
To Bounce Back, Democrats Need a New John F. Kennedy Moment
Thankfully for them, the Democratic Party's almost 200 year history offers cause for hope. Democrats have bounced back many times before, including seminal victories in 1912, 1932, 1960, 1992, and 2008.
This history reveals that Democrats win when they present their own, clear vision for the country and a concrete platform articulating just what they will do if victorious—one that connects with the public's interests, desires, and needs.
No case better illustrates this paradigm than John F. Kennedy's win in 1960. Democrats had controlled the White House from 1933 until 1952, when Republican Dwight Eisenhower, a World War II leader who promised to end the Korean War and to uproot corruption in Washington, beat their lackluster presidential candidate, Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson.
That led to a period in which Democrats struggled to figure out what the party stood for. But the creation of the Democratic Advisory Council (DAC) in 1957 helped to develop a new, forward-thinking agenda. And Kennedy provided a youthful, charismatic spokesperson. This combination catapulted Democrats back to the White House and led to major domestic policy achievements over the next eight years.
Early in 1953, economist and Democratic strategist John K. Galbraith issued a call to action. He observed that his party understood that opposing Eisenhower and his agenda wasn't sufficient to rebound. Yet, 'it would be hard at this moment to say what the Democratic Party is for.' Galbraith acknowledged that his party had broad principles. Democrats favored 'tidying up the unfinished business of the New Deal' and wanted to expand the economy. But virtually no one could explain what that might involve in 'any great detail.'
Read More: Remember JFK Not for His Assassination, But for His Civil Rights Advocacy
Initially, party leaders ignored Galbraith's plea. In 1956, Eisenhower beat Stevenson by an even bigger margin than he had in 1952, despite Democrats adopting a slightly more progressive platform shaped by Galbraith and his reform-minded colleagues.
The second consecutive loss suggested that only more dramatic changes could produce a Democratic comeback.
In 1957, Democratic National Committee Chair Paul Butler established the DAC to stake out issues that would support a positive platform in 1960. The Council identified five policy stances that should anchor the party's agenda: federal aid to education, a national health insurance program (the forerunner of Medicare), housing for the elderly, urban renewal, and a firm stance on civil rights.
It selected some of these positions because of concerns percolating up from the grassroots. For example, the public wanted a stronger educational system. As the DAC recognized, however, many states 'cannot do all that must be done and financial assistance from the Federal government has become imperative.' Similarly, the DAC's 'Policy Statement' noted that the growth in families in the 1960s was projected to require 'doubling the annual rate of house production to a level of about 2,000,000 per year.' The country also confronted 'the necessity to proceed rapidly with slum clearance and urban renewal.'
On other issues, the DAC was simply reemphasizing longstanding Democratic priorities. Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman had proposed national health insurance, only to see opposition from the American Medical Association and indifference by Republican leaders kill it.
Many of the DAC's positions found their way into the 1960 Democratic platform.
But a better agenda alone wasn't sufficient. Democrats needed a fresh messenger, and Kennedy fit the bill. The Massachusetts senator had youth and charisma and he was vigorous and dashing. He also came across well on the new medium of the day—television. Kennedy projected an energetic America; he promised "to get this country moving again," and he used the word "future" often in campaign speeches.
Kennedy and the Democrats captured the public spirit of the times: a desire for change and a sense of America's potential.
There was a growing public restlessness. The Soviet Union's 1957 launch of Sputnik, the first earth satellite, had jarred Americans into realizing that they were falling behind in science and education. The widespread, though incorrect, perception that the Soviets had more intercontinental ballistic missiles than the U.S.—the so-called missile gap—also fueled a sense that the U.S. was slipping.
This prodded Americans away from the complacency of the post-war era and toward a more progressive and assertive attitude on everything from Civil Rights to scientific research.
Even Eisenhower knew that the public was losing faith in the status quo. In 1960, he empaneled a 'Commission on National Goals.' Its report, Goals for Americans, called for investment in education and the arts, while recommending progressive economic policies to keep the economy expanding and unemployment low. The report also called for 'equality of justice and opportunity, better government, better education, better medical care, more productive economy.'
But Americans were alienated for reasons that ran even deeper. As part of a series in Life magazine and The New York Times on 'the national purpose,' historian Clinton Rossiter explained that the nation had lost the 'youthful sense of mission' that had propelled it to greatness. We were once a people 'on the make' but now Americans were more like a people who 'has it made,' content to tolerate mediocrity and unwilling to energetically confront new challenges. Other writers sounded the same theme: it was time to get America out of its mood of complacency and moving into the future.
Democrats capitalized on these sentiments.
In his opening speech to the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles, Butler set the tone. 'In the day when our republic was young, national ideals overwhelmed all else,' he said. 'Today, almost everything else seems to overwhelm national ideals. If there is any meaning to the American purpose, it has become obscured in eight years of purposelessness.'
