Daily Kos

1968 and 2008 (Pt. 1): Gore, Nixon, and Romney

Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:08:25 PM PDT

I have been working my way through Theodore H. White's The Making of the President 1968, and it is impossible not to notice some uncanny similarities to our current presidential contest. There are broad historical parallels that derive from the political climates created by the war in Vietnam and the U.S. occupation of Iraq. And there are amusing coincidences.

Some of the failed candidates vying for their party's 1968 nomination included a Republican Mayor of New York; a Senator from Illinois, "bright, eager, handsome...vibrantly attractive to young voters;" and even a Mormon candidate -- a hapless Republican named Romney. But beyond these superficial analogs to the candidates of 2008, some profound resonances, consequences of larger forces, may be lurking.

This post, the first in a series, will focus on Richard Nixon's early strategy following the Republican gains of 1966, and what that comeback campaign by a former vice president could reveal about a theoretical Al Gore candidacy in 2008.

Between 1965 and 1968, the failures of Vietnam destroyed the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. The writing was already on the wall in 1966 when Republicans picked up 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate. Theodore White portrays Nixon, who had exited politics after losing the 1960 presidential election, and again, after losing the California governor's race in 1962, as already contemplating another presidential run as early as 1965, but Nixon was in no hurry to formally announce.

White sets the stage:

"Events are in the saddle and ride mankind" was to become one of the favorite intellectual observations on the campaign of 1968, as men in trouble recalled learning and quoted Ralph Waldo Emerson. [...]

Events were to ride American politics all through the years of Lyndon Johnson's administration, down, finally, to election day of 1968. Events were to reduce the personalities of candidates in the soul-searching of the year 1968 to marionettes; events were to shake America's confidence in it's own self and purpose; events were to kill 35,000 American men in Vietnam; events were to convert the greatest mandate, the greatest personal triumph on any election year, that of 1964, to the greatest personal humiliation of any sitting president. [...]

...the vulnerability of Lyndon Johnson, even at his zenith in 1965 was already quite clear to Richard M. Nixon, the next President of the United States, as he observed rivals within his own party and considered the stance that might give that shattered and humiliated group of men, the Republicans, an opportunity to offer alternative national leadership.

The early favorite for the Republican nomination was George W. Romney, Governor of Michigan, who was, yes, the father of varmint hunter extraordinaire, Mitt Romney. White writes that George Romney's greatest strength was his appearance, the cut of his jib:

...above all, he looked like a President. Handsome, silver-haired, robust, masculine, smiling or stern, he seemed cast for the part by Hollywood's Central Casting.

But his problem was a lack of substance. In February 1966, David Broder wrote of Romney:

...if the Michigan executive has a major weakness today, it is probably his fuzziness on national and international issues.

Nixon's strategy for winning the nomination was the consequence of his own unique political history and the mood of the electorate, already demoralized by the incompetence of our nation's leaders.

At one point Nixon asserted that he could not be re-packaged by any public-relations officer, no matter how skillful. That might work for a new man, but not with him. He would persist in his six-month personal moratorium of all discussion of politics as he traveled the world for Reader's Digest. There would be a Nixon campaign, thus -- but Nixon would not be in it until the time was ripe. For the moment, let the nation pay attention to George Romney. "I want him to get the exposure," said Nixon, "we have to keep him out at the point." The man who had been so thoroughly savaged by reporter and cartoonists over the years wanted their full talents for destruction concentrated on the personality of George Romney.

(Incidentally, Nixon's Reader Digest sojourns were intended to "reinforce his image on the American mind as a master of foreign affairs," without the necessity of Nixon's direct involvement in politics.)

The parallels to Al Gore's current situation are obvious. That is not to suggest that Gore is planning a presidential run using Nixon's nomination strategy (although it is possible). Rather, it does suggest that the larger historical forces at play in 2008 may be favorable to Gore, particularly since his personal political history tracks so closely to Nixon's.

