The Democrats’ new mood

In my last essay, I wrote that the Democrats needed not just a new Presidential candidate but also a new mood.

Last week, they got both.

The party and its supporters were stuck in despair and anxiety. I suggested a shift to resolve (“we can do this”) and curiosity (“Hmm. I wonder what will happen next.”)

That was half-right. Democrats are filled with resolve, which has raised tons of money and recruited volunteers. However, they’re spreading a mood I hadn’t anticipated, joy, and have largedly bypassed curiosity.

How did their mood shift so quickly? What new assessments about the Presidential race have come along with it? Why did even seasoned thinkers like Ezra Klein only realize after Biden’s exit from the race how deeply Dems were submerged in despair? What might be the cost of skipping over curiosity? And what new conversations and actions might this suggest for all of us now that we see light at the end of the tunnel?

Let’s take these one at a time.

1. How did the mood shift so quickly?

The obvious answer: Biden stepped out, and Harris stepped in.

Yet this is obvious only in retrospect. Before Biden made his big announcement, few people imagined the positive energy that would be unleashed if he did. Such is the nature of despair. You can’t see future scenarios other than the (dismal) one you are certain will occur.

Yet this also reflects pundits’ inattention to mood as a vital force in politics. If Harris quickly got the nod, they conjectured, she might not poll much better than Biden, and, gee, she didn’t exactly light up primary voters in 2020. If, instead, the Dems opted for a mini-primary and open convention, the party would remain divided and anxious for the next month. Or so pundits thought. What they failed to anticipate were the enthusiasm and determination that have sprung up. The shift in mood was inevitable only in retrospect.

Why, then, did the Democrats’ mood shift so quickly? A few ideas to chew on:

• Resolute insiders. The feeling of despair among Democrats since the debate was not universal. The seasoned pols and donors who hinted, cajoled, and pressured Biden to step aside were likely guided by the mood of ambition. From George Clooney to Nancy Pelosi, these individuals were resolute that it was time for a new candidate. I might criticize these leaders for not coming to this realization sooner (say, March). After all, most Democrats thought Biden was too old to run again and preferred someone new. But when the chips were down, these leaders initiated the necessary conversations to help Biden see the light.
• A candidate with enthusiasm, strength, and clarity. Over the past week, Kamala Harris has shown all of these qualities. From the moment Biden stepped aside, she got on the phone and started calling key Democratic leaders and activists to ask for their support. Over ten hours, she called a hundred people. Like many other events of the past week, this might seem inevitable in retrospect, but it wasn’t at the time. Harris chose to make these calls and evidently used them to good effect. In public rallies, her enthusiasm and clarity reminded audiences what they were missing with a Biden long past his prime.
• Gen Z memes ready to go. I don’t follow TikTok and, until last week, thought “brat” was a pejorative term. Yet like millions of other Gen Xers (and Boomers and Millennials) I have learned that “brat” means being “just that girl who is a little messy and likes to party and maybe says dumb things sometimes” and, according to pop star Charli XCX, that Harris is brat. Obviously, Harris is a lot more than that, but the term seems related to her deep belly laugh, dancing, and use of expletives in private. Gen Z captured these qualities and spread them quickly. Who knows what impact this will have on the election, but it helped brighten Dems’ mood.

2. What new assessments are accompanying the new mood?

Moods are intermingled with assessments. As Democrats (and anti-Trumpers) shifted from despair and anxiety into resolve and joy, many of their assessments of the situation also evolved. Here are a few examples, all of them orienting generalizations:

Assessment of Biden

• Before: Old and obstinate.
• After: Courageous and patriotic…and old.

Assessment of Kamala Harris

• Before: Invisible. “I don’t know what to think of her.” “Will she do any better than Biden?”
• After: Energizing and competent. “She’s really on her game.”

Assessment of Mr. Trump’s choice of JD Vance

• Before: Terrifying for two reasons: (1) Vance will carry MAGA forward and with more skill and discipline than Trump and (2) Vance won’t draw swing voters, so Trump selecting him is an act of confidence that shows that Trump is likely going to win and win big.
• After: A dumb choice and potentially colossal miscalculation. With Harris heading the Democratic ticket and the polls suddenly even, Vance’s presence on the GOP ticket may cost votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin, not just at the Presidential level but down ticket. Vance represents a doubling down not only on the MAGA movement but on a mean-spirited and contemptuous tone. For example a lot of unmarried women with cats vote, as do many people who love them.

