IF YOU'RE SO SMART WHY AREN'T YOU RICH? Political strategist Paul Waldman contrasts the Democratic and Republican styles of campaigning.

Think about what happens in campaign after campaign. The Democrat comes before the public and says, "If you read my 10-point policy plan, I'm sure you'll vote for me. Let's go over it point by point." The Republican then comes before the public, points to the Democrat, and says, "That guy is a weak, elitist liberal who hates you and everything you stand for. I'm one of you and he's not." And guess who wins.

That's probably not the best way to get people thinking more favorably about the Democrats. Consider first the non-sequitur in his characterization of the Republican's response. Does the 10-point policy plan include a plan for winding up the transition in Iraq and locating and liquidating Osama and Ayman? Or is it at best platitudes about improving relations with "international institutions?" Under the latter circumstances, "weak, elitist liberal" is harsh but descriptive.

Moreover, the limitations of 10-point policy plans, no matter how solid the credentials of the wonks who drafted them, are clear. Consider a passage from The Vices of Economists - The Virtues of the Bourgeoisie (p. 112).

The philosopher kings and central planners live in a world hopeful that procedure, mechanism, calculation, bureaucracy, MBA degrees, and other Tinbergean techniques will keep us warm and safe. It will not.

After going on eighty years of The Best and The Brightest attempting to manipulate the rest of us For Our Own Good with sometimes dubious results, the problem Mr Waldman's hypothetical Democrat faces is more severe than a bit of Republican name-calling.

Undaunted, Mr Waldman attempts to confront the paradox of being unpopular for favoring what popular opinion wants.

After it's all over, Democrats wonder why they lost, when a majority of the public favors nearly all the items on their agenda. Americans want a higher minimum wage, legal abortion, strong environmental protections, universal healthcare, and a tax policy that isn't tilted toward the wealthy, to name a few. But voters don't read policy papers, and they don't make decisions with a checklist of issues in their hands. That's why Republican campaigns operate on a different level: Whom do you identify with? Whom can you trust? Who is strong, and who is weak? These questions transcend issues, which is why Republicans -- who know they are at a disadvantage on the issues -- spend so much time talking about them.

Let's break this down. I suspect that if one took a survey in a college dormitory in the mid-1970s, a majority of the guys would favor having an evening alone with Farrah Fawcett. Could that wish be converted into a Congressional mandate? Discuss the obvious generalization. (I also recall President Reagan quipping about losing the war on poverty. Critics castigated him, but I've not seen a convincing refutation of his assertion.)

Thus, if the apparatus of Experts and 10-point programs is ineffective, what subsitute is there for integrity and resolve, even among politicians?