tv Reel America Election 1976 - Presidential Elections CSPAN February 8, 2020 8:31am-9:06am EST
announcer: during the bicentennial year of 1976, the u.s. information agency made programs about the election process for foreign audiences documenting the -- up next for -- unreal -- presidential elections. the first episodes includes a short documentary on the history of elections since the first party convention in 1831, a discussion with three analysts on how the system has evolved and profiles of each of the major candidates in 1976.
♪ announcer: election 1976, a case study. your host is political analyst richard scanlon. richard: with me here in washington today, mr. stephen hess of the brookings institution and professor howard penniman of georgetown university. this is the first of a series of programs that are going to extend over the full period of the campaign until beyond the election in november in our
bicentennial political year. what we want to do is to bring a picture of the american electoral process. we will have special programs dealing with parties and the media, campaign technique and polling and the rest. what we are really aiming to do is to give you a picture of the way in which we select our american president. and how 215 million or 220 million americans can provide every four years a process by which leadership can be developed and transferred over these 200 years of american history. what we hope to do is to bring you discussions of these various aspects of the electoral campaign and begin that discussion with a consideration of an historical overview of just the way in which this has worked in the past. the critical elections, the major elections, the watershed
elections if you will, in the american electoral process. how these have developed, how have they responded to american political demands, both foreign and domestic? how have they replied to the needs and demands of the electorate? and when we have this historical overview, we will consider how this has met these demands and needs, and indeed how it may be projected forward to meet the demands and needs of our bicentennial presidential year. ♪ >> national conventions are a political process that is uniquely american. each political party meets to write its platform and to choose the candidate that will represent it in the national elections. it happens every four years and is happening again in 1976. it all began in 1831, when the first national party conventions were held to elect presidential candidates. since 1856, the republican and democratic parties have
dominated american politics. abraham lincoln in 1860 was the first republican elected to the presidency. each candidate is remembered for his own particular campaign style. william jennings bryan for his fullness of phrases and flamboyant gestures. teddy roosevelt for his vigorous, direct and no-nonsense manner. [applause] in 1924, when radio invaded the convention hall and the campaign trail, john w. davis was the democratic candidate. the record 103 ballots required to nominate him for president left his party divided. in the end, his republican opponent calvin coolidge won the election easily. today, president coolidge is remembered more for his cool manner and frequent fishing trips. ♪
in 1928, alfred e. smith was one of the most colorful and controversial candidates ever to hold the number one position on a party ticket. the happy warrior, alfred e. smith. >> yet at election time, the iowa smile and the pleasant voice of herbert hoover won the white house for his party for four more years. in 1932, republican luck ran out for the next 20 years, when candidates like alfred landon and wendell wilkie proved to be no match for the brilliant democratic president franklin delano roosevelt. >> a great, a grand. announcer over the years : republicans and democrats alike have run their conventions in the same manner. a chairman is chosen, delegates are certified, a party platform is adopted, and candidates for the presidency are nominated. >> the great state of new york, thomas e. dewey. >> fellow delegates, i give you the man from libertyville, the
next democratic nominee and our next president of united states, adlai e. stephenson. >> in the 1952 and 1956 campaigns, the impeccable style of the democratic candidate adlai stephenson provided contrast to general eisenhower. eisenhower's strength rested in the warm father image he projected into millions of american homes. [applause] ♪ when the demonstrations for each candidate are completed, the roll call vote follows, sometimes decisive and other times a formality. in recent years, most candidates have received the necessary majority in the first ballot. for example, john f. kennedy in 1960. >> mr. chairman, wyoming votes to make majority for senator kennedy. [applause] >> finally, there are the
acceptance speeches. in 1936, franklin d. roosevelt. >> i accept the commission you have tendered me. i join with you. [applause] >> i am and listened -- enlisted for the duration of the war. ♪ announcer in 1948, strong third : and fourth party movements significantly affected the outcome of the elections. with thomas e. dewey, the heavily favored republican candidate, competing with strom thurmond, the chief spokesman for the conservative states rights party, and henry wallace, the choice of the small but enthusiastic liberal progressive party, harry truman on the democratic ticket walked away from the election as the victor. this was one of the greatest electoral upsets in american history. ♪ national conventions are then a political process that is
