Voters’ new choice is not left versus right, but up or down

The Democratic Party’s sweep in this year’s special elections prompted several roundtable pundits to opine about what lies ahead. 

Are progressives ascendant, as represented by Zohran Mamdani’s win in New York City? Do Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) and Mikie Sherrill’s (D-N.J.) landslide victories signal the rise of a centrist wing? And what does this say about Democrats’ prospects in 2028? 

Most miss the mark. Voters decide what is important, and successful parties cater to their needs. Exit polls from Virginia and New Jersey show the economy mattered to voters. In New York City, it was the cost of living that was the major issue. Democrats had the advantage on those issues.   

The fact that centrists like Spanberger and Sherrill and democratic socialist Mamdani won means that Democrats have a broad-based coalition of diverse factions. This is nothing new. 

Nearly 80 years ago, one political scientist said of the Democrats: “You cannot give Hubert Humphrey a banjo and expect him to carry Kansas.” Only a more moderate Democrat could do that. Likewise, Mamdani can win in New York City but probably not in Virginia or New Jersey. 

General elections produce their fair share of speculation as to their meaning. Are we a center-left or center-right nation? And what is the message voters tried to send as they left the voting booths? 

Ronald Reagan had a different answer to these perennial questions. In 1964, Reagan made his political debut by giving a primetime speech supporting Barry Goldwater. David Broder, the esteemed political commentator, called it “the most successful political debut” since William Jennings Bryan.

Reagan resurrected conservative bromides about balanced budgets and presidential overreach that had formed the GOP opposition to Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s. But he also framed the choice between Lyndon Johnson and Goldwater as not a liberal or a conservative one, but as one that would decide whether the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution will be preserved. 

For Reagan, the choice was an “up or down” one: “Up [to] man’s old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.” He added: “If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.”  

The Constitution’s preamble begins with the words “We the People.” It spoke to the Framers’ hope that the people, seeing the artful crafting of the document, would endorse a new government acting on their behalf.

As Reagan put it, “This idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.”

Today, Reagan is a historical figure. But he is hardly confined to the pages of dusty history texts. Instead, he remains one of the most admired presidents of the 20th century, the other being Roosevelt. 

And when those venerated presidents slip the “surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God,” to quote Reagan’s address after the Challenger disaster, they achieve universal acclaim. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) likes to quote Reagan on the importance of holding an open door to new immigrants. For his part, Reagan liked to quote FDR, much to the annoyance of Democrats.  

Trump fails to honor Reagan and what he represented. For example, in a 1987 radio address, Reagan rejected the idea of universal tariffs, saying “High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars.”  

“Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse; businesses and industries shut down; and millions of people lose their jobs,” he concluded.  

Trump didn’t get the message. When the government of Ontario ran a television ad accurately citing Reagan’s position on tariffs during the World Series, Trump demanded an apology from Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney (which he got).  

Although Trump has hung Reagan’s picture in the Oval Office, he has rejected the remnants of the Republican Party anchored in Reagan’s revolution are no longer welcome. 

This gives Democrats an opportunity to claim Reagan as one of their own. And his 1964 endorsement of Goldwater gives them the chance to do that. A recent NBC News poll found 43 percent supported the “No Kings” protest movement, but only 30 percent identified themselves as MAGA backers.

Democrats should re-read Reagan’s 1964 speech and frame the upcoming elections as a choice that ascends upward to preserving individual freedom with a government of, by and for the people, or downward to autocracy — a road upon which a good many miles have already been traveled.  

In his final appeal on Goldwater’s behalf, Reagan said: “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.” 

Today, Americans face another rendezvous with destiny. The preservation of the American experiment depends on our answer. 

John Kenneth White is a professor emeritus at The Catholic University of America. His latest book is titled “Grand Old Unraveling: The Republican Party, Donald Trump, and the Rise of Authoritarianism.”