Fifty years ago, Kennedy and Nixon changed our politics forever

Renew America ^ | 9-26-2010 | Michael M. Bates

[smoothsailing]

September 26, 2010

Fifty years ago, Kennedy and Nixon changed our politics forever

By Michael M. Bates

On September 26, 1960, Senator John Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon appeared in the first of what came to be called the Great Debates. How great they truly were is subject to dispute. But there's no doubt they altered American politics permanently.

Kennedy looked tanned and rested, while Nixon had been ill and appeared fatigued. The Republican turned down an offer of stage makeup. That may have determined the future of the Nation.

Out of about 180 million citizens, 70 million watched that debate. Many believed Kennedy won decisively. It didn't matter that sometimes JFK's words made little sense:

"Well, I would say in the latter that the — and that's what I found uh — somewhat unsatisfactory about the figures uh — Mr. Nixon, that you used in your previous speech, when you talked about the Truman Administration. You — Mr. Truman came to office in nineteen uh — forty-four and at the end of the war, and uh — difficulties that were facing the United States during that period of transition — 1946 when price controls were lifted — so it's rather difficult to use an overall figure taking those seven and a half years and comparing them to the last eight years. I prefer to take the overall percentage record of the last twenty years of the Democrats and the eight years of the Republicans to show an overall period of growth. . . I am chairman of the subcommittee on Africa and I think that one of the most unfortunate phases of our policy towards that country was the very minute number of exchanges that we had. I think it's true of Latin America also. We did come forward with a program of students for the Congo of over three hundred which was more than the federal government had for all of Africa the previous year, so that I don't think that uh — we have moved at least in those two areas with sufficient vigor."

This meandering mess has at least two factual errors. Truman became president in 1945, not 1944, and Africa isn't a country.

Yet it made little difference. John Kennedy looked like he knew what he was talking about, and that was adequate. Historian Daniel J. Boorstin likened the 1960 debates to the quiz shows that were popular at the time:

"These four programs, pompously and self-righteously advertised by the broadcast networks, were remarkably successful in reducing great national issues to trivial dimensions. With appropriate vulgarity, they might have been called the $400,000 Question (Prize: a $100,000-a-year job for four years)."

The next presidential debates happened when, far behind in the polls, President Ford challenged Jimmy Carter to them in 1976. At one meeting, Ford claimed: "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe . . ." That patently inaccurate statement would haunt him as he lost an extremely tight contest.

Carter avoided serious mistakes with 1980 opponent Ronald Reagan. Still, even the president's partisans must have scratched their heads when he talked about nuclear weapons and ended with, "I had a discussion with my daughter, Amy, the other day, before I came here, to ask her what the most important issue was . . ."

Four years later Democrats hoped for a major Reagan gaffe in his two encounters with Walter Mondale, but it didn't happen. President Reagan edged out the Minnesotan 49 states to one.

In 1988, a turning point in Democrat Michael Dukakis's campaign came during a debate with George Bush. CNN's Bernard Shaw asked, "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?"

Showing no emotion, Dukakis answered: "No, I don't, Bernard, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don't see any evidence that it's a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime." Oops. Bye, bye, Mikey.

Candidates in 1992's debates steered clear of major blunders. One memorable instance occurred when a thirty-something man in the audience inquired of the candidates: "And I ask the three of you, how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the two of you, the three of you, to meet our needs . . ."

We have indeed been reduced to a people needing to be coddled, protected, taken care of, patronized and patted on the butt. In a country in which a third of us can't identify even one of the three Federal branches, it's no wonder presidential debates take on significance far beyond their genuine worth.

So now we sit there, watching presidential debates, waiting to see who can promise us the most as candidates regurgitate their best sound bites. Get out the popcorn for sixty or ninety minutes of scripted theatrics appealing to greed and stupidity, not necessarily in that order. Then the talking heads are trotted out to tell us what we just heard and if any of the candidates made a big mistake.

It's superficial, shallow and foolish. It's what we expect in presidential debates; the contenders don't disappoint. And Kennedy and Nixon started it all, 50 years ago.

© Michael M. Bates

[nickcarraway]

That was the last time the Democrat was more conservative than the Republican.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

People have been talking for years about the Nixon sweating thing but in the end it was the Democrat machine getting dead people to vote in Texas and Illinois that won the election for JKK, not TV.

[ansel12]

That was the last time the Democrat was more conservative than the Republican.

