Democrats are still reeling from their second defeat at the hands of President Donald Trump in eight years. They are fighting back against his policies while trying to assess where the party went wrong and how to rejuvenate its hopes.
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.
