DEMOCRATS: “JUST OUR IMAGINATION RUNNING AWAY FROM US”

It is hard for many of us to wrap our heads around the political situati
on that the Democratic party has found itself in. It’s leader, the country’s Pre
sident, is not only a profoundly gifted speaker but also comes across as a very
practical man. He is a visionary pragmatist with a huge electoral mandate coming
into power in a time of profound crises with a coherent agenda. The country de
sperately needs a sound an effective governing party and the Democrats have been
given the largest political majority in decades. They also have in their party
platform an agenda most of which is in alignment with the majority of the Americ
an public. Furthermore, the opposition is in abject disarray. How then have they
seemingly accomplished so little? Worse, as this next election approaches, wil
l the Democrats once again save the Republican party from itself?
Countless words are currently being written as to how the party of Willi
am Jennings Bryan, FDR and JFK can possibly be on the brink of blowing what is t
he widest electoral mandate since Ronald Reagan. There have been many explanatio
ns: Voters are just mad and they will take it out on who ever is in power. The D
emocrats are to too willing to accommodate the Republicans and give into the cen
trist wing of their own party. They have not kept many of their promises such as
breaking up the banks. Institutionally, the President has seeded too much power
to the senate by allowing them time to agonize over every single detail of the
doomed health care bill. Perhaps he should not have attempted it this year at a
ll and instead focused entirely on short term job creation and directly bailing
out homeowners. The president has also done an unarguably poor job communicating
what he has accomplished such as the prevention of global economic catastrophe.
There is much truth to all of this. But there is something far greater that has
been rotting the foundation of the Democratic party for decades
It is as clear now as ever that the American public (including many Demo
cratic voters) doesn’t seem to have a sense of what the party stands for. They c
an give you a list of many things it stands for, but have a much more difficult
time telling you what it actually believes. Saying that they have too big a gove
rning coalition for a coherent ideological agenda proves groundless. This is a p
roblem the public has consistently had with the Democratic party for the last 30
years, much of that time while they were out of power or had much smaller gover
ning majorities. Furthermore, FDR had a far greater majority, and even those tha
t today would be his greatest political detractors would attest that the public
had a very clear sense of what he believed.
Most of the millions of us that were moved by Obama’s speeches during th
e campaign were likely aware that governing was going to be (as it always is) f
ar more difficult than campaigning. We certainly had Hillary’s campaign remind u
s of that every day of the primary season. But just as we know that oration is n
ot everything when it comes to governing, we also know that is no small thing. I
nspiring rhetoric has always been a large part of successful leadership in any m
odern government. While a certain level of buyers remorse is inevitable, it seem
s as though the let down with Obama is going to be significantly deeper and more
long lasting unless the Democrats make a fundamental change.
Einstein once defined success as 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration. Be
fore Obama the American public knew they could count on the perspiration of the
ir elected Democratic politicians. They would study hard on the issues and work
hard to get practical things done. They were good managers of the nuts and bolts
of governing. What they had lacked since the time of JFK was an inspirational l
eader who could galvanize the public to get behind him and his party. With Presi
dent Obama the Democrats now have that too. Yet they still seem to be stuck on t
he same old hamster wheel. What are they missing? This was one equation where E
instein missed (at least as it applies to political parties) a critical variabl
e.
What the Democrats lack is, in a word, imagination. This is not so easy
to define and it can take many forms, not all of them good. The Republicans cert
ainly have had imagination over the last thirty years even when they’ve lacked i
nspiration. For them, it’s been the imagination of “just cause“- as in just caus
e we said so over and over and over again that makes it right and we are going t
o do it. No matter that it led to catastrophic policies. Now they are imaging ho
w to politically destroy the President by just saying no in lockstep to everythi
ng he proposes and arguing with every word he utters.
