There probably was no way Republicans could have won the 1964 election. The party was deeply divided over civil rights, and Senator Barry Goldwater lost in a landslide. But Democratic President Lyndon Johnson certainly had his vulnerabilities. In the fall of 1963, a team of journalists for Life magazine were preparing an expose on Johnson's financial shenanigans that might have led to his resignation or prosecution. The investigation was shelved when President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963. A number of aides to President Kennedy viewed Johnson with contempt, calling him "Rufus Cornpone." They would have liked nothing better than to dump the Texan from the ticket in 1964. But after JFK's death, they, and the country, rallied around LBJ.
A small library of alternative histories have been written as if Kennedy lived, ranging from predictions that Kennedy planned to replace Johnson with North Carolina Governor Terry Sanford; a landslide victory by Kennedy and Sanford in 1964; an early end to the Vietnam War; a successful War on Poverty (funds not drained by Vietnam), and an avoidance of the disillusionment with government and presidents that permeated the late 1960s and 1970s. More darkly, some have predicted Kennedy's impeachment for covering up sex scandals and early death from Addison's Disease. Like Nixon, Kennedy had a taping system that may have come back to haunt him if it revealed impeachable offenses.
Governor Sanford was a native of Laurinburg, NC, near where I grew up. I knew him and his family, so I like the idea that he almost became president.
If only it had rained in Dallas on that fateful November day in 1963, and the Kennedy convertible put the top up, the President would not have been assassinated and history would have turned out differently. This is a classic example of how small actions can have large consequences and "for want of a nail, the kingdom was lost."
After the death of author Richard Ben Cramer at age 62 on January 7, 2013, I downloaded the first two chapters of his classic, What It Takes: the Road to the White House, published in 1992, for a re-read. Many critics have said it's the best book on presidential politics ever written, and required reading for students of history and politics. Cramer selected one of the dullest and most uneventful election years, 1988. In the general election campaign, George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis, two charisma-challenged candidates, argued about almost nothing of significance. Why would anyone want to relive that campaign in a book?
Yet Cramer produced a fascinating book of significance. How? He went on a quest to determine WHY anyone -- in particular the six men he profiled -- would endure the humiliation, embarrassment, uprootedness (years of sleeping in hotels), obnoxious reporters, routine invasions of privacy, enormous sacrifices of time, attention and family, sleep deprivation, and objectification for years, on the off chance that lightning might strike and one of them might be elected president of the United States and might become a figure of historical consequence?
Cramer employed something exceedingly rare in political journalists these days -- empathy for politicians. And yet he didn't write puff pieces. The first chapter of What It Takes, about "Poppy" Bush, captures Bush's way of speaking, and some paragraphs read a lot like the text of Dana Carvey's Saturday Night Live impressions of Bush. "No can do...Wouldn't be prudent." Still, Cramer illicits sympathy for the humiliations Bush 41 endured as a candidate. Throwing the first pitch at a Houston Oilers game, the Secret Service forced him to wear a bullet-proof vest underneath his clothing. An accomotionalist by nature, Bush stifled his discomfort, looked ridiculous and botched the pitch. The angle of the TV cameras make him look like a buffoonish out-of-shape sixty-something man. In reality, Bush in his early sixties was still an athlete in great physical condition. But what filtered through to the public was a cardboard caracature to be largely mocked.
So it is with most of the major candidates. Larger than life, in many cases noble forces of nature up close, they come across as small, craven, opportunistic, soap opera characters from the distance of daily political journalism.
In addition to "What It Takes," the other political campaign classics are, of course, Theodore White's Making of the President 1960; Making of the President 1964, 1968 and 1972. I'm glad to see that new editions of these books have been released (including as ebooks) and they are still required reading by students of politics and history.
White portrayed American presidential campaigns as heroic quests of public service in an ennobling democracy. While today's cynical journalists, and a far more cynical public, may consider White naive and too close to his subjects, his books endure while scandal-mongering quickly fades into trivia. Yes, White's techniques did raise questions about how protective a journalist should be of candidates and how much he inflated the images of candidates to make them appear wiser than ordinary mortals. But his larger theme, that power transfers peacefully in America after the voice of the people is heard, can still inspire awe.
History is replete with examples of political failures that lead to later success. NYT has an article on how the failures of Bill Clinton's presidency laid the groundwork for the successes of Barack Obama's presidency. Along the same lines, I wrote "Why Clinton Won in 1992: Democrats Finally Learned from Their Mistakes." The failures of Jimmy Carter's presidency served as a model for both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama on how NOT to manage their presidencies. And difficult as it is today to give John Edwards any credit for putting the pressure on Obama to push health care reform in 2008, he may deserve more credit than anyone is likely to give him.