The important questions are:

What aspects of the political mood in 1968 helped Nixon capture the nomination (and the presidency), and are those the same qualities that would favor Gore this time around? Did Nixon's unpolished "authenticity" give him a leg up for the nomination due to the climate created by Vietnam? Was it his experience in national governance combined with his exile from politics that made the difference?

Any of these factors could be relevant to the success of a Gore campaign in 2008. And if the former vice president is not planning a comeback, perhaps he should at least consider it. The tides of history may be moving in his favor this time.

DISCLAIMER: I am, of course, not comparing Al Gore's policy positions or political philosophy to Richard Nixon's. Nor am I suggesting that the Democrats need Gore to win in 2008. They do not.

All unlinked quotes are from Theodore H. White's The Making of the President 1968.

cross-posted at mydd and ProgressiveHistorians

Tags: Richard Nixon, Al Gore, 2008, 1968, Theodore H. White, Vietnam, George Romney, Mitt Romney, Rescued (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 23 comments

  •  tips (20+ / 0-)

    You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference. --Richard Nixon, 1962

    Our Republic and its Press will rise or fall together -Joseph Pulitzer

    by ryeland on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:03:58 PM PDT

    •  Great diary (0+ / 0-)

      Having lived through 1968 I was well aware of the parallels but forgot many of the details you describe.  Thanks for slogging through White for his interpretations.

      I look forward to Part II.

      Ah, the good old days. I can hardly wait for them.

      by Neighbor2 on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 09:05:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  As the proprietor (8+ / 0-)

    of ProgressiveHistorians, a community site dedicated to the intersection of history and politics, I would be honored if you would cross-post this excellent diary there.

    This was a diary, in fact, that I had meant to write -- but you've done a far better job.  I've been busily comparing the current crop of Republicans to the 1948 crew, so this piece would be a welcome counterpoint.

  •  Good Diary.. (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    JekyllnHyde

    launch it at a later time.

    The lesson of that history is that you must not despair, that if you are right, and you persist, things will change. -Howard Zinn

    by blueyedace2 on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:11:19 PM PDT

  •  A vote for Hillary Horatio Humphrey is a vote (5+ / 0-)

    for four more years in Iraq...

  •  Social Issues (5+ / 0-)

    In 1968, Americans wanted to end the war in Vietnam. However, they wanted "Peace with Honor" and did not want a precipitous pull out. Nixon promised that he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam, but reassured the country that he was no dove.

    In 1968, the Republicans were united. They walked in lock step with Richard Nixon at the Republican National Convention. On the Democratic side, the party was split and the Democratic National Convention erupted in chaos with rioting in what people thought was a police state in Chicago.

    Some time ago, I went to the library and read old magazine articles published in 1968. Although Americans were sick of the war, they were even sicker of what the perceived as the ungodly, rude, hippie culture of the left. They were sick of flag burning Vietnam War protesters and they were sick of social unrest. Americans wanted honor, they did not want surrender.

    In 2008, we do not have the draft and college campuses have not erupted in riots. We also do not have the hippie culture and antogonism towards the anti-war movement is not so high. Americans want out of the war, but I believe they also want honor.

    Thus, I can't see how McCain can win the election. Americans are tired of a president who is so out of touch with reality. But I also don't see them wanting a candidate who will just withdraw the troops. Ironically, in 1968, voters cared little that Romney was a Mormon, but because of the rise of the Conservative movement, they now do. So my guess is that Hillary could play the role as Richard Nixon in 2008.

    •  My older brother... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      BlueTide

      ...is a registered Independent.  Four years ago, he rather liked John McCain.  He was also apathetic about voting, however, and swore that he'd never do so, because, through his convoluted logic, he couldn't be blamed when things went wrong if he didn't vote for anyone.

      After four years of the current administration, he hated Bush (and the Iraq War) so much that he registered and voted for the first time in the 2004 election, just so he could vote for Kerry to try to get Bush out of office.  He still viewed John McCain as a "reasonable Republican," however, and someone he could vote for if he ran for president again.

