The bums, or at least many of them, have been thrown out. So the political conversation turns to the question of what the Democrats will do now that they again share power with a Republican president. While it may be too soon to answer that question, we have seen enough to be alarmed about one tendency in particular: economic nationalism.

Many of the Democrats who recaptured seats held by Republicans have been described as moderates or social conservatives, who will be out of synch with House speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi. The better term is probably illiberal Democrats. Most of those who reclaimed Republican seats campaigned against free trade, globalisation and any sort of moderate immigration policy. That these Democrats won makes it likely that others will take up their reactionary call. Some of the newcomers may even be foolish enough to try to govern on the basis of their theory.

There is an important distinction to be made between economic populism and economic nationalism. Many of Tuesday's Democratic victors stressed familiar populist themes: corporate misbehaviour and tough times faced by working people. Al Gore ran in 2000 as an economic populist and so, implausibly, did John Kerry in 2004. Raising the minimum wage (which Republicans foolishly failed to do before the election) is a classic populist position. Opposing Bush tax cuts for the wealthy is another. But in places where Democrats made their most impressive inroads this year, one heard a distinctly different message of economic nationalism. Nationalism begins from the same premise that working people are not doing so well. But instead of blaming the rich at home, it focuses its energy on the poor abroad. The leading economic nationalist today is probably Lou Dobbs, who natters on against free trade, outsourcing, globalisation and immigration on CNN.

The most prominent nationalist candidate this year was Sherrod Brown, who unseated incumbent Senator Mike DeWine in Ohio, a state that has lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs since George W. Bush became president. Mr Brown is the author of a book called Myths of Free Trade: Why American Trade Policy Has Failed. Here is a snippet from one of his television advertisements: “Sherrod Brown stood up to the president of his own party to protect American jobs, fighting against the Mexico and China trade deals that sent countless jobs oversees.” For some reason, economic nationalists never seem to complain about job-killing Dutch or Irish competition. The targets of their anger are consistently China and Mexico, with occasional whacks at Dubai, Oman, Peru and Vietnam.

One heard similar themes in the other pivotal Senate races. In Virginia, apparent winner James Webb denounced outsourcing and blasted Republican George Allen for voting to allow more “foreign guest workers” into the state. In Missouri, victor Claire McCaskill refused to let incumbent Senator James Talent out-hawk her on immigration. “Unfair trade agreements have sent good American jobs packing, hurting Missouri workers and communities,” she said in one of her adverts. “We should be encouraging businesses to stay at home, not rewarding them for moving overseas.” In Michigan, vulnerable Democratic incumbent Deborah Stabenow survived while promising to set up a federal office to prosecute unfair trade by foreign governments.

A much harder-edged nationalism defined many of the critical House races, where Democrats called for a moratorium on trade agreements, for cancelling existing ones, or, in some cases, for slapping protective trade tariffs on China. These candidates also lumped illegal immigrants together with terrorists and demanded a fence along the Mexican border. In Pennsylvania, Democratic challengers defeated Republican incumbents by accusing them of destroying good jobs by voting for the Central American Free Trade Agreement and being soft on illegal immigration. “Fair trade” candidates also won back formerly Republican seats in Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina and Wisconsin.

Economic nationalism is not unique to Democrats – nor is it a new theme for them. The protectionist wing of the party first emerged in the 1980s when America's manufacturing decline was linked to imports. For years, the protectionist urge was exemplified by Representative Richard Gephardt. But during his 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton made a key decision to support the North American Free Trade Agreement. Mr Clinton espoused a free-trade position and embraced globalisation through his presidency. This set the direction for his party despite significant resistance in Congress. Mr Clinton's argument was always that government should address the negative consequences of open trade through worker retraining programmes and by ensuring benefits not tied to employers, like healthcare and portable pensions. But the human capital part of
Mr Clinton's globalisation agenda never went anywhere, which partially explains the current backlash.

As a result of this year's election, it now seems unlikely that the new Congress will extend President Bush's “fast-track” trade negotiating authority, which expires this summer. The results are further bad news for the Doha round and bilateral trade agreements with South Korea and other countries. It is possible that congressional Democrats will revive efforts to saddle China with punitive tariffs as punishment for alleged “currency manipulation”. It would be going too far to say that the 2006 election ushers in a new protectionist consensus. But free trade has definitely left the building.

The writer is editor of Slate.com