Assessment of Mr. Trump and Vance

• Before: They’re formidable. Strong and scary.
• After: They’re beatable, overconfident, and just plain weird.

Assessment of the Republican convention

• Before: The Republican party is confident and unified. It looks like they’re going to win.
• After: The Republicans were overconfident. They peaked too soon, and this will cost them.

Assessment of what we can do

Speaking for myself…

• Before: Until Biden drops out, I can’t do much of anything to help the Democrats take the White House.
• After: Fired up and ready to go. (More specifics below)

3. Why was Dems’ despair so much more visible after it was gone?

When you are subject to a thought, emotion, identity or, in this case, mood, you are it. It is you. So you cannot see it.

It’s a bit like having a bad cold. You know you feel lousy but don’t realize how lousy until the moment you start to feel better. Then, you look back and realize, “Wow, was that a horrible three days.”

Such was the case with the despair that Democrats and anti-Trumpers felt after the debate. They were subject to it, so they could not see it.

The reason I saw it — and chose to write about it — isn’t that I’m an eternal optimist. Nor am I inoculated against despair. On the contrary, I feel the emotion of despair all the time and can get caught in the mood. Yet I’m fortunate that wise teachers have given me the language to name moods. And now I’m sharing this language to you. (Spread the word)

4. What might be the cost of bypassing curiosity?

Let’s take a step to the side for a moment. You know I’m a fan of Harris and going to work for her election. Yet I would be remiss to not mention an opportunity the Dems missed. This may or may not cost them in November, but it offers an important lesson about moods.

After Biden withdrew and endorsed Harris, I think that most Dems were more anxious than curious. They felt anxiety about being without a candidate. They felt anxious about the potential of a mini-primary fracturing the party. Some felt anxious about choosing anyone other than Harris, because, they assumed, this would mean skipping over an African-American woman. (I think this assumption was both factually incorrect — Harris would still be in the running — and offensive, because it assumes African American voters vote solely based on identity rather than on thoughtful assessments of candidates’ strengths).

Mostly, Dems felt anxious because of the sheer uncertainty of not knowing who would be heading the ticket. Certainty, brain science teaches us, is one of the human brain’s primary social needs. Without certainty, our stress hormones go into overdrive. We stop functioning well. Sometimes this means making decisions too hastily.

I think that’s what happened here.

Dems felt anxious and wanted to stop feeling anxious. The quick choice of Harris accomplished this.

What Dems did not appear to feel was curiosity.

Curiosity is a mood that accepts uncertainty. When we’re curious, we think, “I don’t know what’s going to happen next, but it will be interesting to find out.” Curiosity allows us to take time to learn things that will help us make decisions.

Curiosity would have enabled Dems to take a look at other candidates. They could have held a few friendly debates. They could have convened town hall meetings in different parts of the country. And they could have observed how candidates performed in media interviews. Harris would have been the leading candidate, but she would have been joined by others.

These experiences together would have given Democratic delegates better grounding for assessing whether to go with Harris or whether someone else might be best to head the ticket. They would have made a more informed decision. For Harris, assuming she were to prevail, these two to three weeks of being tested would have been good practice for the general election campaign. And this test would have given her even more legitimacy as the nominee.

Why does this matter? Because Dems lost an important learning opportunity. Sure, Harris may be their strongest candidate, but they skipped over a chance to make a grounded assessment of this. The party is filled with other experienced leaders, some of them arguably better positioned to win Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, and North Carolina. For all of her strengths, let’s face it: Harris is still a San Francisco liberal. And she has baggage like everyone else, some of which may not play so well in swing states as other candidates’ baggage. For example, Harris said things in the 2020 primary to appeal to the progressive left that will show up in Republican TV ads. When you see these, you may cringe. You may, even briefly, have “buyer’s remorse.” And by early September, the Trump campaign and its right-wing allies will fill TV and social media with ugly attacks based on her sex and “race.” Most of this will be rubbish and offensive, yet don’t be surprised if Dems go through another round of anxiety and despair when the s__t hits the fan.

