POPULIST RAGE? IT'LL FADE FAST

By Michael Kinsley

For several years now, the most powerful and mysterious force in American politics has been a free-floating populist rage. It's been directed at Washington and politicians this time, instead of at populism's traditional targets of Wall Street and businessmen. Stoked by radio-talk-show hosts, worshipped by fearful pols, the new populism created the movements for term limits and the balanced-budget amendment; turned Ross Perot's presidential bid from an eccentric billionaire's ego trip into a historic event; and ultimately led to last November's upheaval, in which Republicans won control of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

Predicting political trends is like predicting the stock market: the most common mistake is assuming that current trends will continue. Therefore, I boldly risk the opposite prediction: the populist, anti-Washington fire storm is about to fade. Nurtured on complaints and resentments that were amorphous at best, it will be sated by "solutions" that are equally amorphous or symbolic. The alleged causes of populist anger will not disappear: the budget will remain unbalanced; lifetime professional politicians will continue to run the country. But, like a summer squall, the populist storm will pass. Or rather, like a small child's crying fit, the nation's populist frenzy will melt away with time and distraction.

This will be frustrating to Democrats. They have sought consolation in the thought that Republicans, having harnessed the new populism to their own ambitions, might now, in turn, become its victims. Republicans are now the political establishment. And when they fail to deliver the impossible combination platters that the new populism seems to demand-lower taxes and a balanced budget without any cuts in middle-class benefit checks, guaranteed health care without any limits on choice, superpower status without any risk of American blood or treasure-the populist conflagration will swallow them up too. But will that delicious moment arrive? Or has populism peaked?

The Republicans, of course, are about to attempt a George Aiken on the whole populist rebellion. Aiken was the Senator who suggested ending the Vietnam War by declaring victory and coming home. With the completion of their "Contract with America," the Republicans will say: we promised to do 10 things and we did them, or at least we came close. They will argue that they have shown how Washington politicians can effectively serve the public interest-even as they continue to argue that Washington is a fetid swamp that infects all who enter it, and that the Federal Government can do nothing right. It's a tricky double sell, but they may pull it off.

The fact that the contract's provisions will have no effect whatsoever on the lives of most voters will be a plus, not a minus, in pursuing the Aiken strategy. The defeat of the contract's two most dramatic items -- term limits and the balanced- budget amendment -- is especially convenient. Populist rage is based on the apparently widespread feeling that life as it stands is intolerable, and "change"-the political mantra of our time-is essential. But the truth is that life isn't so bad these days for most voters, and real change is scary. The changes required by the balanced-budget amendment would be particularly hard to digest. The safest way to satisfy a vague hunger for change is with the mere appearance of change. That is what the Republicans, with their contract, will have delivered.

But factors even weightier than the mind of Newt Gingrich are at work here too. One is the public's short attention span. Compared with some national obsessions of the recent past-remember child abuse? drugs? flag burning?-an arcane passion like term limits has already had an amazingly long run. Even if the current overwhelming public desire for term limits remains unsatisfied, it will dissipate.

And the press will help here. A cardinal rule of journalism is that the story has to change. After the 10,000th feature about the "angry public mood," someone is going to write or broadcast a feature revealing that the public is no longer angry. When people start being told they are no longer angry, a certain number will come to believe it. Then the search will be on for the next public mood. My best hunch: a big comeback for apathy. Look for this golden oldie around the fourth quarter of 1995.

The dissipation of populist rage may come too late to help President Clinton, who skillfully embraced it in 1992 and then saw it turned against him. But the change is already helping the presidential candidacy of Bob Dole. Even a year ago, it was almost unthinkable that the Republicans would squander the chance to exploit anti-Beltway resentment by nominating this ultimate Washington insider. Now Lamar Alexander's efforts to make Washington insiderdom an issue in the Republican nomination race seem squeaky and hollow.

The biggest winners from the end of this populist episode, however, will be the same folks who were the biggest winners from populist rage itself: members of the Republican- controlled Congress. With perfect market timing, they cashed in at the top. Having ridden anti-Washington populism into town, they can ride the new apathy for the next 40 years.