ne of the occasional pleasures of doing what I do for a living is casting a mischievous eye over the barrel rolls and backflips of the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, self-crowned ''daily diary of the American Dream,'' where subscriber median income surpasses $100,000 and editorials are devoted to the succoring of the 250,000 American households with more than $1 million income, thanks in no small measure to the triumph of Clinton-Gore economic policy.
The Journal's contempt for the Great Unwashed, and its venomous disdain for the proletariat and their tribunes, most notably Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the labor movement in general, and lately Al Gore in particular was never more pithily summarized than in the cogent dictum of an earlier aristocracy: ''Let them eat cake.''
The Journal's immediate political task, now much more formidable than when it wearily shouldered the chore of propping up the nascent Bush II Primary Victory Tour, is to destroy the ambitions of Senator John McCain and his crusaders, thereby preventing the Republican Party from falling into the hands of a charismatic military hero and seasoned senator who would actually have the will, skill, and nerve to dismantle the corrupt system of political funding that rules the D.C. swamp.
Propping up Bush Jr. is not a task the Journal's wrecking crew relishes. The candidate whom former President Poppy called ''The Boy'' got entangled in too much ''compassionate conservative'' wrapping paper for the Journal's taste. But somebody's gotta save his sorry hide from the wrath of the primary voters. And into the breach steps our brothers from Wall Street. They've not faced such a cheerless chore since they beat the drum hollowly for Bob Dole, in the last presidential election.
Having gone 0-for-2 against Clinton-Gore, the Journal's leg-breakers thought they had an easy winner in Bush Lite. Alas, the Bush support gurgled down the McDrain in New Hampshire. The jaunty Arizonan proved to be the McBain of the Journal's existence. Sure, John's a true-blue conservative; sure, he's sound on the fiscal stuff; and, if truth be told, Bush's phony tax cut is less grownup than McCain's let's-pay-down-the-deficit-boys-and-girls approach.
If the Journal chrome-domes really believed all that sanctimonious blather they churn out about discipline, self-reliance, boot-strapping, and eat-your-spinach, they'd be for McCain, a warrior prophet with a magnificent mission in mind.
But McCain's core issue is campaign finance reform. That goes to the heart of what preserves the Republican congressional leadership's majority. Without the special interest money flowing through Trent Lott's veins, the Congress would be a lot more responsive to the folks on the bottom, instead of desperately defensive on behalf of the folks on the top.
That's why the Journal is trying to defend Bush's shameless onslaught of negative advertising in South Carolina. If Bush Lite does not prevail there tomorrow, his lavishly financed campaign goes into the ditch. Not since Reagan wrested control of the GOP from Bush Sr. in 1980 has the party faced such a crossroads. And not since Reagan have the Republicans had a leader who attracts support with the magnetism of a McCain.
''It's about time somebody put in a good word for `negative' political campaigning,'' wheezed the Journal yesterday in a pathetic attempt to justify the fang-and-claw routine Bush's panicky advisers cranked up as a last resort. Lose in South Carolina, they know, and their man starts trickling sawdust into his cowboy boots.
It's a win-at-any-cost strategy, and it betrays a resounding lack of confidence in the core message of Bush's candidacy. What's the message? Where is the rationale? What does this guy stand for? Is America ready to elect somebody based on pedigree and little else? Are we ready to elect a president who scolds the incumbent for having ''drug his feet'' on missile defense?
No one enjoys the Journal's obvious discomfiture more, I suspect, than William Jefferson Clinton. The day after Bush Jr. announced that there is no greater insult than being compared to the guy who sits in the chair he covets, Clinton turned the other cheek with exquisite timing. A reporter said, ''All of the candidates are running against your behavior and conduct.''
Clinton: ''Well, if I were running, I'd do that.''
You can't blame Al Gore for the mess I got myself into, Clinton shrugged. The man may be two quarts down in the personal popularity department - only 43 percent of Americans in The New York Times/CBS poll say they like Clinton personally now - but his job approval is a healthy 60 percent, and his handling of the all-important economy is a robust 73 percent.
The Journal's seven-year jihad against Clinton consumes more than 1,500 printed pages in three bound volumes, the paper keeps reminding us as it attempts to clear the bins of remaindered editorial commentary. And who's laughing now? Bill Clinton, for one. And maybe, tomorrow night, an old Navy jet jockey named McCain.
David Nyhan is a Globe columnist.