      Again, it's almost four years later, and now he can't stand McCain.  He can't consider many situations, after hearing McCain speak lately, under which he'd vote for the guy.  When he was visiting us over Easter, he told us that he seriously thinks that McCain is "going senile."  

  •  By the way - Good Diary nt (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    JekyllnHyde
  •  Don't forget Strom Thurmond and the South (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    GayHillbilly

    If George Wallace had been slightly more successful at splitting the white vote in the south, we would likely have had a President Humphrey.

    We need to get Roy Moore to run on a 3rd party ticket.

    Daily Kos used to be worthwhile.

    by andgarden on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:52:49 PM PDT

  •  Apt and insightful. (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Ipse Dixit

    It has piqued my interest that an 8 year VP that looses a close controversial election in wich electoral fraud is suspected(illinois '60/florida '00), can come back two terms later to mount another go at it and win.  I am glad you are addressing the paralells and differences in your diaries. Thanks for the info that I hadnt thought about.

    It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong. -Thomas Jefferson

    by Resmuglicrook Investigator on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 10:13:50 PM PDT

  •  I was thinking in the shower today about this (0+ / 0-)

    I had to miss this local Draft Al Gore met-up last night in D.C. I was feeling bad about that, but in the shower, I started to think that Gore's moment to jump in really was passing. People are lining pup with other candidates. I'm drifting ever deeper into the Edwards' camp.

    Even a month ago, I thought Gore could waith until after the concert on July 7th, to get in the race, if that's something he wants to do. Now, I'm just not sure. The candidates in the Democratic Party are not George Romney. He was a serial liar that no one took very seriously. The Democrats in 2008 are blessed with several strong candidates.

    I suppose these things have ebbs and flows. In a few months, I might get really excited about a possible Gore campaign again. But, to make it really work, Gore needs to ride the crest of a powerful wave pulling him into the race. I'm just not sure that will ever materialize again in the way it was when he won the Oscar, and addressed standing room crowds at hearings on the Hill.

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

    by FischFry on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 10:17:11 PM PDT

    •  You needn't worry. There is no reason (0+ / 0-)

      that Gore needs to get in before October. As Nixon said he wanted the coverage on Romney, Gore wants it on the others in the race. He will come in as a fresh face six months from now, when everyone is tired of the current front-runners.

      His experience and stances on important issues (especially the war and the climate crisis) will stand out compared with the others. If you want Gore, don't drift to Edwards. Stick with the candidtate you want, not one who is popular a year and a half before the general election.

      As Tug McGraw of the '73 Mets said, "Ya gotta believe!"

      Gore 2008: Accept NO Substitute!

      •  Until and unless Gore gets in, I'm for Edwards (0+ / 0-)

        Since Al won't say he's getting in, I have to take him seriously when he says he has no plans to run. I'll support Edwars. If Gore does get in, I'll have to re-evaluate the situation at that time, to see how I feel regarding the various candiates -- I suppose I do that almost on a daily basis, anyway. I don't have a whole lot respect for anyone who doesn't do that. I may not be likely to change my opinions, but I try to keep an open mind always.

        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

        by FischFry on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 01:45:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Unlike Johnson (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Bernie68, WayneNight

    Bush is not about to admit to his
    failure and open the door
    to a takeover by the "other" party - in this
    case the democrats.

    Gore has showed no sign that he is going
    to run, but Edwards or Richardson are good
    prospects -

    If all we can hope for is Clinton or Obama, at
    least the democrats tend to have some skill at
    keeping a  balance in the geo politic,
    but not all that much better than a middle of the road Republican  Trouble is - the Republicans  have been taken over by proven "crazies" and
    must be stopped.

    Nixon appealed to  conservatives who
    could not believe that those
    "crazy" hippies were "right" about our
    foreign policy.

    It is  amazing when you think how "on the surface"
    insane the counter culture of the 60's was - that
    it was those so called "crazies" who turned out
    to be correct while the "normals" were the ones
    out of touch with reality.

    It's just like the Global Warming issue. It started
    with the societal fringe elements.  They seem like
    "crazies" but they are actually careful thinkers and
    today -  everyone admits that they were right.

