"The Democratic Party has suffered two through defeats in a row--three out of the last four." Alan Brinkley, professor of History, says. "Such a series of [presidential frustrations] might force the party to reexamine its positions and how it presents itself to the public... The party is going to have to change."

In short, liberals must let go of the dreams and the vigorous policies of reform that have guided the party since the Great Depression.

The progressive and lavish agenda that emerged in the 1960s--to which many contemporary Democrats still cling--resulted from an unsophisticated naivete which dominated America at the time. We believed that it was possible to solve all of our problems, purity our still imperfect society, with little or no cost to the people. After all, the economic pie had consistently been growing at mercurial rates since World War II. No redistribution of wealth would be necessary to clean up the environment and eradicate poverty. Nor would civil strife arise as the liberals attempted to erase sexual and racial discrimination. Gripped by this smug self-delusion, the nation accepted the Democratic agenda and agreed to achieve these seemingly facile goals.

But the country soon recognized that reducing the 22 percent poverty rate would require more than the billion dollars we originally devoted to the problem during the Great Society's first year. As Europe and Japan finally rebuilt their own wartorn economies, and as Vietnam drained some of the United States' own resources, the economic pie didn't expand nearly as rapidly as before. Allowing Blacks to eat at the same lunch counter in Kresge's just wasn't enough. The summer riots told us that social equality was too difficult to achieve, so we refused to bus our children. Ecology and a healthy economy are hopelessly opposed. America awoke from its ethereal trance, and recognized that there are no painless panaceas.

"The preconditions which helped to produce the liberalism of the 60s are gone," Brinkley says. "The prosperity that made it possible to believe change and progress does not hurt blinded us... Liberal goals do cost, and that's why so many of them are now being repudiated."

AMERICA, INCLUDING the moderates, long ago abandoned the ideals of the 1960s and 1970s. But while America has changed, the Democratic Party's stalwart leaders have not. The voters have abandoned the party at the presidential level to such an extent that Mondale received majority support from only the Blacks, Jews and Hispanics.

Some historians, most notably Arthur Schlesinger, claim that reform and liberal activism are cyclical. Every 20 to 30 years, they say, there is a flurry of liberal activity, followed by its exhaustion, a regrouping and then another flurry. They maintain that the Reagan administration is simply presiding over a national rest period, like that of Eisenhower, in which the country can regain its national jubilance. The liberals must wait it out until we possess enough confidence to resume our battle with the social diseases.

Brinkley, however, disagrees. Instead, he believes the nation's complacency will persist, thwarting the reemergence of an active liberalism. "You would have a hard time convincing me that the 1980s are just a repeat of the fifties," he says. "In the 1950s and sixties issues emerged autonomously with a moral force that just could not be ignored... Today the moral issues of which the Democrats speak have no clear resolutions."

In order to attract the moderate voter once again, the Democratic party must deemphasize its goal of creating a better world; Americans are unwilling to sacrifice their own fortunes to solve national problems. Mondale was thrashed after his campaign of "decency." Words of pragmatism and responsibility serve only to alienate. The people want to hear more optimism and good cheer.

The voters' reaction to the looming deficit dilemma identifies a national ambivalence threatening to thwart any effort to cure society's ills. The public is not shielding itself from reality; polling information reveals that the electorate is well aware of the deficit's adverse affects on inflation, unemployment and interest rates. Consistently, surveys indicate that the public considers the deficit the nation's most pressing crisis. Yet further polling information suggests that the people are not willing to accept tax hikes, a reduction of loopholes or decreased social services in order to whittle away the $180 billion figure. The electorate is willing to acquiesce to the President's fanciful claim that a healthy economy will take care of the deficit; it's clearly looking for the easy answer.

The solution seems clear for the Democratic party: it must take a bold swing to the center, abandoning its liberal identification.

DESPITE THE TALK of a new liberalism--scrapping the old ideals but presenting new and provocative ones--the question remains, what ideals? What will an American public, which dislikes struggle and won't sacrifice its property, cling to in the name of liberalism?

The proposed nuclear freeze would only prevent the exacerbation of the atomic threat instead of actually alleviating the problem. Where do the Democrats propose to put the toxic waste? Decrease military spending and put it into education? Surveys show that the public is overwhelmingly opposed to significant military budget cuts, and it still believes that social spending should be deposed. There are no quick-fix solutions to America's problems, regardless of the public's desire to believe in them. Issues are not created by desperate political parties; they arise out of crisis.

Liberal democrats offer only an empty basket of ideas to a frugal, hesitant populace. Barring a severe crisis, the liberal Democratic party has got no arsenal with which to fight the Republicans. The party must choose between a losing idealism at the national level and realism with increased political power.

A Democratic Party without an advancing, vigorous liberal identification? It's happened before From 1870 to 1896 both major political parties opposed each other without any key issues distinguishing them. Today, a candidate's personality is capable of so thoroughly dominating a campaign that one can easily imagine two parties defined only by their respective packaging of smiles and false optimism.

And certainly, this election swing demonstrated that the voters will honor such an issueless campaign.

Then why shouldn't the political parties?