Kennedy's acceptance speech built on that theme: America needed to do better—and could with the right leadership. The candidate promised an exciting future but one that would require meeting challenges:
'[T]he American people expect more from us than cries of indignation and attack. The times are too grave, the challenge too urgent, and the stakes too high‚to permit the customary passions of political debate…. Today our concern must be with [the] future.'
Read More: What These 3 Longstanding JFK Myths Reveal About America
The nation needed to deal with the threat of Soviet communism abroad. At home, 'an urban population explosion has overcrowded our schools, cluttered up our suburbs, and increased the squalor of our slums.' Further, the 'peaceful revolution' for civil rights demanding an end to racial discrimination 'has strained at the leashes imposed by timid executive leadership.'
Like the essayists in Life and The New York Times, the candidate recognized that the country needed more than policy prescriptions. 'Too many Americans have lost their way, their will and their sense of historic purpose. It is a time, in short, for a new generation of leadership—new men to cope with new problems and new opportunities.'
Kennedy called for the nation to advance a 'New Frontier,' a term that 'sums up not what I intend to offer the American people, but what I intend to ask of them.'
Meanwhile, Kennedy's opponent, Vice President Richard Nixon, seemed to embody what voters were tiring of—the stale complacency and status quo of the 1950s. Kennedy put it this way in one of his final campaign rallies, on Nov. 1: 'Mr. Nixon and the Republicans stand for the past. We stand for the future.' Some may say it was an oversimplification, but it connected with the public.
Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who served as a Kennedy advisor, explained that he won by stressing 'peril, uncertainty, sacrifice, and purpose."
These new ideas resonated with voters. Kennedy narrowly defeated Nixon, ushering in eight years of Democratic control and seminal achievements: the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, enactment of Medicare and Medicaid, and more.
Today, Democrats are once again in the doldrums. But they can rebound by following the prescription that elevated John F. Kennedy to the White House. They need to provide fresh answers that address the problems plaguing the U.S. Once they have an agenda, the party will also need a youthful, charismatic candidate to communicate this agenda. That combination will convince voters that the Democrats are the party of the future, while Republicans are the party of the status quo.
Bruce W. Dearstyne is a historian in Albany, New York. His most recent book is Progressive New York: Change and Reform in the Empire State, 1900-1920 -- A Reader (2024). His next book, Revolutionary New York: 250 Years of Social Change, will be published early in 2026.
Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
28 minutes ago
- New York Post
‘Russiagate' was never anything more than Hillary Clinton's paid-for lies
Newly declassified intelligence files bring fresh, hard proof that Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign completely cooked up Russiagate — a total lie that top intelligence officials nonetheless proceeded to amplify, and that all too many Democrats still believe. These memos from the first half of 2016 center on 'confidential conversations' between members of the Democratic National Committee and top staff at George Soros' Open Society Foundations — and the info is damning. 'Julie [sic] says it will be a long-term affair to demonize Putin and Trump,' runs one quote of July 25. 'Now it is good for a post-convention bounce. Later the FBI will put more oil into the fire.' That shows a clear expectation that government agencies would be colluding in the scheme — making it far more than just a campaign trick. Yet the campaign's plans included 'raising the theme of 'Putin's support for Trump' ' and 'subsequently steering public opinion toward the notion that it needs to equate' Russian influence campaigns with actual hacking of voting machines. Not only did the memos envision the FBI eventually helping out, that later happened under bureau boss Jim Comey and his No. 2, Andrew The memos also envisioned the FBI eventually supporting the phony scandal — as later actually happened under bureau boss Jim Comey and his No. 2, Andrew McCabe. Clinton OK'd the scheme to create a distraction from the scandal of her email abuses as secretary of state — and then-President Barack Obama and his top intelligence officials were all briefed on the campaign's intentions. Yet Obama, Comey, CIA chief John Brennan and others all seemed to forget about it when the planted 'information' began rolling in later in 2016, prompting the absurd Crossfire Hurricane investigation of Donald Trump's campaign and (eventually) the Mueller investigation that plagued Trump's first two years as president. Brennan and Comey even made the Steele Dossier — an utter fiction ordered up by the Clinton campaign — part of the official, post-election 'intelligence finding' that cherry-picked info to claim that Russia had worked to elect Trump. Clinton's scheme was a dirty trick (that failed to turn the 2016 election for her), but it was Obama & Co. who truly betrayed the American people here. Obama actively spread the lie in his final days in office, telling a pack of progressive journalists that 'the Russia thing is a problem,' and suggesting the new prez could have a 'relationship with a foreign entity' that 'might shade' policy. Then came the endless string of New York Times and Washington Post stories citing anonymous 'current and former intelligence officials' — completely fake news that consumed the nation's capital in Trump-Russia hysteria. It's all now been 100% debunked, but only after kneecapping a presidency — and with all too many Americans failing to realize even now that it was nothing but lies from start to finish. Obama, Brennan and the rest pulled off the greatest smear campaign in American history: For shame.


