Here’s a long, but interesting essay on American history, and what perhaps lies ahead.

His formulation of multiple republics since 1787 makes a lot of sense to me, particularly since, though we haven’t written a new constitution, we have amended and misinterpreted it far beyond anything that the Founders envisioned for the nation. It’s pretty clear that both the War Between the States and the New Deal were major demarcation points from one governmental era to the next (Wilson was the first fascist American president, but even his era, even with the introduction of the federal income tax, didn’t end the post-war limits on government). And sadly, Reagan only temporarily slowed down the growth of the state, but didn’t end the era of what Delong calls the “Special Interest State.” Obama and the current Democrats may finally do so, however, in their overreaching. I certainly hope so.

Delong is optimistic that we may return to a true republic again in the next phase. I hope he’s right. But even if so, I fear a very ugly transition.

Not so much, at least if you’re a conservative journalist.

A Democrat official in New Hampshire says that the Tea Partiers are out of their minds. Well, the feeling is mutual, I’m sure. I don’t have an idea why this guy, and Pelosi, and the other Democrats trying to denigrate these people think that this is going to tamp down the anger at them. And according to Rasmussen, if they’re crazy, there are an awful lot of crazy folks out there, including a lot of Democrats. And note the huge opinion gap between political elites and the rest of us. All this is going to do is get people to sharpen up their pitchforks even more.

[Update a few minutes later]

Michael Barone says that the public isn’t as stupid as the political elites would like to believe:

Many of the sneering comments about the participants in last week’s hundreds of tea parties across the nation were premised on the idea that these people didn’t know much about public policy. The hostile CNN reporter (Rush Limbaugh might call her an infobabe) who told tea party attendants that they were going to get tax rebates was an example of that. It was also an example of the condescension of so many in the media: ordinary people should be satisfied with getting a few extra bucks now and shouldn’t worry about the long-term effects of huge increases in government spending and government debt. As I wrote last, the idolators who attended Obama events last year seemed entranced by the candidate’s persona, while the tea party participants seemed preoccupied with serious issues of long-term public policy. Which side was more intellectually serious?

We’ll see how long he can continue to skate on charisma alone. Because that’s about all he has.

[Update late morning]

More Tea Party thoughts:

What we found most striking about the tea party we attended, and those that we observed taking place elsewhere, is how it departed from the normal partisan atmosphere one comes to expect at political rallies. Those in attendance were for the most part not political activists, and most did not come to support one party or oppose another, though certainly there was an emphasis on limited government that once was, and must become again, the rallying cry of the Republican Party.

We say once because during the presidency of George W. Bush, Republicans in Washington abandoned their economic principles. Spending rose and the earmark culture flourished. As has often been said, Republicans went to Washington to drain the swamp, but instead joined the alligators.

Thus, the furious reaction by many on the left to the tea parties. They hoped, they believed that fiscal conservatism was a spent force, that conservatives had lost the credibility and even the will to be fiscally responsible. After bringing America dramatically closer to the European economic model of state control in three short months, with only fawning approval from the mainstream media, suddenly from out of nowhere came demonstrations of mass opposition to the Obama program. Left wing activists, flush with triumph, could only ask with great annoyance: How could the “failed” policies of the past eight years suddenly have such popular support?

They fail to recognize that the tea parties are not Republican forums for Bush nostalgia. They are expressions of frustration with the government’s failure to live within its means, as the rest of us must. Hundreds of billions of dollars in Bush administration debt are being chased by trillions of dollars of Obama administration debt. The pundits care only about political scorekeeping, so they simply are not equipped to understand the honest-to-goodness, enough-is-enough exasperation of the tea parties.

The fact that the tea parties represent a grassroots movement only perplexes the cynics further, because Obama’s election to the presidency has been marketed as the apotheosis of grassroots populism. It is as if the true believers of ever-expanding government have actually convinced themselves that only hedge fund managers on Wall Street could possibly oppose the government takeover of the private sector. Of course, they’ve also convinced themselves that a federal government unable to balance its budget — or even to finish its budget on time — year after year is somehow going to introduce sound accounting to the private sector.

Actually, one is too many, as far as I’m concerned, but now the Obama administration has more than the Romanov dynasty:

Government by czar didn’t work especially well in Russia. Hopefully, it won’t be quite so bad in this country. And, yes, of course I understand that Obama’s czars unlike the Romanovs are ultimately accountable to democratically elected officials. I also don’t expect Obama’s czars to be organizing pogroms or exiling dissidents to Siberia anytime soon. On the other hand, democratic accountability for America’s czars is increasingly tenuous in light of the fact that there are too many of them for most voters to even keep straight, much less understand and evaluate their performance in any depth. Here, as elsewhere, the rapidly growing size and complexity of government makes difficult for voters to monitor those who are supposed to be serving the public . Maybe Obama’s army of czars will do a good job anyway. A few of the Romanovs did. But for every “Czar-Liberator,” like Alexander II (who free Russia’s millions of serfs), there were a lot more oppressors and incompetents.

I’m not expecting any liberation from anyone in this crowd.