|
|
| LBJ Sworn In After Assassination | Conservative Republican Barry Goldwater |
1964: Conservative vs. Liberal
The 1964 election was one of the most interesting
presidential elections in the history of U.S.A. For the first time since
the election of 1932, American voters were given a chance to choose a President
from two candidates who were completely opposite in their ideology and
personality. The two candidates did not merely differ in their ideas; one
was the opposite of the other. The candidates differing ideology gave the
media a perfect opportunity to highlight their differences and their
personality.
Unlike the election of the 1932, the coverage
in the 1964 election was not devoted mostly to the coverage of issues. It
covered a great deal of the candidate’s personality and analyzing the
candidate's stand on the issues and how their issues played with the electorate.
The media was still respectful of the candidates to some extent and refrained
from criticizing the candidates up front, as they do now. However, the
coverage of the candidates was clearly different and the media tended to give
candidates a hint as to what they should and should not do in order to win and
seemed to give most of the good coverage to the incumbent president, Lyndon
Johnson rather than to the challenger, senator Barry Goldwater.
Incumbent candidates usually get good coverage if
they are running for re-election in a time when the economy is good, and this
time was no exception. Part of the good coverage President Johnson
received can be explained by the good economy and the lingering sympathy the
press and the people still felt for the passing of President Kennedy. It
should also be noted that President Johnson was a master at manipulating the
press, having learned from his predecessor, President Kennedy, who had a special
touch with the press himself. President Johnson cajoled, manipulated, and
threatened reporters into giving him favorable coverage. It also helped
that he faced a very weak candidate that came from a divided party.
From the start, Senator Goldwater had a difficult
task in trying to oust a popular President in a good economy: What made his task
almost impossible was that his extreme right wing ideology alienated the more
moderate wing of the party. As we can learn from history, a divided party
usually loses an election because a portion of their supporters would choose to
stay home rather than vote for the candidate they do not like. Senator
Goldwater's refusal to moderate his view alienated the moderate Republicans so
much that the leader, Governor Rockefeller, rebuked the Senator at the
convention, which was televised to the public. The media followed this and
the main story became not about Senator Goldwater's stance on the issue, but
whether or not Governor Rockefeller was going to endorse him and campaign with
him, which drowned his message and lead him to receive more unfavorable
coverage.
On the other hand, President Lyndon Johnson, who was
unopposed and had very high popularity, used the division of the Republican
Party to cast his opponent as an extremist and impulsive, with the aid of the
media. It also did not hurt that his opponent was not particularly liked
by the media and was not granted the media as much access as they had with the
President’s campaign. The story was full of how the people liked Johnson
and how he was drawing a very large crowd wherever he went. Most of the
headlines in October about the Presidential campaign was, “President Cheered
by 15,000 as he campaigns …”, accompanied by a smiling President with a
large crowd. Most of the story also contained the President’s assertion
that he was a better leader than his opponent was. The reporters framed
this in a manner that the President was telling the voters that Senator
Goldwater was an extremist and impulsive. Instead of letting the reader
make the connection, the reporters were interpreting the news for the reader and
viewer. Reporters not only interpreted the news to the determent of the Senator,
there were also other subtler ways they constituted bias against the Senator.
One of the ways was the press used the Senator's
photo: No matter how large the crowd, the picture in the newspaper was the
Senator either by himself not smiling, or with the small crowd. The
impression the pictures left was that the Senator had small following and/or was
not happy with his campaign. However, the story that accompanied the
picture told that the Senator was on a huge rally with numbers either exceeding
the President’s or matching it. It is unclear whether the press had an
access to the picture and refused to print it, or the campaign did not provide
it. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the press would not be able to get
the pictures. It is more likely that the press simply did not show the
picture because they knew the Senator was going to lose and did not want to give
the impression that he had a large following. If the latter is true, then
the media had committed an egregious mistake by giving the readers the wrong
impression because readers usually look at the pictures first before reading the
article. Not that the articles were any better, most of the article were
on the rift between the Senator and Governor Rockefeller, and their strategy
with headline like “Goldwater Hunts A Winning Tactic. Aides can’t
agree on a new strategy.” These kinds of headlines emphasized the
impression that the Senator's campaign was in trouble.
President Johnson was very worried about how he was
going to be covered by the media and went to a great length to cozy up to the
reporters by constantly holding news conference and inviting the reporters to
the White House and his ranch in Texas. When he did get the kind of
coverage he wanted from the media, he used the television studio he had set up
at the White House basement to broadcast his message to the people directly.
He also manipulated the television cameramen into filming him the way he wanted
them by telling them that his best side was the side he did not want to get
filmed at; knowing in advance that they would film the opposite of what he said
(Al Gore, NY Times). The President also used the Television advertising to
drive home the impression that the Senator was reckless. One of his famous
(or Infamous) commercial known as the Daisy commercial was so controversial that
it aired only a few times. The commercial depicted a little girl counting
daisy buds and a nuclear detonation to imply that the choice for the voters was
between him, who was cautious, and the Senator, who was impulsive and willing to
start a nuclear war on impulse. The ad was effective because the Senator
(partly through his own fault) was portrayed as an impulsive and willing to
start a war over little things. This impression was cemented by the
Senator's election speech in which he stated, “Extremism in fight of liberty
is no vise.” In addition, the Senator's insistence on talking about War,
weapons and nuclear bombs, in his rallies did not help either. In one of
his rallies in Indiana, he used weapon, war, and destruction 26 times in his
speech, which lasted for a total of 24 minutes.
The speeches that the Senator was giving and the
media covered extensively gave the President a perfect opportunity to make a
speech such as “by one impulse act you could press a button and wipe out 300
million people before sun down.” The media interpreted that kind of
speech as meaning that if the Senator were elected, he would use nuclear
weapons, which forced the Senator to waste his time defending the charge that
was made against him indirectly by the President and magnified by the media to
the determent of the Senator Campaign.
The other thing that hurt the Senator's campaign was that
the press spent most of October stating that the president was way ahead and the
Senator had very little chance of getting elected. There were numerous
stories in Washington Post and New York Times that talked about by
how much the President was leading the Senator by and how only the Senator and
his campaign staff believed he had a chance. This kind of reporting
had a devastating effect on the election because it demoralized the losing
team’s supporters and voters who were not strong supporters of either
candidate not to vote because they believed the outcome was already
pre-ordained. However, the greatest effect is on the outcome of other
elections since the '64 vote. There were other elections that were close
and needed all the voters they could get to the polls because the outcome
depended on voter turn out. The Senator lost in what was then the biggest
landslide, and the President had large coattails, further reducing the
Republican minority in the Senate and the House.