Barack F. Kennedy

Lyndon B. Johnson, despite his major civil rights legislation and his war on poverty, is not as well-known in American politics as he probably should be.

Yet lately his name has been tossed around a lot.

That’s mostly because of Johnson’s victory in the 1964 presidential election. Until last Tuesday, 1964 was the last time a Democrat had won several conventionally Republican states including Virginia and Indiana.

With Johnson’s devastating 486 electoral vote victory over Barry Goldwater – one of the early proponents of modern conservatism – and the election of John F. Kennedy, a man who has probably sold the message of his party better than any man since, the early ’60s were good to the Democratic Party. 

The four decades since have not been nearly as good.

Many pundits – citing charisma and eloquence – were quick to compare Barack Obama to JFK. With the election showcasing his ability to sway an electorate, such a comparison might be justified. However, the real significance of the Kennedy comparison has been that Democrats have to reach so far back into their cannon to find someone they can rally behind. 

The ’60s ended poorly for Democrats. Anti-war protestors clashed with police at the 1968 Democratic Convention. Nixon triumphed as the youth movement the Democratic Party tried to co-opt ended up tearing the party apart.

Eventually, Ronald Reagan, wielding a conservatism that rebelled against the “great society” statism Democrats had become increasingly intertwined with, dominated the scene.

Democrats eventually got tired of losing elections and wisely moderated their positions.

On foreign policy the party moved toward pragmatism, rejecting much of the radicalism of the current anti-war movement.

On social issues Democrats might have moved too much to the center on issues concerning the death penalty and gay rights, but being able to compromise with anti-abortion members in their own party suggests a welcome break from the culture wars.

It is with economic issues that Democrats have made the most progress, yet seem most at risk. Bill Clinton adopted many conservative policies, including welfare reform, free trade and fiscal discipline as his own. 

Obama seems to be cut out of a similar centrist mold, but has harsh things to say about Wall Street and free trade. Congressional Democrats in particular seem ready to engage in all kinds of wasteful investment under the guise of fighting global warming and are poised to offer up massive bailout to American auto manufacturers. This recession could test the Democrats’ centrist course to the breaking point.

That, of course, would be a shame. After a long time in the wilderness, Democrats have emerged with a governing philosophy that can succeed in the 21st century.

If Obama continues his message of activism and inclusion while holding the line against regressive policies, he could lead a Democratic party to plenty of victories.

Perhaps then, for the first time in almost half a century, he could indeed provide Democrats with a figure they see as worthy as Kennedy.