uniquely american. faces change, but there are always the crowds, music, speeches and suspense. after the candidates are chosen and the campaigns are ending, the people speak and through the ballot box determine who will assume the burden and power of the american presidency. ♪ richard steve, in looking at a : film like this, i suppose there are some who would say well, this is all just tweedledum and tweedledee and really is not that important. elections do not really decide anything. what do you think? steve: well, that passing parade of all those historical faces certainly suggests to me a personal response on one level to that question, dick. after all, an election by definition is a choice between two individuals. so when you ask yourself, does
it make any difference between george mcgovern and richard nixon in 1972? would it have made any difference if the american people had chosen adlai stevenson instead of dwight d. eisenhower in 1952, or herbert hoover instead of franklin roosevelt in 1932? i think the answer is of course it would. there were very different people. the -- an important part of our election system is with a fixed term, we are electing people for the future, for the next four years. and with one exception they will serve for four years, unless they die. now we don't know what is going to happen in the next four years. we do not ask candidates hypothetical questions, what would you do if the east germans built a wall across berlin? what would you do if the soviets offensivne of missiles in cuba? we put these individuals through elaborate process we hope that byin which we hope that
pressures on them and exposure to them that we are going to find out something useful to us, in making this choice. dramatic examples would be suddenly, in 1952, it was discovered that the republican vice presidential candidate had a secret fund that was paying for his personal expenses. now there suddenly the presidential candidate, eisenhower, had to make a decision. we watched him make a decision. 1972 when the situation with eagleton, the vice presidential candidate of the democratic ticket, came up, a series of mental illnesses we do not know. and we watch the potential -- presidential candidate, george mcgovern, make a decision. that was important to us in trying to judge how that person who we are giving this leadership to for a fixed four years is going to respond. so on that personal level, it's -- it certainly makes a different. richard all right, howard, let : me put same question to you. what would you say?
howard: let me begin by quoting david butler, great scholar of american, british, european politics, who once said it was more important in terms of domestic and foreign policy of the united states, who was president than it is to the british people who happens to be or which party happens to be elected. the presidency is so important an office in the united states. the role that he plays in both domestic and foreign policy of leading the people becomes an item of tremendous importance. it becomes more dramatic i suppose when you get in periods of crisis. everyone, southerners, northerners, everyone else, knew that something was very important about that 1860 election. the moment that election took place, you began to get a revolt in the south. this is one where, because of
the crisis that existed, that everybody knew that there was a crisis. and the way it came out was the way in which the republic was going to go. happily, sometimes we have periods of peace, and quiet, and calm, and in those cases, the elections do not appear to be that exciting. and it may not make that much difference which one happens to get in. dick: i think it is certainly true if you are looking at the historical prospect of american elections. in 1860 it is very clear that a man other than lincoln elected under those conditions would have produced measurably different results in the long run. within 50 years results might've been the same. but certainly americans and that time and again in 1896, when bryan with the candidate on the free coinage of silver. this produced two generations of republican control. certainly in that sense it is
very important. although i suppose listening to the language of the election and the election of 1976 too for that matter. people may have a different view. what about the issues? we've talked about the candidates in a struggle -- in a historical perspective. what about the issues and what import they may have from the historical overview we are doing today? steve: this is where we most often hear that question of tweedledee and tweedledum. does it make any difference because our parties are not heavy ideological? they do not appear, by the standards of some countries, to be very different. of course they are different and that each present a platform. -- they each present a platform. the candidates each make a long series of speeches, which are commitments to the american people. now the history shows that by and large, they try to honor those commitments. they try to enact when in office the pledges their party makes.