At the end of George W. Bush's presidency, the nation's debt is estimated to be seventy percent of GDP. How much leeway will that leave Barack Obama to propose new programs, such as national health care? If the debt rises to 110 percent of GDP in his first term -- 110 percent of GDP is the largest the debt has ever been (after World War II), I suspect he'll be politically vulnerable to a challenge in 2012 from fiscal conservatives. Steve Coll in The New Yorker:
"The Obama Administration is proceeding initially, it seems, from a
sound and firm belief that it cannot afford to be imprisoned by the
debts it has inherited, or to allow fiscal constraints alone to prevent
transformational projects in health care and energy. Ted Kennedy weighed in
on Sunday to argue that health care, in particular, can’t wait. He’s
right, of course, but his work will be harder than it should be."
"must be willing to spend at least six hundred billion dollars—a
Keynesian outpouring—on public works, health care, energy independence,
unemployment benefits, mortgage refinancing, aid to state and local
governments, and other programs. Otherwise, the country will slide into
a depression that will rival the one Roosevelt inherited. (When I ran
the six-hundred-billion figure by Paul Krugman, he agreed.)"
Obama will be restrained from such massive deficit spending by conservative Blue Dog Democrats, who tend to be deficit hawks. If Obama leads the nation to a huge, unprecedented first-term deficit, it would give Republicans a focus and a target to challenge him. And yet, Democrats will be disappointed if he's overly cautious. They believe his landslide victory gives him a mandate to be bold.
Someone asked me to briefly describe what President Clinton did for the U.S. economy. Here's my response off the top of my head:
Clinton had a relatively conservative economic policy. The conventional wisdom is that he had the wisdom not to intervene in the economy too much, to over-regulate and over-tax -- that might stymie economic growth. He realized early that reducing the federal deficit
would be crucial to hold down interest rates, free capital for the
private sector and reassure investors about long-term economic
stability. His disciplined economic plan passed by one vote in 1993.
His management of economic policy spurred growth and led to
revenue surpluses. Unemployment fell, as did the number of people in
poverty. He turned the Democrats into the party of fiscal
responsibility.
On international issues, he recognized the power of globalization to
reshape economies. He could have been a protectionist, he could have
opposed NAFTA. Indeed half the Democrats in Congress did. But he thought it was a good idea for the U.S. economy and workers for the long run.
"He Was Slick, Thank God," by James Fallows. "Bill Clinton's talent for confounding his enemies,
manipulating his friends, and playing all sides against the middle
helped to create the economic golden years."
Over the course of this campaign, I've compared Barack Obama to Adlai Stevenson in 1952, JohnKennedy in 1960, and Ronald Reagan in 1980, offering the possibilities of transformational leadership. There is also the possibility he could be another Jimmy Carter. Time will tell.
The refusal to play by the rules of Washington contributed to the Carter administration's difficult relationship
with Congress. Jordan and Frank Moore, in particular, feuded with
leading Democrats like House Speaker Tip O'Neill
from the start. Unreturned phone calls, insults (both real and
imagined), and an unwillingness to trade political favors soured many
on Capitol Hill and tangibly affected the president's ability to push
through his ambitious agenda.
"There was an innocence, and an arrogance, about the idea that you
could run the country with your Atlanta statehouse team -- you just
couldn't," concludes historian Roger Wilkins. "Every president brings
his people, but most presidents bring people who are seasoned people
who really understand Washington and know how to move around the city.
That just wasn't true of Jimmy Carter. You hate to say it, but it was
often, it seemed, very amateurish."
The Obama team needs to think long and hard about how they're going to avoid the pitfalls that befell Jimmy Carter both in the campaign -- he lost a 20-point lead -- and the presidency. Carter was never accepted by the Washington establishment, and was widely viewed as ineffectual.
I am reassured by Newsweek's report that Obama "has a much more disciplined, focused team than Kerry (or Hillary Clinton), whose
organizations were prone to infighting and lacked strong leadership." Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe, is said to be both a good strategist and a good manager (Jordan wasn't a good manager). Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, 53, is far more seasoned than Jordan or Carter's other top advisor, Jody Powell were as early thirty-somethings.
Unlike Carter, Obama doesn't micro-manage. I remember reading reports that Carter was a hard-taskmaster who stared grimly at his staff and rarely offered praise. He was more feared and respected than liked. Obama, Newsweek reports, remains liked as well as respected by his staff.
But Obama and Carter are/were largely unknown -- they had not been on the national scene long when nominated. It's both a strength and a weakness.
For some reason, YouTube.com does not pick up the audio, but Facebook does
National media hotshots say Hillary Clinton should withdraw from the presidential campaign because she faces a stiff uphill battle. But the race for the nomination is still close enough where she could pull off a surprising victory, and I bet few people in the remaining primary states want the race to end now.
My compilation of “citizen journalist” coverage of Bill
Clinton’s tour of North Carolina colleges gives a very different
perspective from what you find in the national media. After watching presidential candidates from afar or passively on
television and feeling alienated from the process, citizens are thrilled to see
a President (and presidential candidates) up close, have their own media
outlets to share their insights, videos and photos, and finally feel like they’re
a part of the process.
