As a political journalist, you never forget the first time you stop just covering a politician and start identifying with her. The first time you wed your high-minded vision of what politics should be to a real candidate's perishable breath.
My first time arrived in 2008. It lasted only a short while. Her name was Sarah Palin.
That spring, in between the Republican primary and the fall campaign, my friend Reihan Salam and I had published a book called Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream.
We thought the party's opportunity (and the country's) lay in a kind of socially conservative populism, which would link the family-values language of the religious right to an economic agenda more favorable to the working class than what the Republicans usually had offered.
In Alaska, there was a young, rising-star governor. She was pro-life, evangelical, a working mom. And her record way up north was reformist in a distinctly nonideological way: She was best known for fighting a corrupt nexus of politicians and the oil-and-gas industry, tackling crony capitalism on behalf of ordinary Alaskans.
And then, shockingly, GOP nominee John McCain picked her as his running mate.
At which point the chattering classes went temporarily insane. Or maybe I went insane. Who can say? But either way it seemed like everything I hated, a mix of sneering social liberalism, fecundophobia, anti-evangelical paranoia and class contempt, was being hurled at a candidate who seemed to fit exactly with the "Grand New Party" mold.
So I defended her. I assailed her critics. And then — well, you know what happened then.
Palin gave interviews — terrible, terrible interviews. She was in over her head. Her own paranoia took center stage. She became her critics' caricature, embracing a mix of willful ignorance and proud ressentiment.
But now that she has re-emerged to endorse Donald Trump, uniting her brand with his "Make America Great Again" nationalism, it's worth revisiting the original Palin, the outsider who took on a corrupt Alaskan establishment.
Given Palin's Alaskan past, the endorsement makes perfect sense. Her real roots are not in Reaganism or libertarianism or the orthodoxies of the donor class. They're in the same kind of blue-collar, Jacksonian, "who's looking out for you?" populism that has carried Trump to the top of the Republican polls. And it's a populism that the GOP is discovering has a lot more appeal to many of its voters than the litmus tests of the official right.
Which means that, in a certain way, Trump and Palin together on a stage is the closest American politics has come to offering the populist grand new party that Salam and I called for two presidential campaigns ago.
Except that it isn't what we called for, because we wanted a populism with substance — one that actually offered policy solutions to stagnant wages and rising health care costs, one that could help Republicans reach out to upwardly mobile blacks and Hispanics as well as whites, and so on down an optimistic wish list.
Whereas Trump-era populism, while it plays very effectively on economic anxiety, mostly offers braggadocio rather than solutions, and white identity politics rather than any kind of one-nation conservatism.
Spend your days with Hayes
Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter
You’re all signed up!
Want more of our free, weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started.Explore all your options
I would like to tell you that this is all the fault of the Republican leadership — that had they been more receptive to populist ideas in 2008 or 2012, they wouldn't be facing a Trumpian revolt today. But it's also possible that Trumpism, in all its boastful, lord-of-misrule meretriciousness, is what many struggling Americans actually want.
That is, at a certain point disillusionment with the system becomes so strong that no wonkish policy proposal is likely to resonate anymore. People want someone who will arm-wrestle the Chinese, make Mexico pay for the wall, smite our enemies and generally stand in solidarity with their resentments, regardless of the policy results.
Since this is a recipe for American-style Putinism, it's not exactly a good sign for the republic that it seems to be resonating. But those of us who want a better, saner and more decent populism than what Trump is selling need to reckon with the implications of his indubitable appeal.
Maybe — hopefully — there's a bridge from Trumpism to a more responsible alternative, as there was between Huey Long and FDR or from George Wallace to Richard Nixon.
But it's also possible that my fellow eggheads and I are grasping at a dream that's already slipped behind us — lost back in the land of might-have-beens, where the dark fields of Wasilla roll on under the night.
© 2016 New York Times