    It was the unelected president
    Gerald Ford who  finally got us out
    of Vietnam.  And - low and behold - it was
    really NO PROBLEM at all. Those "crazies" turned
    out to be correct back then too.

    It took all this time for people to forget
    all those lessons from VietNam. What a shame.

    People need to learn to think in this country.

    The right wing has been successful at denigrating
    thinkers, and look where it has taken us.

    •  I was born in 1982... (0+ / 0-)

      ...so I didn't experience the 1960s.

      I have read quite a bit about them, however.  And, I have to say, I think a large part of the problem with the counter culture on many issues wasn't that they were wrong (though they were on some issues, I guess), insomuch as the voices that were covered the most - the ones that came to embody what the counter culture stood for - were rather rude and shrill.

      I don't want to reduce America's hatred for the counter culture in the 1960s to that single problem, as there were many things causing the divide.  But, I do think an inability to articulate their message in a "polite" way that could reach out to those who might be skeptical, but willing to consider their views, was part of the problem.

  •  George Romney (0+ / 0-)

    A good example of why things fell apart for George Romney is his explanation of why he changed his position on the Vietnam War.  Rather than stating that he switched from being "pro" war to "anti" war because of new facts, he stated that he was pro war in the past because he had been "brainwashed into supporting the war" by the administration.

    In reply to Romney's "brainwashed" statement, Eugene McCarthy commented that "I'd have thought a light rinse would have done the trick."

  •  I've read White's "Making" series several times (1+ / 0-)

    and I was glad to see you also picked up on the parallels with 1968.  They are eerie. The primary factor in all this is Bush's War, the simple fact of which has forced voters to re-evaluate their priorities for the nation. However, there are some major differences this time in the political dynamics of the war...and they all play right into Gore's hands.

    In 1968, public opinion on Vietnam was essentially split three ways:  1/3 in favor of even more aggressive military action, 1/3 opposed, and 1/3 who were pained and uncertain of what to do.  It was not until 1971-72 that a stronger consensus for withdrawal began to form, and even then this consensus was too tentative to force withdrawal through the political process.  In actuality, the American public never reached a consensus on Vietnam until 9/11 and Iraq re-defined for us what those kinds of wars mean.  

    As a result of that new awareness, not only has there been a sea change in opinion vis-a-vis Vietnam and LBJ's presidency, but this time around the situation is different. Fully 60% of the American public wants out of Iraq — there was never so much opposition to the Vietnam War at the time.  

    But here's the prime fact that links the 1968 and 2008 elections:  what put Nixon over the top, in the end, was the perception that when it came to Vietnam, Nixon had clean hands.  It was the Democratic Party's war, and Nixon was the only credible figure who had been completely out of power while the war was initiated.  

    This time the shoe is on the other foot.  The Republicans have only war supporters in their ranks, which puts them at a severe disadvantage with the electorate.  They cannot hope to obfuscate in 2008 as Nixon did in 1968, because the pained confused 1/3 of voters that Nixon was able to flim-flam are not there this time.  The Republicans will only be able to win the White House in 2008 if the Democrats also nominate a supporter of the IWR in 2002.  If the Democrats nominate a candidate with "clean hands" on the Iraq War in 2008, the Republicans don't have a chance.  It's for that reason that Gore — who, like Nixon, was completely out of power when the decision to go to war was made, and who has bitterly criticized the decision to go war and the way it has been carried out — is by far the Democrats' strongest possible candidate in 2008.  

  •  RFK (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ryeland

    Some of the failed candidates vying for their party's 1968 nomination included a Republican Mayor of New York; a Senator from Illinois, "bright, eager, handsome...vibrantly attractive to young voters;" and even a Mormon candidate -- a hapless Republican named Romney.

    You left out the one-time front-runner for the 1968 Democratic nomination:  a carpetbagger who became  Senator from New York after leaving the administration of the last Democratic president, man with whom he shared the same last name.

Permalink | 23 comments