they cannot always do it and may find when the president is not wise, they were not good commitments they should have made. by and large a politician would prefer to honor commitments than not to honor commitments. there are differences though they are not as sharp as in some other systems. dick: i'm sure this is true. when we look at the way in which, not the platforms of the parties, but the individual pronouncements of the candidate are seen, and you take the kind of issue we are going to get this year as we have in the past on 1000 different issues. what this man says, or woman says if we have a woman as candidate, it counts. not the platform, the platform is usually a generalized statement to which you can pay little or no regard. but you have seen it, howard, overseas, and you can make this comparison in countries like australia and britain and france and the rest. what would you think was the difference here between the kind of historic commitment we have had, and that of our friends over the water?
howard: well, it seems to me if we come up again in a period of crisis, you are going to get as clear and sharp a distinction between american parties as you do between the american candidates. -- as you do between the parties and other countries, or american keratin -- candidates. if one goes back to the 1932, 1936 period, in 1932 what you got was a commitment from both candidates to solve the problem of unemployment and the depression. what you had happen between 1932 and 1936 with the development of a vast program which was very different than what had been the previous american programs. and here you then have in 1936 a sharp issue growing not so much out of speeches of 1932, as growing out of the impact of a president, in this case franklin roosevelt, on the economy, on the politics and the whole social life of the country. and this was the issue in 1936 and this was the issue in 1936
and a very sharp one. richard: do think sharper than it would be now in 1976? howard: yes, because we were in the midst of a crisis, and we are not as easily in the midst of a crisis today. richard what about fringe issues : we care about for 1976 as we -- here about 41976 as we have earlier, abortion, gun control, school busing, prayers, a whole host of things above and beyond the economic circumstance? what role do they play and what role have they played in the past? steve: because we are such a large country, so diversified and so many groups and interests, candidates are forced to speak to this whole menu of issues. ironically, it does not make for the most useful democratic process, in that, in theory it would be better to have a campaign that focused on perhaps the half a dozen most important
issues. but nevertheless, candidates are forced to make commitments because they try to appeal so broadly across the board. i tend to think that in rare exceptions, they are, as you say, fringe issues. our elections by and large are decided on bread and butter issues, economic issues, and the major issue of war and peace. these others are sideshows, very interesting, very useful in the whole development of a laundry list of legislation for the next congress and so forth, but in terms of the actual outcome of the election, i tend to think how good do you feel that you have it? do you have a job? do you think your future is bright? are we at war or peace? will we have to fight or not? dick: let me shift if i may to another thing we saw in looking at this film. there was technique. you saw these exciting scenes from the convention. you saw teddy roosevelt making a speech from the end of the train.
you saw, i guess it was mr. coolidge fishing, or at least looking for fish or at least pictures of coolidge looking for fish. do you see any changes in 1976 looking back this panoply of history, do you see any changes in 1976 in campaign techniques and methods? steve: well, much of it will be the same. there is a real effort for the candidate in almost any democratic society to make some kind of contact with people at the human level. this is in part what they are trying to do. the convention is going to be a rallying ground of partisans on both sides, as much, in addition to actually nominating the candidate. on the other hand it seems to me there had been some changes. some of the changes are the result of changes in the whole society. we have a greater dependence on the media than there would have been 50 years ago when it was
not available. there will be less of the kinds of parades and that sort of things which dominated it 100 years ago. in other words what i am saying is, it has to change as the society and as the communication instruments -- instruments of communication change. then, to some extent, there is because the candidates move around the country and are seen by everyone on television and heard on radio, they are forced to debate issues more clearly, state issues more clearly. debate them with others to a greater extent than they were forced to do prior to the coming of television or to the coming of radio. howard: let me take up the first point you made because it is terribly interesting, and it tends to get overlooked. that is not the change for the continuity that we get now. -- but the continuity that we get now. we have the technology for the candidate not to have to leave
