Think again. How embracing uncertainty can reframe your politics and approach to life

“Being wrong is the only way I feel sure I’ve learned anything."

In May of 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered a commencement address at a small private university in Georgia when nearly 1 in 4 Americans was jobless.

As he executed the time-honored practice of saluting and inspiring the graduates, the New York governor and presidential candidate also sought to buck up a gloomy nation in the throes of a historic depression.

You probably think FDR exuded the sheer confidence of a commander-in-chief-in-waiting, outlining a clear, strong, definitive plan for a way out of the malaise. That’s what most political consultants would advise.

Think again.

Instead, the future president did something that most armchair pundits would summarily dismiss as weak and insubstantial. In fact, The New York Times panned his speech as “unspecified.”

What FDR called for to reboot a flailing economic climate was “bold, persistent experimentation.”

Experimentation!

The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it:  If it fails, admit it frankly and try another.  But above all, try something. 

FDR not only went on to win the 1932 presidential election in a landslide; Americans elected him president four times. And his approach to the biggest issue of the time was … to hedge, to be forthright in conceding he may not have the sliver bullet.

Could such naked humility and avowed uncertainty propel a presidential candidate today? It’s difficult to see how when our collective political and media culture pummels “flip-floppers” and mocks any hint of doubt as a damning lack of core conviction.

Despite intellectual limitations, George W. Bush kept voters in his clutches, because he was perceived as resolute. Even if you disagreed with him, you knew where he stood. Mitt Romney was doomed from the start in his 2012 challenge to President Barack Obama because he was perceived as a weathervane, a serial flip-flopper, a “moderate sheep in a conservative wolf’s clothing,” as David Axelrod portrayed.