As another semester at the University of Wisconsin ends, it seems time to reflect upon the events of the past months.

Much has changed. The uncertainty the future held in September has been replaced with knowledge, and the world has set upon its course for the next few years. Like it or not, the wheels of fate have turned, and the machine keeps on moving forward toward whatever end fate has in store for us.

But rather than merely reflecting on what is now history, this past semester has revealed what I believe to be a new truth to American politics and the final lesson of the 2004 election: both the majority and the minority parties are unstable, fractured coalitions. John Edwards was only partially right: there are multiple Americas, but not just two — there are three.

The first of these three groups are those you believe to be in power: conservatives. Placing an emphasis on traditional social values and character evaluation, this group came out in droves to re-elect President Bush. Issues like gay marriage no doubt played quite a role in the election, but they alone did not decide the contest. Not all Bush voters are conservatives, nor are all conservatives Bush voters, but it is clear whom the vast majority of this particular group supported.

With the first group in mind, the second should be an easy guess: liberals. Interestingly enough, social values are also of primary concern to them as well. With a strong belief in social justice, liberals view humans as perfectible beings, both morally and socio-economically, able to overcome innate flaws and injustices through the redistribution of wealth and resources.

Overwhelmingly pacifistic, liberals either believe that war is a state of nature to be conditioned against or simply an unacceptable solution to any problem. Obviously, liberals tend to vote democratic, although many would consider themselves independents, choosing to vote instead for a third party candidate like Nader. Some of you who claim to be liberal may take issue with this definition of a liberal, and this is OK. It is likely then that you simply fit into the third category.

But then there’s the third group: everyone else. For the sake of simplicity, let’s call them the moderates. Clinging to the metaphysical heritage of American thought, moderates are practical and pragmatic, looking to solve the issues of the day decisively while looking to protect all that we have accomplished over the past quarter-millennia.

This group can both see the great accomplishments of our history and simultaneously accept that some of the means used to achieve these goals were wrong. Generally, these people can, by most standards, be considered libertarian.

Libertarians believe in policies that are on the one hand socially liberal yet economically conservative. Issues of war and peace are not necessarily so clear and simple, and libertarians can accept the idea of a just war without being wanton slaughterers.

Consisting of both Bush and Kerry supporters, these people may have been separated only by a shift in emphasis of their concerns, not their ideology: those who voted Kerry likely care more for social concerns, and those who voted for Bush likely care more for economic concerns. And for many of this group, there is an intense fear of the extremists on both sides of the aisle, the only distinction between the two halves being who is considered more frightening.

And herein lies the truth that will guide the future of American politics: the parties must realize that a vast majority of the population feels dissatisfied by both the Democrats and Republicans, particularly with the extremists. Thus, the first party to oust the extremist minority (hard-line conservatives or liberals) will likely prove victorious in elections to come.

Republicans, coming off an incredible victory, are likely to prove ineffective at silencing this vocal coalition member. Democrats may fare better at silencing the Michael Moore-wing, but anger over the results may push more and more people toward the left. Third parties have proven woefully ineffective at providing viable alternatives toward those dissatisfied with either option, and thus elections truly have become little more than choosing between the lesser of two evils.

The solution, then, lies in building a new, more effective majority coalition consisting of these moderates. But until those moderates who lean left and those moderates who lean right can equally condemn the extremists on either side, no common goals can be reached, and progress will remain stifled.

Zach Stern ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science.