Like most articles in Commentary Magazine, this one is extremely long. However, reader, do not despair! I have carefully selected the choicest excerpts, and even those have been interspersed with my own commentary. This pre-election article discusses a perennially-favorite topic of ours, the history and prospects of American liberalism viewed from an socio-political perspective. Ostensibly a review of Peter Beinart's new book, the article contains a brief history of the liberal movement :

"It was largely Ronald Reagan who in the 1980’s managed the remarkable feat of rewriting the terms of our national political debate. The New Deal dichotomy—compassionate liberals pitted against heartless conservatives—was transformed by him into a struggle between, on the one side, statist ideologues and economic sentimentalists and, on the other, Americans sensibly attuned to market realities and committed to an ethos of personal responsibility. Although Democrats still poll better than Republicans on issues of economic security, even in this area they have increasingly had to play by conservative ground rules. It was thanks to conservative pressure that Bill Clinton was brought to declare, memorably if not quite accurately, that the era of big government was over. The dramatic reduction in dependency brought about by Clinton’s most notable domestic achievement, the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, has easily overshadowed the defections of those on the Left for whom the New Deal paradigm still defines political reality. (Emphasis added)
Democrats have also suffered from the perception that they are on the wrong side of a whole range of social issues: crime (the death penalty in particular), gun control, late-term abortion, affirmative action, school prayer (and the overall role of religion in public life), same-sex marriage. On at least the first two of these, and possibly the third, they have largely given up the struggle. The latter three they mostly prefer not to talk about, or they re-describe them as “wedge issues” that should not be allowed into public discourse. More ambiguous is the political resonance of other social issues—abortion in general, assisted suicide, stem-cell research—but no serious analyst doubts that in general the culture wars, as they have come to be called, work against the Democrats."

The author expresses what those-who-wish-this-wasn't-so call the "conventional view" of the Democrats discordance with American public opinion. In this respect, the author does not so much offer a new argument as much as succinctly re-state "an inconvenient truth" be it that it may not directly affect the Polar bear. This history leads the author to the following analysis of liberalism's current quandary:

"Liberal and left-wing Democrats supported Clinton, but they did so because he was a winner (and also because, due to acts of astonishing personal recklessness in the later stages of his presidency, he needed to be defended against conservatives determined to bring him down). But Clintonism was not and is not where their hearts are. Their problem is that they cannot expect to make a comeback if they allow themselves to say what they really think. This leads to frustration, which leads in turn to curious forms of rhetorical excess.
I say “curious” because, in historical terms, actual disagreements between liberals and conservatives are less pronounced today than they have been for most of our post-1960’s past. George Bush, as Republican Presidents go, is not all that conservative, while congressional Democrats, for their part, are less likely to flirt with outright radicalism, foreign or domestic, than was the case with their counterparts during the Reagan years. Yet it often seems that mutual animosity between the parties—and between liberals and conservatives in general—has never been more strenuous."

The author shines most brightly, however, in his suggested explanation for the above phenomenon:

There is yet another element at play in the rhetorical vehemence displayed by many liberal Democrats. Recent election results notwithstanding, liberalism retains a prestige status in American society and culture. Our educational, media, and intellectual elites are mostly liberal elites, and it puzzles and galls them that their otherwise secure control of leading American institutions no longer extends to the political arena as well. Instead, the reins of power have slipped into the hands of those lacking either the traditions, the competence, or the wisdom to manage the country’s affairs. Conservative rule, in this reading, is illegitimate rule by definition, and all the more infuriating for that. (Emphasis added)

In light of the subsequent midterm elections some may dismiss the author's conclusion as retrospectively foolhardy. However, others may find this author's cool-headed conclusions hauntingly unsettling:

"The wrecking of liberalism in the 60’s wrecked the Democratic party; for now—even all these years later—rehabilitation does not seem a likely prospect."