Article here.
Part of the issue for progressives and then liberals has been that regular people only appear to have equal access. It's easy to say that you support the commons when you know their access to information is limited. Regular people can't hold those in charge responsible if we don't have enough to form an accurate judgment.
Wilson was famous for championing the Little Guy in faraway Europe, i.e., the smaller nations that constituted the imperial polities of late 19th and early 20th century Europe. At home, he resegregated the Federal civil service and gave the South home rule with all its accompanying lovely side effects, thus giving liberals something to do for the better part of 100 years.
I'm so happy the WSJ thinks he's worth emulating.
From the article you reference:
By the same token, whatever the correct assessment of Sarah Palin's abilities and limitations, it's impossible to imagine that it would have taken her 20 years of close contact with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to notice that he sincerely believes a number of toxic, lunatic ideas.
Now, a little rewrite:
By the same token, whatever the correct assessment of Trent Lott's abilities and limitations, it's impossible to imagine that it would have taken him 20 years of close contact with Sen. Strom Thurmond to notice that he sincerely believes a number of toxic, lunatic ideas.
Oh, wait...
Liberal condescension? The idea that people ought to have equal opportunity, equal access to information, and get as much education as they want so as to interpret that information for themselves? Gee, with that kind of condescension, maybe people would understand the banking system and be able to avoid making bad decisions about their mortgages.