> We have a larger percentage of the population voting today
> than ever did in
> the past, given the fact that women, the young and blacks formally
> disenfranchised have the right to vote. Turnout RATES among
> that expanded
> electorate may be occasionally lower than in the past, but
> people are often
> comparing apples and oranges when they compare politics today
> to a much more
> restricted franchise in the past.
So if it so good, why is it so bad?
If the political participation is at its all-time high, why is the US politics so reactionary? In essence, we are fighting the battles of the past again, and this time we are losing.
As far as your argument about the New Deal policies and that the Repugs still cannot dismantle them - I think you are missing their "social origins" (to Borrow Barrington Moore's term). Unlike in Europe, where somewhat similar national policies came as a result of pressure from below (organized labor and Labor parties), in the US they came from above, by the progressive (or perhaps shrewd) elements of the ruling class. The reason for that difference is, as you already observed, the labor in this country has always been weak, divided, culturally conservative, and more attached to local machine politics that a nation-wide movement, whereas similar divisions did not play such a pronounced role in Europe.
The New Deal was imposed from above by the progressive elements of the ruling class who saw that (i) the old system has serious flaws that can bring the national economy to its knees; and (ii) government "dirigisme" (taking various forms, Keynesianism, welfare state, central planning) was the cutting edge economic thinking ca. 1930 that seem to provide a cure to these systemic flaws. In other words, the New Deal was implemented mainly because the ruling class thought it would strengthen the US system and make it more internationally competitive, whereas in Europe welfare state was brought either by the growing power of organized labor and its political representation (which never existed in the US!) or in reaction to that power (especially in Germany, where right wing welfarism favoring conservative religious organization as state partners in service delivery).
In the US, the labor has always been weak in comparison to Europe, because of its internal divisions (machine politics, localism, gender and race divisions) which did not exist in Europe. It was weak a hundred years ago and it is weak now - and never in the position to force sweeping progressive systemic changes, like those implemented by labor in Europe. Whatever progressive policies have been implemented on this side of the pond, be it the New Deal or the Civil Rights or the "War on Poverty," they were implement largely from above - by progressive and enlightened (or perhaps shrewd) elements of the ruling class - and mainly to improve the international position of the US or in reaction to foreign challenge (e.g. the cold war). That is not to say that there was no dissent from below in the US that had some political influence - but that it was to weak and too fragmented to have a nation-wide influence and clout comparable to that of labor in Europe i.e. capable of defining and directing national policies as opposed to merely benefiting from solutions handed down to them by forward thinking elites.
Wojtek