That populism I spoke of yesterday — shaking fists in the air, protesting the government for simply being the government, hating all politicians regardless of what they say/how they vote — is apparently becoming mainstream.  In an ideas piece over at Politico, a pair of writers are telling the world that Obama will try to tap into that anger in the coming year.  There’s also a story like this running in the Washington Post.  Not to mention something similar running in Reuters, The New York Times, Portfolio, The Huffington Post, etc.  Everyone seems to think this will be the strategy for the President in 2010 (one can already see it a little in his speeches); many political analysts are begging the question “what took you so damn long??”.  True, while it would be a (not masterful) plainly obvious political move for the President in his second year, I can’t help but question it.  Then again, I question just about everything.  Including myself.  I talked yesterday about how no politician is REALLY a populist, by definition, they can’t be.  So how about populism itself?  Populism is hard to pin down because it comes in so many different forms: some say Ralph Nader, historians say populism planted the seeds for the Nazi Party, some David Duke, or Ross Perot, or John Edwards.  Populism taps into what the people want, supposedly, and swings that political club towards the elites and establishments.  Let me explain why it’s so scary for a second (besides that it can lead to fascism and/or radical nationalism).  Think about your neighbors for a second.  Probably very nice people.  Maybe one’s a retired something or other, maybe one’s crazy as hell, maybe one’s a school teacher, maybe one’s a pothead.  Whatever the case may be, think about your neighbors hard for a second.  Now, which one of these people would you be comfortable with leading the country and the free world??  Are any of them qualified?  But, grab your pitchfork I guess; cause YOU and ME, we’re not just on deck anymore, we’re headed to the plate.

-:D