Bull, the Kennedy election was the election that ended America. We could have eventually worked out of the FDR years, but we will never recover from the result of the 1960 election, ever.

[sinanju]

I think of the AmSpec article of last year that posited that Nixon blew it, not on appearances, but that he basically agreed with everything Kennedy was saying, i.e., he played a classic milquetoast Republican. He did not make that mistake in 1968—running on a hard “law and order” platform.

The article also mentioned Dewey/Truman and Willkie/F.D.R. campaigns as other classic examples in which the Republican failed to play the conservative and did the “democrat lite” thing.

With predictable results.

[Carry_Okie]

The thing about Nixon v. Kennedy that changed American politics forever was that Nixon allowed the Democrats to get away with stealing an election.

The rest is history.

[luvbach1]

...in the end it was the Democrat machine getting dead people to vote in Texas and Illinois that won the election for JKK, not TV.

And Nixon declined to request a recount in those states, saying he wanted to spare the country an interruption in the continuity of the presidency, He also probably thought that if the Demonrats could commit fraud in the original vote count they could do the same in a recount.

[Kozak]

Those who watched the debate on TV judged Kennedy the winner. Those who listened on Radio judged Nixon the winner.

[nickcarraway]

Even Noam Chomsky calls Nixon, "the last liberal president." Check out what Nixon actually did. He may have pretended to be something he wasn't, which was soft on communism and creating social programs that LBJ couldn't stomach. Under Nixon, social program spending exceeded defense spending for the first time. Nixon started automatic cost-of-living increases for Social Security and Welfare. He established OSHA, the EPA, the EEOA, Title IX, affirmative action, etc. More federal regulations were created under him than any other president. The Federal Register grew 121% under Nixon, after only growing 19% under Johnson. President Reagan found Nixon's administrative creations were the biggest impediment to what he was trying to do.

Let's face it, if Nixon had a 'D' after his name you'd be railing against him as perhaps the most leftist president we've had. But you are defending what he did to our country, because supposedly he was a Republican?

[BillyBoy]

KENNEDY: Well, I would say in the latter that the — and that's what I found uh — somewhat unsatisfactory about the figures uh — Mr. Nixon, that you used in your previous speech, when you talked about the Truman Administration. You — Mr. Truman came to office in nineteen uh — forty-four and at the end of the war, and uh — difficulties that were facing the United States during that period of transition — 1946 when price controls were lifted — so it's rather difficult to use an overall figure taking those seven and a half years and comparing them to the last eight years. I prefer to take the overall percentage record of the last twenty years of the Democrats and the eight years of the Republicans to show an overall period of growth. . . I am chairman of the subcommittee on Africa and I think that one of the most unfortunate phases of our policy towards that country was the very minute number of exchanges that we had. I think it's true of Latin America also. We did come forward with a program of students for the Congo of over three hundred which was more than the federal government had for all of Africa the previous year, so that I don't think that uh — we have moved at least in those two areas with sufficient vigor.

If you actually read the content of intellilectural lightweight JFK's ramblings in the 1960 debates, he spends most of the time trying to (poorly) defend Woodrow Wilson's "New Freedom", FDR's "New Deal", and Truman's "Fair Deal", talking about how wonderful all the big government handouts were for America and how important is it to give billions of dollars of goodies to foreigners to show the world how generous we are. Then he proceeds to attack how mean-spirited and greedy the GOP was for opposing statism and big government handouts. Kennedy promises to follow in the footsteps of the other RATs with his "New Frontier" programs -- tons of freebies for education, housing, welfare, the environment, immigrants, etc. (Democrats sure like "New", "Fairness", "Hope" and "Change", don't they?)

How nickcarraway can interpret Kennedy's agenda as the "more conservative" program is beyond me. Nixon was no conservative icon, but he was still vastly more conservative than the Woodrow Wilson & FDR worshiping Kennedy.

Evidentally the media myth of "Camelot" has so thoroughly brainwashed this nation that now many on the right will join the leftists in hailing what a wonderful role model JFK was. Pretty sad spetical in my opinion. Worse, they claim Kennedy was Reaganeque and the second best President of the 20th century after Reagan himself (LOL!!) Of course Reagan himself didn't agree with them, back then he was still a Democrat and even Reagan wouldn't drink the JFK kool-aid! He was a "Democrat for Nixon" in 1960. No wonder he switched parties after seeing the 1960s era RAT party fail so miserably.