My point isn’t that Dems’ made a bad decision in Harris. My point is that they could’ve have made a more grounded assessment if they had kept things open for a few weeks. A mood of curiosity would have enabled this.

Yet, here we are. Harris will be the nominee. Within a week, she will select a VP candidate. The Democrats’ chances are massively better than they were two weeks ago. The mood, for now, is very positive. What shall we do?

5. What new conversations might this suggest for you and me?

The election in November remains consequential. Democracy, climate, the fate of NATO countries (and therefore our children who might be enlisted to defend them) are all on the ballot. As are many other crucial issues. This is my assessment. I imagine that you share it. Yet none of this is new.

What’s new is our mood. In despair and anxiety, it’s difficult to take action, to have new conversations. It all seems pointless. Yet in resolve, joy, and curiosity, suddenly the world opens up. New questions and possibilities emerge. And new conversations are ready to be born. Here are a few I’m beginning:

• Conversations for what matters. I’m asking myself new questions and gradually bringing this into my conversations with others. How important is this election? If it’s as important as I say it is, how does this compare to my other commitments in life? What tradeoffs in time, energy and money am I willing to take to help the Democrats win the White House and raise the odds of preserving democracy, improving the climate, and defending NATO countries? These are exploratory conversations. They do not commit me to particular actions or outcomes. So I can participate in them even if I’m not certain where things will go or whether I’ll actually get into “action.”
• Possibility conversations. These are “what if” conversations. We imagine a way of contributing politically and explore with others what this might look like, what actions it will involve, who we will meet, what it will feel like, and what benefits might result. Next week I’ll be having one such conversation with a new acquaintance who is plugged in politically in Michigan. I’m going to share with him the skills I bring, like helping people coordinate action, which is crucial to the campaign ground game. I’m also going to describe my experience as field director for a gubernatorial race in Michigan. That was in 1998, a lifetime ago in terms of the methods of politics, yet it suggests I’m not a total newbie. And I’m going to explore with him possible ways I might contribute over the next few months. As with conversations for what matters, there’s still no action here. So I can explore varioius possibilities and then choose not to engage in any of them and still feel a sense of integrity.
• Action conversations. This is where we make requests and offers. We propose actions, negotiate what and when (all framed in a compelling why), check in with each other along the way, renegotiate commitments, report completion, and assess how satisfied we are with the results. I wrote a whole detailed playbook for this ten years ago. (Send me an email if you want a copy). Currently, I’m in a lot of action conversations related to my family, leadership development, and tennis. One way to know whether I’m truly stepping in politically is if I’m having many action conversations related to political campaigns.

The sequence matters. Start with conversations for what matters. Then, if you discover commitment and energy, have a possibility conversation. Then, if you discover a particular activity that draws on your skills, strengths, networks, and interests, start having action conversations related to it. Make a request. Make an offer.

This is a useful sequence for anyone managing volunteer operations for a political campaign. Teach the people who get the first call, text, or email from possible volunteers to follow these steps:

1. Rather than immediately assigning people to tasks, find out what matters to them, including the skills they bring, their past experience, and their likes and dislikes. This is where you learn how best to channel their energy and enthusiasm.
2. Then have a possibility conversation with them about one or two specific activities, like canvassing door-to-door, distributing lawn signs, or coordinating other volunteers. Bounce these ideas off of them. See how they respond. This conversation, like the one before it, takes minutes, not hours, yet is crucial to matching people to projects and tasks.
3. Then, and only then, have an action conversation that begins either by them offering to do something or you requesting that they do it.

A campaign that has enough of these conversations focused on the activities that are most likely to produce votes in the states and localities that matter most is best positioned to win.

Today is a new day. Is there a new conversation you’d like to begin? Make the call. Send the text or email. Pull aside your significant other and have the conversation. Then, with equal parts resolve and curiosity, see where that leads you.

This is how we step into the future together.

Weary of the pointless prickly polarization? Ready for more fiercely nuanced stands? I can help.

Receive my free bimonthly updates straight to your inbox. There’s no need to choose between hope and despair. You can be cheerfully real.

Listen to “How My View Grew.”

We recently concluded season one of How My View Grew, the show that dives deep into humanity’s challenges by looking at big thinkers who have changed their minds. We explore climate, democracy, Ukraine, the Middle East, and more.