Voters on brink of a major correction
More at stake than next Congress
Gordon L. Weil
On election night, the congressional seat count will be the
focus.
Will Trump and his MAGA Republicans be rejected? Will Democratic progressives advance their
movement at the expense of moderates? Whose
votes made the difference – women, young, stay-at-homes? Pundits, candidates and campaigns will have
ready answers. But there may be more to the
outcome than these immediate conclusions.
Three currents run through the electorate. Right-wing Trumpers, traditional moderates
and left-wing progressives have been seeking acceptance by the voters. Just as 2020 signaled a turning point with Trump’s
comeback and his emphasis on authoritarian government, voters this year may
make a correction, either returning to moderation or turning toward liberalism.
The U.S. is an historically conservative country. But the Great Depression so disrupted it that
an enhanced role for government under the liberal New Deal became necessary and
possible. Social Security was its
hallmark.
After the Second World War, the U.S. tried to live up to the
lessons it had learned. Reacting to the defeat
of Nazi fascism and the growing rivalry with Communist dictatorship, the country
stayed the course.
One symbol of the new American center was the Supreme Court
decision ending legal racial discrimination.
A national road network was built for the first time. Voting rights were extended to more of the
population, notably Blacks and the young. Medicare was created. Environmental rules began to be written.
Congress could often find compromises on major issues. While some deep disagreements existed,
congressional cooperation reflected a broad national consensus based on shared
values. Each side accepted some of the
arguments of the other, and losses did not result in all-out political war.
But voters became discontented, because the government, though
liberated from historic conservatism, had not paid adequate attention to the hopes
and needs of many people. Discrimination
persisted. Prosperity did not live up to
political promises. Taxes had grown too
far and too fast. Some voters believed
they were losing control.
People increasingly wanted change and were frustrated when
it did not happen. Donald Trump,
searching for a winning platform, cultivated this discontent and made it into
his program. Though to many it seemed
like a marginal view, he managed to use his celebrity to develop and exploit and
grow this part of the electorate.
Surprisingly to many, he succeeded. He was unconstrained by historical norms and
drew support from many who gave change a higher priority than continuity. In 2024, he defeated the moderate center that
had failed to bring about change. Trump
took his victory as not only for a mandate for his right-wing movement but as an
endorsement of his free-wheeling, egotistical style.
Given broad authority by the Supreme Court, he exceeded even
the greatly loosened norms. He openly
enriched himself. He began a war he
could not finish, imposing heavy costs on average people, including even his
most steadfast supporters. He tried to
manipulate the legal system. He bragged
and he threatened, even his closest allies.
His ambitions grew, but his popularity fell.
Because he was so closely identified with the Republican
Party that had been swallowed by his MAGA, his problems became his party’s
problems. This year’s elections are a judgment
on Trump, which he invited, but also on the future of the movement he has
headed.
Just as the right became unhappy with politics as usual, so
did the left. The government’s agenda looks
backwards and favors the wealthy elite over average people. The left wants to restore and augment
government to support the broad popular needs, such as for health care. The right scorns it as socialist, but it has sought
to make community interest equal to individual interest.
Progressives seek government social benefit programs, financed
by higher taxes on the wealthy who have been favored by Trump. They might support his closed borders but not
indiscriminate deportations. They respond
to calls for change by forward-looking policies rather than a return to an
unrecoverable past.
The Democratic progressives have been tested by these elections. Voters may reveal wider acceptance of the progressive
agenda or simply conclude that it is an isolated outburst of frustration whose
goals are not broadly popular.
The returns will show if Trump’s MAGA can withstand its
setbacks and continue to rule with a brand of authoritarianism that suits the
public mood for dismantling much of what the moderates built. If it has failed, it may leave behind
thousands of bitter and disaffected citizens.
The progressives have faced closer scrutiny by the
voters. If they succeed, they will be
serious contenders to lead the Democratic Party in 2028. If they have failed, they probably will hang
on to fight another day.
The future of the moderates depends on whether the traditional
GOP can be revived and the Democrats’ platform, dictated by whoever emerges to lead
them. That process begins now.
