It pains me to have to say it, but if grassroots Republicans fail to turn out to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket, then that will only prove that many Republican voters really are stupid. However rhetorically squishy-center and functionally liberal a McCain administration might be, the Obama Nation will be much worse. Yes, this is the most liberal Republican to head a ticket, arguments about Nixon and “W” aside, but this is also about the most leftist Democratic ticket ever, without doubt. It seems odd to talk about leftists in the twenty-first century, decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but Bill Ayres from the Weather Underground supports Obama.

Don’t remember the Weather Underground? Both Mr. Ayres and the national news media prefer it that way. The transfer of power from the liberals to the radicals in the Democratic Party began in 1968, with riots and assassination (leading eventually to the anti-anti-communist McGovern of 1972). The pro-communist Weathermen aided the cause with several bombings, the last of which was accidental. Mr. Ayres conveniently forgets the extent of his involvement, because there is no statute of limitations on murder.

Populist ‘fairness’ is not leftist ‘revolution,’ but class-warfare rhetoric satisfied both groups, and provided Red-blooded operatives an old-fashioned respectability.  Republicans know that the Democrats collectively lost control of their party and possibly their minds in 1968, and their candidates have been sliding toward the edge of sanity ever since. Traditional Democratic voters see the trend, and worry that the Republicans may be right. The problem is that anti-anti-communism seemed plausible because good old class-warfare stem-winding has been around since before the publication of the Wizard of Oz. Unionizing hadn’t destroyed America, and warnings that the leftists were plotting against us just seemed paranoid. Today’s media and Democratic talking heads minimize the threat of the Weathermen by talking about their incompetence and ignoring their successful bombings. Voters in 1968 did not, and gave the presidency to anti-communist Richard Nixon.

It is often said by politicians that, “This is the most important election in a generation.”  This year, that is actually true: this is the most profound choice of direction since Ford (R) vs. Carter (D). Remember, people knew what a Carter administration was like when they chose not to re-elect Carter in 1980; they didn’t have a clue back in 1976, but they did know the moderate Ford. Squishy-center vs. leftist; sound familiar? Remember that nobody in this new generation remembers JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, or even George Bush. Bill Clinton and “W” are the only presidents these voters know; viscerally, they represent the Democratic and Republican parties. Voters with longer memories have a duty to use their longer historical perspective, and communicate these lessons as best they can.

Republicans should not draw the wrong historical lessons: Populism (à la Maverick McCain) will not convey popularity, nor will disastrous Democratic leadership necessarily lead to miraculous rescue, as in Reagan’s victorious 1980. The best lesson may be from 1972.  Watergate did not win Nixon re-election; the fact that the voters knew that George McGovern was a leftist did. McCain should realize that he will be accused of dirty tricks no matter how clean his campaign is, and give the public ‘straight talk’ about Obama.

Democrats draw the wrong lesson from 1972, and seem to believe that dirty tricks are the way to win elections, not avoiding the slide to the left. Voter fraud has always been a concern in elective government, with Chicago long an American cliché of such. Now, a Chicago politician runs for president, and ACORN fills the news. Republican voters should understand how fiercely Democrats believe that the 2000 election was stolen, and how fiercely they intend to show that, “turnabout is fair play.” The only cure is a high turnout, overwhelming corruption by sheer numbers. This may sound Pollyannaish, but local voter registration authorities are catching much blatant voter fraud; the subtle fraud left must be small, necessarily.

Are the Republicans showing the epithet to be true? Secretary Paulson and Senator McCain are good cases on point.

If the Secretary of the Treasury of the U.S. is not receiving money under the table from the Obama campaign, he is stupid. Economists (that is to say conservative economists, who have at least some grasp of finance, as opposed to politics) differ greatly about the causes and proper solutions to the ‘crisis’ in the U.S. and the world. However, even the Keynesian talking heads bloviating for the Democrats would probably be against shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre (although the presence of an actual fire might sway a few – Bill O’Reilly, whose favorite word is ‘bloviate,’ keeps going on about the politicians’ needing to have warned us about the shockingly obvious risks of borrowing more than we can afford, or investing in derivative securities.) Even with an actual fire, shouting, “Fire!” is likely to cause more harm than it avoids, but Sec. Paulson (R?), Speaker Pelosi (D), and Sen. Reid (D) all inflamed the markets into panic. This was unnecessary in any fiscal sense, because there was no panic to avoid yet, so all the necessity must therefore have been political.

Yes, Lehman Brothers and AIG might have been in trouble, but the long-expected receivership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provided the perfect means and justification for snuffing out risky mortgage derivatives. Almost as an aside, the “mark-to-market rule” could have been suspended unilaterally by Chairman Bernanke (R? D?), to see whether or not it is actually harmful, which we still do not know, empirically. Yes, world markets are in trouble, but the panic started here. Secretary Paulson is personally responsible for the one-quarter loss of value in the stock market and every retiree’s portfolio, which is a hardship to millions of voters. The retired, employed, and unemployed all now look askance at a Republican administration that gives away giant blank checks of dubious constitutionality to those who, by their own admission, are irresponsible. This was demanded by Speaker Pelosi (D) and Sen. Reid (D). The voting divided the Republican caucus, and put John McCain (R) on the same side as Barack Obama (D), denouncing capitalism. If the Secretary of the Treasury of the U.S. is not receiving money under the table from the Obama campaign, he is stupid.

If John McCain thinks that jumping on the ‘populist’ bandwagon will help his campaign, he is stupid. Populism can have many meanings: populism in France might mean opposition to high taxes and easy immigration, while populism in Palestine might simply mean opposition to Israel. In the U.S., Populism with a capital P was historically the opposition of farmers to railroads and workers to factories; this has almost exclusively been a movement within the Democratic Party. Ronald Reagan was popular, but never a Populist in this sense. Confusing popularity with Populism is not only a nineteenth-century notion, it was wrong even then: William Jennings Bryan (D) lost the race for the presidency three times as a Populist.

Democratic politicians still pander to the public with Populist rhetoric because FDR made it respectable again in the 1930s. He won the Presidency because the previous Republican administration let a market crash become a disaster. Sound familiar? The American people know where to get socialist solutions to capitalism – from the Democratic Party; denouncing the markets belittles Republican candidate John McCain, and makes him seem desperate. When McCain runs against the Bush administration, he only confirms Obama’s claims that the Republicans can’t be trusted. Failing to connect Obama and other Democratic politicians to the grossly political and irresponsible practices of lending institutions does not insulate the administration from criticism; silence, rather, is a tacit admission that Democratic accusations are accurate. Collegiality, which is such a necessity to a Senator, is actively harmful in a candidate for President of the United States.

Reagan’s policies of strong defense and lower taxes were truly popular. Today’s truly popular policies would be those of populism in France: lower taxes and border control (assuming that the voters take McCain’s superiority on the subject of national defense as a given). These are not Obama’s policies, and part of the reason that Obama has never gotten a majority in any respectable poll. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be McCain’s policies, either. The Republican candidate should espouse Republican policies, which have been proven popular time and time again. If John McCain thinks that jumping on the ‘populist’ bandwagon will help his campaign, he is stupid.

Are Secretary Paulson and Senator McCain showing the epithet about Republicans to be true? As Fox News says, “We report, you decide.”