Discontent on the Campaign Trail '16: How Did We Get Here? (The Long View) Part 1

Left to Right: George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon

A recent Gallup poll showed that both presumptive major party nominees for president have low approval ratings, with Secretary Clinton faring a little better than Mr. Trump in overall "likability." It's not news that many people aren't happy with the choice that they've been left with now that the primaries are over. This phenomenon isn't new. It seems like we've been hearing this same story the last several election cycles: if the issue isn't over personal negatives, it's a lament that the people running don't seem like the brightest and the best. 

The start of this perceived watering of the electoral field is usually traced to 1987, when former senator and Democratic candidate Gary Hart was caught in an extra-marital affair by the press and forced to drop out before the '88 primary season even started. The press was especially aggressive in following the story. Hart warned that such intrusive press coverage of candidates would dissuade qualified people, who didn't want to put up with such close scrutiny of their private lives, from seeking high office. The nation, Hart said, would end up with the "leaders we deserve," which is to say, second rate ones. 

Polls at the time showed that the public didn't necessarily think Hart's peccadilloes disqualified him from being president. Four years later Bill Clinton would survive worse accusations to win the presidency. He was continually dogged by personal scandal during his presidency, which even today affects his wife's bid for the White House, but went on to be reelected, as well as surviving impeachment.

I would argue that the road to our present battle of the disliked and possibly unqualified goes back farther than the Gary Hart, and is more complicated than merely qualified people not wanting to put themselves and their families through a press inquisition. No, there are several factors that have brought us to this point. Over the next few posts I'm just going to outline a few possible causes of our present political quagmire.  Keep in mind, I'm not making a particular judgement as to whether these were good or bad presidents or candidates. I'm more critiquing the electoral process and the electorate who put them in office and why.

It's tricky pinpointing an exact moment when an historical trend begins or ends: the ebb and flow of history is pretty fluid, with events following on each other, in an unbroken line of cause and effect down through the ages. But if I had to pick a time when our politics began changing it would be with the Kennedy - Nixon race of 1960, the first true TV era campaign. The famous observation was that in their first debate those who saw them square off  on TV thought John F. Kennedy won, while those who listened on radio thought Richard Nixon got the better of the encounter. JFK, tanned from taking some time off on Cape Cod, looked healthy and rested, even in black and white. Nixon, on the other hand, still recovering from an infection that developed from a knee injury that hospitalized him the month before, went against the advise of his handlers and campaigned all day, eschewed makeup, looking pail and worn-out with a five o'clock shadow. The visible perspiration on his forehead and upper lip only added to the perception that he was haggard and stressed. These were the first such presidential debates ever held, so needless to say, the first ever televised. It was such a close election — many today still debate who really won — its hard to say how much TV and it's shaping of public perception played in the final result. Campaign staffers must have thought the debates played a part in the outcome anyway, because it would be 16 years before we would see the major party nominees go at it head to head again. 

Even if the debates' impact on the 1960 election is itself debatable, there is no doubt that television changed the way campaigns were run. Whether the relative good looks and overall image of the candidate played a major roll or not, those seeking the presidency in the future used the medium of television to manipulate opinion and form perceptions. LBJ's famous "Daisy Ad"  — even though it only aired once — solidified Republican Senator Barry Goldwater's reputation as a trigger happy crack pot who would precipitate a nuclear war. In his second bid for the White House Nixon, while personally awkward, utilized slickly crafted TV spots, utilizing only his voice speaking over a photo montage, focusing on the war in Vietnam, civil unrest at home and, the rising crime rates of 1968, to position himself as the law and order candidate who spoke for the "silent majority." In seeking reelection in 1984, Ronald Reagan, who was poised and media savvy, made campaign ads that highlighted the increased prosperity at home (Morning in America), as well as touching upon uncertainty abroad (the Bear in the Woods) to project both comfort and disquiet. He was the only one to ensure that economic growth continued, the first ad told us, while the second stressed that he would deal strongly with a Soviet Union that may or may not be reforming.

As for the personal likability and appeal of the candidate effecting his electoral chances, there seems to have been a delayed effect. It's hard looking back at the Kennedy administration and make a fair appraisal, because so much of what we see now is refracted through the lens of JFK's assassination. The Camelot image was mainly the product of post assassination myth making. The reality was that in late 1963 Kennedy's reelection was far from a sure thing. He was having problems getting his domestic program through congress, even though both houses were controlled by his own party. Southern Democrats thought he was going too far with civil rights, while many African American leaders and white northern liberals thought he wasn't going nearly far enough. It was a dangerous world, with Cold War tensions still taunt after the Cuban Missal Crisis of the year before. While JFK's personal image was certainly a factor in his support, it wouldn't have been enough to get him four more years in the Oval Office. 

We will never know for sure if JFK would have won a second term (my guess is he would have, especially if Barry Goldwater was the GOP nominee - though not by LBJ's landslide margin). It was many years before the JFK effect, that a person's "likability" and charisma plays a crucial role in their chances for victory, would take hold. LBJ was powerfully charismatic, especially in dealing with people one on one (Nixon thought he was one of the three best politicians of the 20th century), but I'm not sure even his supporters had a warm feeling for him. Nixon was all intellect, zero personal magnetism. Reagan, a screen actor, was amiable with charisma to spare, and needed every ounce of it to over come his advanced age - which he wasn't afraid joke about to disarm his critics. But Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush didn't exactly light up a room with their charm, and never really formed a personal bond with the American people while they were president. 

I would argue that the visual medium of TV did alter the way presidents were chosen, but until the end of the Cold War the focus was less on the personal qualities of the candidate, and his ability to connect with voters viscerally, as with how the public felt he could handle the job it self. The campaigns used advertising agencies to craft messages that presented their man as competent and strong. I'm not suggesting that personal likability didn't plat a role at all in those years - Reagan certainly benefited from being likable - rather that the main focus was on the hopeful's experience and ability to face the problems of a dangerous world. 

So, the Kennedy years planted the seeds of the cult of personality presidency that only bloomed later. With the specter of nuclear war looming over the world, as well as social problems at home, the stakes were too high for the electorate to make a choice based on image alone. Lets not forget that JFK was both a two term congressman and senator, and was in the running for the VP slot at the 1956 Democratic Convention: he didn't get to where he did just on his looks. But the Cold War presidents still used the mass media to manipulate public perceptions to their advantage. 

The stage was set though for the next stage in the deterioration of the political system. After the Kennedy Assassination there was a steady corroding of public trust in political and social institutions, culminating in the Watergate Scandal that destroyed Nixon's presidency. The press played a big part in Nixon's downfall, spearheaded by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein's investigative work for the Washington Post. It was the Fourth Estate's finest hour, but also the beginning of a consolidated, partisan press that was really just a branch of an industrial media complex that controlled the flow of information the public received in an attempt to fashioned the perceptions of reality. 

Next Time: More on the rise and fall of the Old Media and how the New Media might not be much better.

Left to Right: John F. Kennedy, Harry S Truman, Lyndon Baines Johnson