A liberal bemoans the lack of hope in America.

But the liberal narrative offers little reason for hope. Nor, for that matter, does the conservative one.

The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne writes about the importance of hope to the well-being of a society. He observes that “when despair becomes a habit it can further entrench the social and political problems that prompted pessimism in the first place.” And “democracy cannot work if citizens are demoralized and demobilized by despair.”

Dionne notices that despair seems prevalent in America today. And he contends, correctly I think, that it’s a barrier to reviving our labor markets and productivity, and a threat to our well-being, longevity, families, and communities.

What a come-down, Dionne implies, from the “hope and change” rallying cry of Barack Obama, whom Dionne calls “the bard of hope.”

But for Obama, hope was contingent on change. And the change he called for was radically transformative, and thus highly unlikely to occur. The letdown was bound to produce despair on the left.

It has, with a vengeance.

Leftists now believe that the planet is, or very soon will be, on life support. Leftists now believe that America is incorrigibly racist. Indeed, Ketanji Brown Jackson claimed, in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, that unless racial wealth gaps are eliminated — which certainly won’t happen any time soon, if ever — America’s founding will continue to be based on a false promise. In effect, America will be predicated on a fraud.

Leftists also believe the opposition party isn’t just misguided on matters of policy. They believe that most of its members are “deplorables” bent on destroying “our democracy.”

How can a faction that holds these kinds of beliefs be hopeful?

Things aren’t significantly more optimistic on the conservative side of the specter. The optimism of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush has been discarded in favor of the Donald Trump-Steve Bannon “American carnage” narrative.

According to this view, America has been betrayed and hollowed out by a ruling class that is attempting “to control you and your culture and price you out of a comfortable living.” It’s not that American elites have made mistakes. It’s that they want to make sure the poor cannot get off the social safety net; to indoctrinate and “groom” America’s children; to crush entrepreneurs; and to favor criminals over law-abiding citizens.

Efforts to combat this elitist agenda face enormous barriers — the media, the education establishment, the deep state, and the likelihood of stolen elections. On this world view — portions of which have merit to one degree or another — there is very little basis for hope.

Hope may be crucial to individual and societal well-being, but both political parties have strong incentives to push narratives that make hope seem foolish. These narratives bring in funds and energize the faithful.

Both parties view the other as posing “existential threats.” One preaches that climate change is an existential threat to the planet. Trumpism is an existential threat to democracy and to science. And because of Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, Trumpism is a national security threat.

The other side preaches that the deep state and the federal bureaucracy pose an existential threat to our freedoms. The left’s cultural agenda poses an existential threat to the American family and our cultural fabric. And Joe Biden and his son may have jeopardized American security by enriching themselves through deals with China.

Has it always been thus in our politics? No. When I was young, America had a bi-partisan foreign policy that, for the most part, precluded accusations that one side was selling out America.

And even when that bipartisanship unraveled due to the Vietnam War, the mainstream left didn’t argue that the war was being prosecuted for the purpose of undermining America or as part of an “endless war” agenda. Rather, the war was just a huge mistake.

On the domestic side, there were disputes about what tax rates should be, what welfare policy should be, and how much the federal government should spend. These disputes were significant, but I don’t recall them being characterized as “existential.” Nor were culture wars nearly as prominent as they are today.

My clear recollection is that Americans were much more hopeful back then. No wonder.