ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

A populist path to power?

| Friday, June 13, 2014, 8:57 p.m.

“I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”

If Thomas Jefferson's benign reflection on Shays' Rebellion, that uprising of farmers in 1786 and 1787, is not the first thought that comes to mind for his fellow Virginian Eric Cantor, surely it is understandable.

For the rebellious subjects of Cantor's district just voted to end his career as House majority leader.

Many lessons are being read into and taken away from Cantor's defeat. But that election also has revealed a populist path, both to the Republican nomination in 2016 and perhaps to the presidency.

For what were the elements of Randolph-Macon College professor Dave Brat's victory and of Cantor's defeat?

First, the perception that Cantor was willing to do a deal with Barack Obama to provide a partial amnesty to illegal aliens — while the media provided wall-to-wall coverage of the latest invasion across our southern border — proved devastating.

Then there is populism. Cantor spent $5 million, an astonishing sum in a congressional primary, 50 times what Brat spent. Yet he only reinforced his image as a poodle of Wall Street and K Street.

Of the bank bailout that Cantor supported, Brat was brutally effective.

“All the investment banks up in New York and D.C. ... those guys should have gone to jail. But instead of going to jail ... they went onto Eric's Rolodex. ... And they're sending him big checks.”

Also helping Brat is that he is an outsider, when those in Washington are widely disliked, distrusted or even detested by Middle America.

Anti-establishment, outsider, defender of national borders — these were the cards Brat was holding, even if he had little money or organized support.

In the endless struggle between populism and the establishment and between nationalists and internationalists, populists and nationalists appear, at least temporarily, to be in the ascendancy.

Vladimir Putin's approval is over 80 percent. Why? He stands for national sovereignty and the rights of Russians, wherever they may be.

Consider the political terrain six months before the preseason of 2016 begins.

According to every national poll, Americans believe that our country is on the wrong course, that it is less respected than it has ever been abroad and that our children and their children will most likely not know the good life that we have had.

Americans disapprove of the president and have little confidence in either party or in Congress.

The landscape looks inhospitable for establishment candidates, such as Jeb Bush, who says illegal aliens crossing our border are engaging in an “act of love” and who is a proud and principal promoter of the Common Core curriculum being imposed on the nation's schools.

Nor does the terrain seem favorable for former first lady Hillary Clinton. She is seen nationally, and not incorrectly, as the queen of the establishment, someone who banks six-figure fees for half-hour lectures.

If Jeb and Hillary are both in the lists in 2016, it will be God's gift to pitchfork populists.

Pat Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me