This article ran in the Tallahassee Democrat on March 3, 1997.

That splintering implosion heard recently was the final collapse of the much heralded populist revolution we've heard about so often in the past few years. It never quite made it to its feet before, wobbling out of control, it buckled face down into the arid rural soil. Part of the reason for its fall is that instead of asking citizens to become involved in the political process it devised ways for them to avoid it.

The last breath of the vox populist was extinguished on February 12th when the House defeated the proposed term limits amendment. Term limits were to provide the imaginative spark that would ignite a grassroots political brush fire that would burn across America. Yet this year the House collected 10 fewer votes supporting term limits than it did in 1995. Term limits now have a worse future than platform shoes.

Only a few years ago the prospect for insurgent populists seemed so bright. From the leftover dissatisfactions expressed by the Reagan constituency was built an early 1990s anti-government and anti-welfare outlook that floated to the political surface Ross Perot, Newt Gingrich, the Contract With America, Phil Gramm, and Patrick Buchanan (not to mention David Duke and a scattering of militia groups).

Now Dennis Rodman has a more promising political future than most of these people. Some of the populist leaders had minor flaws. Phil Gramm found he was one of the few people in the country with less political imagination than Steve Forbes. The poor public reception of Newt Gingrich's aggravating personality finally forced him to employ the tactics of civility and compromise. Ross Perot, in his treatment of political rival Richard Lamm, showed that his definition of populist democracy was "my way or the highway." Consequently the only attention Perot is able to draw these days is from bored cartoonists.

But even without its shaky leadership, the movement would not have succeeded. Again, this earnest fraternity collapsed because it allowed citizens to avoid involvement in the political world around them. It was against collective public action, which its followers then extended to the political process itself.

It's not surprising then, that this time around the brief populist fervor left nothing of substance as its legacy. In contrast, earlier populist outbreaks had left constructive measures. Consider, for example, the populist movement of the late 19th century. It bequeathed to us the popular election of senators (who had formerly been elected by state legislatures). Further, voters were empowered by the adoption, in many states, of the initiative, referendum, and recall measures. Similarly, from the campaigning in the 1930s of populists such as Francis Townsend and Huey Long, a push was provided to adopt the Social Security program and a more progressive income tax.

What have we to show from the most recent populist dissent? A few motheaten threats against immigrants, a scattering of three-strikes-and-you're-out laws, a couple of states with term limits, and some boarded-over and abandoned Perot offices.The difference between the recent populism and earlier variations is that in the 1990s people wanted easy solutions. They didn't realize that political reform, populist or not, takes hard work from citizens. A healthy political culture requires involvement instead of merely dissatisfaction and apathy.

The best example of the difference in commitment is to examine, again, the populist request a century ago for the direct election of senators. That proposal required an increased effort from the voting population. In effect it asked for a more intense popular responsibility, since voters themselves had to decide the best senator rather than leaving that decision to their state legislature. The request for term limits in the 1990s, however, revealed exactly the opposite intention. Voters wanted less power and less responsibility. They wanted not to be asked to choose their representatives based on the candidate's record and positions, but instead to have that decision made for them automatically based on a preset time limit.

I like populism. I'd vote for George McGovern again in a heartbeat. But populism, like other political movements, won't be successful again until people are willing to be more directly involved in politics than they are now. Disaffection isn't enough. Policies that include self-sacrifice and participation, characteristic of earlier populist uprisings, are essential.