Following up on the post below, the imagined national consensus is of course precisely aligned with the consensus-of-serious-thinkers-in-Washington, the basic center-right "pro-business/low taxes/socially liberally but don't really care enough to fight for anything" position. Basically it's the editorial position of The Economist and the Washington Post It's a consensus among elites, but I've never seen any actual or even anecdotal evidence that this a majority position in the country, let alone the supermajority its proponents dream of. Most people, you know, like Social Security no matter how many times Bob Kerrey is sent out it try to gut it.
It's the position of basically wealthy people who want abortion to be legal, but know that even if it's illegal it won't matter much because they'll be able to get them anyway. They speak the language of social liberalism, but it's more social libertarianism - yes, gay people should be allowed to marry but who really gives a damn. It's the position of people for whom the system has worked quite nicely and can't imagine that they'd ever be screwed by it (and given that their money gives them adequate access to our civil justice system they might be right). It's the position of people born on third base who wax poetic about meritocracy. It's the position of people who might worry about the poor at times, but think "the problem with poor people is..." instead of "The problem for poor people is that they're poor." It's the position of people who are invested in the basic status quo, and for whom that investment has paid off quite nicely.
If there is an opening for a candidate to pull together a new coalition of voters it would involve social conservatism combined with economic populism, the mirror image of the center right elite consensus. Imagine a Pat Buchanan who could convince people he could feel their pain [adding: It isn't that this type of populism I imagine would be liberal per se, but it would be anti-immigration and anti-trade in contrast to the center right consensus, and though I don't think Pat Buchanan himself would advocate anything to genuinely help the poor and middle class my hypothetical candidate would - at least for "the right kind of people."] I don't think that would have a supermajority consensus - or even majority - support either but it would at least have a constituency greater than a few thousand people who live in Washington, D.C.