The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
Republicans reject Democrats' amendment aimed at blocking Trump from taking Qatari jet post-presidency
Republicans on the Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday rejected what they described as a 'poison pill' amendment that Democrats say is intended to block President Trump from taking the Qatari luxury jet that the Pentagon intends to use as Air Force One with him after his presidency. The committee voted 15-14 against adopting the amendment during consideration of the annual defense funding bill. The amendment offered by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-N.J.), a senior appropriator, sought to block funds from being used in a manner that would enable transfer of 'a presidential air transport aircraft that has been under foreign registry to a nongovernmental entity until the aircraft has served as a presidential air transport aircraft through the end of its service life.' During the markup session, Murphy cited recent reporting about the potential costs of upgrading the Boeing 747-8, which was previously used by the Qatari royal family. 'This is an extraordinary amount of money to be used on a plane retrofit that will likely only be in service for a short period of time. Well, the administration has essentially refused to brief us on the full cost,' he said. 'Reports are that this number could be easily $1 billion.' 'To most Americans, that's a lot of their money to be spent on a plane that is not going to be in the service of the United States military, in the United States Air Force, for perhaps any longer than a few months, because the President has, in fact, stated his intention to take this plane with him when he leaves office.' Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), head of the subcommittee that crafted the Pentagon funding bill, pushed back on Murphy's comments shortly after and said senators should not 'marinate on rumors and speculation about what could happen years from now.' 'We should be briefed on the long-term disposition plans before rushing to take action such as this, for which this simply no urgency. The amendment is intended as a poison pill and political theater,' he said, arguing the amendment is 'better suited' as part of consideration for the national defense authorization bill lawmakers hope to pass in the coming months. Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), a member of the committee, argued in response to McConnell's comments that 'beyond rumor and speculation that Senator Murphy just quoted the president firsthand with respect to his intentions.' 'To address this claim that's been made a few times, this is a poison pill, if I understand correctly, that means that the Senate would refuse to fund the Pentagon, unless, unless it allows the president to accept a jet from a foreign prince,' he said. 'If that's true, I'd like to understand why that is the line in the sand that would be drawn.' The amendment came after both sides clashed over a previous measure proposed by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), another senior appropriator, that sought to block funding from being used to operate or modify the jet. The report comes as previous reports from multiple outlets indicated the administration planned to transfer the jet to Trump's library after his term ends. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), a spending cardinal, argued the president has only jokingly said the jet would be transferred to his library, however. 'The president has never came out and said he's putting this in the library. He said it in a joke one time,' he said, adding that there have been talks instead 'about using the current one that has been in the air for over 35 years to possibly be retired and go in the presidential library.' 'Senator Mullin, on May 12, the president of the United States said this, this plane will, quote, go directly to my presidential library at the end of my term,' Murphy later argued. 'There was no great chuckle from the audience after he said that you may interpret that as a joke. It certainly didn't seem to be intended as a joke.'


Los Angeles Times
28 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Newsom provides new details about his plan for redistricting fight with Trump
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom said Thursday that he's considering calling a special election on Nov. 4 to ask voters to approve new congressional maps in California in an effort to thwart President Trump's plan to redistrict Republican-controlled states and hold onto power of the House of Representatives in the midterm elections. 'I think there's a growing recognition in this country, not just with Democrats, independents, but also Republicans, that de facto the Trump presidency ends in November of next year if the American people are given a fair chance and a voice and a choice. We'll take back Congress,' Newsom said. 'The President of the United States recognizes that, so he wants to rig the game, wants to change the rules midterm.' The governor has cast his call to gerrymander California as a response to Trump's request for Texas and other states to reconfigure their maps to pick up seats in 2026. 'We're going to respond in a transparent way, an honest way, but it's in response,' Newsom said. 'But I'm not going to sit back any longer in a position, a fetal position, in a position of weakness, when in fact California could demonstrably advance strength and that's what we intend to do.' Under Newsom's plan, the California Legislature would need to take a vote to send a ballot measure to voters. Newsom said voters would be given the maps of new congressional districts. A special election would be held on the first Tuesday in November asking voters to adopt the maps and allow the new districts to remain in effect through 2030 when California would return to the independent redistricting system that's currently in place. California's Independent Redistricting Commission would craft new maps after the next census to be put into effect in 2032. The governor said he's in the early planning states of the process and doesn't have an estimate yet for the price tag of a statewide special election. Newsom called the cost of preserving Democracy 'priceless.' 'There are many local elections that first Tuesday already on the ballot, so it requires significant less resources than a special election that didn't already have regular elections considered,' Newsom said. 'So that could be very meaningful in mitigating the cost.' Newsom promised more information in the weeks ahead.