it is just plain wrong.  Punishing those who make good decisions in their life will only lose votes as this age of Personal Responsibility comes in.  

I think democrats are missing the boat on all of these issues.  Maybe because they dropped the ball or maybe because they aren't driving the ship; either way they are being increasing marginalized by the common sense of the American public.

With the advent of the Internet, not only business a more even playing field it also forces the American public to think for themselves.  No longer can an all seeing eye of the Federal Government protect you.  The Internet also brings increased global market place.  America must compete at the highest level to ensure our safety and global reach.   This will rely again on the American public being responsible for themselves.