As for me, I wouldn't have voted for JFK and his FDR-loving agenda if you paid me. For those on the right who would have supported a Massachusetts liberal over a Republican, well... we all know what this nation was like after the Kennedy-Johnson administration got thur with it.

The JFK fan club should all be required to read this book, it might open their eyes:

[buccaneer81]

but we will never recover from the result of the 1960 election, ever.

Only because of LBJ. By today's standards, Kennedy was a moderate Republican.

[buccaneer81]

Nixon kept the country from tearing itself apart. Al Gore took the other road. It’s been nothing but hate and division from the left since November, 2000.

[Outlaw Woman]

It may all be BS but there is one thing I do know about Kenndy, he was a hawk and did his time in the service and those 2 things sets him miles above the radical American haters of today.

And he did believe in tax cuts. Now with that said, had he lived, more than likely his positions would have evolved for political expediency. As we’ve seen other (not only dims) figures do:
For example: Al Gore was pro-life
Hillary Clinton was once a republican and supported Goldwater

Nixon on the other hand was responsible for the beginning of the global crap we see today. He formed the EPA as well and screwed around with the free market system with wage & price control in an effort to stem inflation. He was an elitist and thought himself above it all (imo). One thing that he did though that is a stand out is help Israel during the 6 day war and did it against everone’s advice and over their objections believing (correctly) that if we didn’t help who would?

In the end it’s BOTH parties that have betrayed this country and the constitution. We are now experiencing the result of years and years and years of abuse to the Foundation. Old Glory just can’t take too much more; our enemies know this.

[ansel12]

By today's standards, Kennedy was a moderate Republican.

JFK created "today's standards", without the stolen 1960 election we would live in a modernized version of 1950s America, not in a doomed America waiting to see what kind of unAmerica, multiculturalism will eventually melt into.

Imagine America without the 1960s, Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson, Senator Ted Kennedy, the 1965 passage of JFK's immigration act, press 1 for english, Muslims, etc, etc, etc.

Imagine an America with the unchanged demographics of 1960.

[ansel12]

People too young to know those days, were all taught to worship JFK.

Those NEA and CBS and Hollywood trained people think it shows knowledge to compare a post JFK, post Vietnam and Bay of Pigs, post Lyndon Johnson, post total takeover of the media and government by the Democrat party and the left as a result of JFK, post 1960s, Richard Nixon- to the 1960 Richard Nixon who would have been going straight from 8 years as Eisenhower’s Vice President, to becoming President.

We would be living in an entirely different America today.

[Rick_Michael]

interesting thread....

[Joe Boucher]

50 years ago the city of Chicago stole a presidential election for the democrat, Kennedy.

[onevoter]

What also happened is that the media intentionally put Nixon under bright lighting that not only made him look pasty but caused him to sweat and appear shifty - the media was as leftist then as it is now. There is MORE to the story.

[FreedomPoster]

LBJ was President during the 6-Day War.

Nixon (and Kissinger) sent lots of aid to Israel during the Yom Kippur War of 1973.

[Condor51]

President Ford challenged Jimmy Carter to them in 1976. At one meeting, Ford claimed: "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe . . ."

I remember that debate like it was yester ... a very long time ago :-)

But 'series', as I recall it Ford didn't exactly 'claim it', it was more like he blurted it out in frustration. As I recall he was a bit flustered at the time. And in my view he knew he made an oops.

In his defense I can see one point where he may have been coming from and that is the USA never recognized the USSR's takeover of the Baltic States: Lithuania, Latvia Estonia.

I know that as the 'official' Lithuanian 'consulate' was in my neighborhood in Chicago, it was a House. And the 'Lithuanian Navy' was docked at Chicago's lake front - it consisted of a couple 26' power boats and one sailboat of approx the same length. And the Held their 'official meetings' at the Tavern-Hall us guys hung out at. Now that sounds funny, but trust me, to the Lugans in my old hood (and surrounding areas), it was NO JOKE. (The First president of the 'new' Lithuania after the USSR collapsed came from the Marquette Park neighborhood in Chicago. It was mostly Lugan at the time)

So maybe Ford was thinking that. Or maybe militarily, with US Military Power that could take out the commies. Too bad he didn't clarify it after the flub.

Note to the PC Police: No offense is meant by me using 'Lugan'. I married one (she's 1/2 anyway) and they call themselves that. So buzz off.