It’s possible that

we’re a fifty/fifty nation, evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans,

and the last two elections have been so close that they only prove we’re tied.

But I don’t believe it. A powerful current is moving us rightward. It has helped

Republicans to gain control of both houses of Congress, to appoint most federal

judges, and to control seven more governors’ mansions than the Democrats do.

(State legislatures are still about evenly split, with 19 completely under the

control of each party, and the rest divided.) In the national

exit poll, 34% of voters called themselves conservatives compared to 21%

who identified as liberals. The ideology score is nothing new, but the balance

of power is startlingly different from 20 years ago. It is possible that the

rightward trend will stop of its own accord at the current point, but I wouldn’t count on it.

Progressive parties demand more of voters than conservative ones. To start

with, they demand more taxes. Under favorable circumstances, progressives can reserve

their tax increases for a wealthy minority, but people won’t vote to tax

anyone unless they believe that the revenue is likely to be well spent.

Progressive parties also need low-income people

to turn out, something that is relatively hard for them to do because the “costs”

of voting (becoming informed and taking time off to go to the polls) are relatively

onerous for poor citizens. Besides, poor people have little reason to trust politicians enough

to vote for them. Finally, the modern Democratic party is (rightly) committed

to a set of unpopular moral values, so it must convince people to overlook those

commitments in return for other benefits.

Historically, American progressive parties (usually Democratic, but occasionally

Republican) have won elections when they have identified the really important

issues that concern majorities of voters, and have directly addressed those

issues. People will vote to raise taxes–their own or other citizens’–if they

think the money is needed for critical purposes. For example, the nation faced

a deep depression in 1932. One of its causes appared to be malfeasance in the financial

markets. And even before the depression began, people risked becoming indigent

if they lost their jobs. Roosevelt responded with employment programs to stimulate

the economy, market reforms, and Social Security. We can argue about whether

he solved the problems that the country faced in 1932, but there was

no question that he pursued policies that directly addressed the country’s needs.

In the 1960s, there was less consensus about the need to wage a “war on poverty,”

given that most families had become relatively affluent. But there was wide

agreement that the country had to move past racial segregation. Liberal Democrats

and liberal Republicans who tackled discrimination won elections.

Today, the

traditional problems have not disappeared. De facto racial segregation is worse

than it was 25 years ago; losing your job can still be very bad news. But for

most Americans, there doesn’t seem to be a compelling reason to invent new solutions

to these old concerns, which are manageable. People support the traditional progressive

programs, but they need not vote Democratic to preserve them; Republicans

also swear oaths in defense of Social Security and Medicare. In any case, Americans

are now more concerned about a new set of problems, including the lack of decent

jobs for those with high school diplomas; persistent violent crime that we barely

control by jailing millions of our fellow citizens; reliance on foreign oil;

and the coarseness of popular culture, especially as it affects kids. While

the long-term fiscal condition of the federal government probably doesn’t worry

people as much as these other issues, the deficit does matter because it makes

it hard to propose expensive policies.

No doubt, some people are also worried about issues that Democrats cannot and should not define

as “problems,” such as immigration and increased diversity, gay weddings in

San Francisco, or the legal right to abortion. But Democrats would have a fighting

chance if they addressed a different set of important concerns. Otherwise, people will vote conservative.

I basically

gave up on this year’s Democrats when they failed to address any serious

problems at their convention. They seemed to think that Americans would vote for a Democrat

because Bush had made mistakes and Kerry was personally macho. I think a Kerry

administration would have been at best a holding-action; at worst, a last stand.

A considerable part of me is relieved that Democrats (and McCain-ite Republicans)

now have four years to come up with a plausible program.