Glen Dean has critiqued “populism” in a post at TenneseeFree.com (”Populism threatens liberty in a republic”). One passage that stood out to me was this one:

Another thing that will help this nation and preserve liberty is a spiritual awakening. I am not talking about religion, but spiritual growth. The more people become generally happy and joyous, and free of anger and resentment, replacing those emotions with love and tolerance, the less likely they are to be stirred up by the negative message of populism.

This was sort of an aside about the issue of “populism,” but it reminded me of an article I read recently (sorry, subscription required for entire article). The article, entitled “New Neighbors” was going to be the anchor to a post challenging Religious Conservatives on how they view John McCain on immigration (stay tuned for that one). Nevertheless, it emphasized for me the importance of appealing to reason and the “better angels of our nature,” if you will. (I’m picturing Abe Lincoln–who made that phrase famous, with the “better angel” on one shoulder and the, uh, “worse-r angel” on the other shoulder).

Anyway, I think we need to hold politicians to account for their appeals. I know, I know; some of you (”William”?) are going to accuse me of not holding the criminals (aka “Bush administration appointees,” all of them) to account these past few years,* but I’m talking about fundamental stuff–the kind of stuff we get in fundraising mail pieces and read on partisan websites or hear on the radio. All Americans benefit if we accept that accountability begins at home. Let’s expect more from our leaders. Yes we can.

*aside: Jonah Goldberg had an interesting insight about Dubya’s purported fear mongering after 9/11 by noting that he prominently urged Americans to “go shopping.” (also here).

Two seeming examples of the divide on acceptable campaign rhetoric: David Oatney and Brendan Loy have a different perspective on McCain’s “B. Hussein Obama” opening act.

Update: Mack at Coyote Chronicles weighs in (though I think he’s dreaming in his assertions about generational appeal or the general decline in popularity of Talk Radio–not to mention his characterization of it).