But that’s just a start. A proper understanding of the foe also makes it easier to see the contours of one’s own worldview. This is helpful when many of the precepts of elite opinion have been so dominant as to go largely unnoticed. Here, I submit some core beliefs of our ruling class: Global interconnectivity and lowered borders set us on the path to peace; the United States must help vulnerable populations everywhere that face oppression, war, or starvation; the United States should remain a leader around the globe; free trade will cause pain in the short term but help us all in the long term; “comprehensive immigration reform” is a sensible and moderate policy. These beliefs in turn rest on even deeper ones: that narrow nationalism is immoral and dangerous; that “proposition nations” easily tolerate diversity; and that the history of the United States has been one of a halting march toward equality and away from bigotry, the eradication of which is our most important policy goal.

The atrophy of center-left thought meant that the Democratic Party had less and less on which to draw . . .

For years, most of these ideas were rarely subject to debate, at least in mainstream outlets. This made them, as with any unmanned post, more vulnerable to attack. When Trump rejected most of them, he triggered outrage that was due only in part to his obnoxiousness. Most of us get furious over having to revisit major questions that we consider settled, and it’s even worse if our defenses are rusty. When Trump questioned the U.S. approach to economics, we saw articles like, “On Trade, Donald Trump Breaks With 200 Years of Economic Orthodoxy.” When Trump voiced the principle of “America First,” we saw articles like “Donald Trump’s new favorite slogan was invented for Nazi sympathizers.” When Trump said anything about immigration, we saw him get accused of racism and hate speech. But this wasn’t effective on the undecided voter, because it wasn’t refutation. No one is going to win over many people with “How dare anyone question orthodoxy?” “You know who else said that?” and “That’s hate.”

The atrophy of center-left thought meant that the Democratic Party had less and less on which to draw when it came to expressing the big ideas—or any ideas. Nowhere was the problem clearer than in the party platform. I doubt you have read it, because it tests the limits of human endurance, but it’s available online for the undaunted. (Note: this link was dead when I began writing this piece, but I’ll resist seeing metaphorical overtones). On the policy-by-policy level, Democratic platform offered more good proposals than bad ones, at least in my view, while the Republican platform offered the opposite. But in the realm of values and vision, there was no comparison: it was the G.O.P. platform that offered conviction and clarity. The Democratic platform offered platitudes.

To see the contrast, start with the Republican platform. Its preamble offered a dozen statements of core belief, including “We believe the Constitution was written not as a flexible document, but as our enduring covenant,” and “We believe political freedom and economic freedom are indivisible.” On page 1 the platform got to goals and vision: to generate prosperity, “not an end itself” but the “means by which citizens and their families can maintain their independence from government, raise their children by their own values, practice their faith, and build communities of cooperation and mutual respect.” You can accept or reject these ideas (I happen to think phrasing like “our enduring covenant” borders on zealotry, for instance), but that is the point. Serious ideas draw both support and opposition. Even the slogan “America first,” like it or hate it, is a serious idea.

Manifestos are the starting point for movements based on serious ideas . . .

Now look at the Democratic Platform. The preamble has a decent paragraph about stagnant wages, wealth gaps, and Americans feeling like the “system is rigged.” But if you look for an overall vision or statement of values you’ll have to make do with this: “Democrats believe that cooperation is better than conflict, unity is better than division, empowerment is better than resentment, and bridges are better than walls. It’s a simple but powerful idea: we are stronger together.” As the reader may have noticed, these aren’t really ideas, let alone powerful ones. They’re barely slogans. Who disagrees that “cooperation is better than conflict” or that “empowerment is better than resentment”? As for “bridges are better than walls,” okay, that’s deep. I happen to prefer my bathroom to have walls rather than bridges, but progress is progress. Let me also suggest adding “up is better than down,” “light is better than heat,” and “spoons are better than forks.”