Pundits call this a simplified and sellable message. They are right but
it goes deeper than that. Before there was a message to sell, the Republican par
ty had to imagine that they actually would spout the plethora of delusional argu
ments with no basis in reality directly into the camera with a straight face. Pu
tting aside their certifiable party platform let’s just take the tactic they’ve
been engaging in over the last decade of not even addressing the Democratic part
y by their chosen name. The Republicans will to a person- call it the Democrat P
arty leaving off the “ic”. It seems small, but it is full of utterly contemptuou
s and disrespectful imagination. Suppose your name was Mary, and someone you’ve
known for years just started calling you Sarah on purpose with no explanation an
d a fully straight face. When you complained to him, he not only didn’t listen,
he insisted that all of his friends call you that as well if they wanted to rema
in as is friends. There’s nothing that says imagination can’t bet petty.
But it doesn’t have to be. The Democratic coalition was able to govern m
ost of the middle four decades of the last century because it started with simp
ly imagining that it could. It obviously had the inspiration of leaders like FDR
. Of course he also epitomized pragmatism when he said, “ Do something. Try some
thing and if it fails admit it frankly and try something else. But above all do
something”. FDR didn’t imagine the specifics of New Deal. In fact, after a meet
ing with Roosevelt economist John Maynard Keynes famously pondered whether or no
t the president even understood the mechanisms by which massive government defi
cit spending would stimulate the economy. What FDR imagined that he was going t
o get the New Deal done.
I spoke of the Democratic coalition as opposed to party because it was a
ctually a Republican, President Eisenhower, who embarked upon the unprecedented
infrastructure building of our freeway system during the 1950’s. But it was born
out of an era when Democratic ideas-such as government spending could actually
play a critical role in stimulating the economy - were dominant. And give cred
it to Ike for imagining he would get it done before he actually went about doing
it. And how do we know that he imagined it first? Because he was proposed it as
the “National Defense and Highway System”. Few can argue with the immeasurable
success of our freeway system. But it took real imagination to claim it was ne
cessary for national defense.
Does anyone doubt going to the moon would have been possible without JFK
imaging not only that we could but that we would? The call to mobilize the res
ources to meet that challenge was one of the shining moments of his presidency.
While LBJ clearly lacked the inspiring rhetoric of FDR or JFK, he had just as mu
ch imagination. His unprecedented legislative achievements in economic and socia
l policy were literally paid for with blood (civil rights), sweat and perspirati
on (long hours of arm twisting deal making with congress). But, once again, he
imagined he would get it done. Of course he didn’t win every fight. But he went
into each one with the belief that he would.
And that’s what the Democrats are missing. It’s not that they virtually
give up before they even begin to fight. It’s that they don’t seem to be able to
imagine what it would be like to win. Perhaps that’s the real reason why they s
eem to be in far much more disarray than any party with so much power given to t
hem should be. It’s that famous line uttered by Robert Redford in the movie “The
Candidate” when, after winning the presidency, he turns to his aide and says, “
Now what”? It’s one thing for a single politician to have these private doubts,
but when an entire an political party does such public hand wringing it will ne
ver successfully govern.
So even when Obama gives an inspiring State of the Union address, even w
hen the Democratic party does have deeply principled platforms to stand on, and
even when much of the public sees many individual Democratic political leaders
as hard working, honorable and well intentioned, the party will be extremely sus
ceptible to volatile public mood swings until it can imagine for itself that is
has the right to govern. And that means take action, be bold. Fail, then try aga
in. They can take risks and be creative without being myopic and obstinate like
the Reupblics. Perhaps I can start the Democrats off with a new theme song by ta
king a few liberties with an Liverpoolian who made New York his adopted home:
Imagine there’s two parties
It’s easy if you try
One fights for large corporations
The other for the little guy
Imagine us Democrats
I wonder if you can
We’ll get it done this time
With or without Republicans
Michael Friedman has a Political Science degree from UC Berkeley and lives in Lo
s Angeles.
Private contact info: (310)428-6866