(UPDATE: Bill Clinton "Finds His Niche" in smalltown America, The Washington Post reports in a front-page piece datelined Lumberton, N.C. "They say Bill Clinton's been banished to the backwater, but that's not how it is," he said. "I'm from the backwater. I like it here.")
An enthusiastic crowd of at least 700 people greeted former President Bill Clinton in the small town of Laurinburg, NC on April 4, a town that has never seen a President of the United States. To the students from local elementary schools and Scotland High School as well as St. Andrews Presbyterian College who attended, this was a rare chance to feel a part of the national conversation. President Clinton was given a warm welcome, complete with bagpipes playing "Scotland Forever."
In my own experience growing up in Scotland County, the prevailing view was that national politics was far too removed and distant to feel that any president or national politician cared enough about people in small communities like ours to visit. Tens of thousands if not millions of Americans would still like to feel they are a part of the process. Let's give them (us) the chance.
President Clinton started off the day at the University of North Carolina at Pembroke in Robeson County. After his appearance at St. Andrews in Laurinburg, he went on to Wingate College outside Monroe in Union County, and then to the University of North Carolina at Charlotte in Mecklenburg County.
This is the first election since 1976 (when President Ford was challenged by Ronald Reagan for the Republican nomination) that North Carolina has played such a crucial role. That year, Reagan beat Ford in North Carolina and revived his campaign for the nomination.
It wasn't clear how many people in the Scotland County crowd were solid Hillary supporters or just curious to see an ex-President. My guess is that a lot of people in North Carolina are still undecided in the presidential primary race.
What's really cool is that many people who attend such events post their observations to their own blogs, their photos to Flickr.com, and their video clips to YouTube, so that we can find ourselves in others' videos and others can find themselves in our videos. This can be called "citizen journalism." I've compiled as much of the "citizen journalism" coverage of the event I can find online -- it gives a rather
different perspective from mainstream media coverage
It will be interesting to see other examples of citizen journalism as the presidential candidates scour North Carolina.
L.K. Campbell offers interesting photos and observations about the crowd at St. Andrews here.
I found this clip on YouTube by "Robertastic" -- in which Clinton responds when Obama supporters in the crowd raise a banner for Obama:
"JoaoMarcosMartella" recorded these clips of Clinton at St. Andrews and posted them on YouTube:
Afterward, President Clinton conversed with the crowd for about 15 minutes. I also found this video clip on YouTube by "JoaoMarcosMartello." President Clinton talks about what role he'd like to play in Hillary's administration:
I found this clip on YouTube from "Butterflykiskis" from Clinton's appearance at UNC-Pembroke, in which he talks about his memories of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. on April 4, 1968, and of the aftermath -- he was a student at Georgetown University in Washington, DC at the time.
I found this clip on YouTube from "jtew85" from Clinton's appearance at UNC-P, in which he talks about Hillary's "interactive" campaign in North Carolina, inviting questions from citizens:
Along the same lines, Hillary Clinton has set up a special section of her web site (also at www.ncaskme.com) where NC voters can ask questions, which she'll try to answer on the campaign trail.
If you attended any of these events, what did you think? Were you persuaded by Bill Clinton's case for Hillary? Or if you know of other "citizen journalism" personal accounts of encountering the presidential candidates or their surrogates, please post the links.
On Good Friday, Daddy suggested we drive over to the Cary, NC Senior Center to see former President Bill Clinton, who was in town campaigning for Hillary Clinton to be President. I wasn't sure whether Hillary Clinton was his sister or his wife, but Daddy assured me that Hillary is Bill Clinton's wife. I really didn't want to go that much. But Daddy said he would buy me Legos if I came. Standing in the crowd, I was a little bit scared, because recently we saw the movie, "Vantage Point" about the attempted assassination of a President, from the perspectives of eight different people.
While waiting outside at the senior center, we ran into Daddy's friends Rog and Amy Bates. Rog is a comedian, so that made the wait seem shorter. When President Clinton arrived, he talked about why his wife would make a good president, because she's very caring and wants everyone to be able to afford health care insurance, has good ideas on how to respond to global warming and create jobs that help the environment. He also said Hillary would encourage automakers to build cars that get 100 miles to the gallon. My dad's car, born the year I was born, 1997, gets about 20 miles to the gallon, he says, and gas prices are going way up.
As he was leaving, he passed by everyone, and I got to shake his hand. His hand was cold, but he warmly said to me, "thank you for coming." There was a secret service man right behind him who scared me because he stared at everyone who shook hands with the president. We watched as President Clinton was whisked away in a big black SUV with lots of police cars around.
Next week with the Boy Scouts I am going to Washington to tour the White House.
Recent Comments