the studio. he can appeal to 220 million people just by sitting in the chair. but they do not, they still go through the same rituals. the rituals change to a degree to reflect the change in technology. when you had radio, candidates started to use radio, and when you have television, candidates started to use television. what strikes me is the amazing similarities over time, rather than differences, which are differences in technique and response to new technical changes. richard: you know, someone once said if a doctor came back from 1912 to 1976, he has to learn all the new techniques. if a lawyer came back, he would have to learn all the new cases. but a politician would be able to fit in much quicker because he would say, well, television. you got the theater, you can just do it in advance. isn't that nice? amplification -- amplification of the human
voice. you don't have to get someone with a full voice of his own to project to the back of a balcony. you can do it almost any way you want. but i am intrigued the -- that both of you agree that the mechanical changes, the technological changes, while they do of course affect the way in which to carry on the campaign, are not so major. finally just quickly, what about money? is that going to be vastly different this year? steve: it is going to be quite different this year. indeed one of the reason some of our candidates might stay longer than might be the case when they're seeking the nominations, one of the reasons they may stay in is there is some government financing, some insurance that if they pick up a minimum amount of money, that they can also get some assistance from the federal government to help finance it. whether it also will be true that given the rules that must be in small quantities, may eliminate some people who might
get the wealthy backer that once pushed forward people like stassen and others. i don't know. i don't think it is the wealthy backer that ordinarily put forth the men who ultimately became the president. in general once he became -- the ones he became -- that became president, had a broad base of support in their own party and often among independents as well, from whom they could get money. richard and as you know, they : used to say you need a good candidate, good issue, a good organization, good money, and good luck. and i suppose the other four are just as important as the money. and while the money counts and counts for good deal, and if i were a candidate, i would rather have it than not have it, it is not the thing which in the final analysis is going to control. you have got a good candidate and a good organization, whether 1830 or 1930, or 1976, that candidate is probably going to be able, in his seeking the
-- after the presidency, to gather the kind of things that he actually needs in the way of money. there are two republican hopefuls in 1976. many more on the democratic side. here are some seeking the presidency in this 1976 bicentennial presidential election. ♪ announcer among the declared : candidates for this, 48th u.s. presidential election are the incumbent, gerald r. ford. after becoming president following the resignation of former president nixon, is seeking an elected term to continue programs and policies his first 20 first months in -- of his first 20 months in office. ronald reagan, former governor of california and before that a film star. reagan is attempting to gain the republican party's nomination for president. his platform contends the federal government has become too large and powerful. ♪ among the democratic party candidates are jimmy carter, former governor of the state of georgia. he started as a peanut farmer
and then turned politician. he is waging a campaign of personal contact that has lifted him from obscurity to national attention. glenn harris, a former u.s. senator from oklahoma is running a vigorous campaign with a strong youth backing. sergeant shriver, who helped create and later directed the peace corps under president john f. kennedy, served as u.s. ambassador to france during the johnson administration. he was the democratic vice presidential nominee in 1972. senator birch by of indiana, the senator birch of indiana, i dynamic, young member of the u.s. senate. ,e enjoyed labor union support with amendments providing for the 18-year-old vote in presidential succession.
jackson, that are known as stoop jackson has taken a strong position on the major issues over his 34 years in congress. he is considered liberal on economic issues but a leading spokesman for military preparedness. morris k. udall from arizona, congressman for the past 16 years, has called lincolnesque because of his homespun campaign image. he is working to gain national attention as a liberal in his bid for the presidential nomination. governor george wallace of alabama, one of the most colorful candidates, is known for his strong stand on the rights of the states. he campaigned in 1972 as an independent after losing the bed -- bid for the democratic party nomination. a crippling assassination attempt has not stopped him from carrying out a full schedule both as governor of alabama and presidential candidate. richard one of the most : perplexing questions about an american president election is how do the candidates get there? in other countries, there is
usually a very carefully devised screening method by which the leadership comes up from the rank and file. it is a good deal more open and chaotic i suppose you might call it in the united states. howard, tell us, how do i become a candidate for president, if i want to be one? howard: if you want to be one, if you want to be a candidate, and you have the nerve and energy to do it, you simply declare yourself a candidate. if you need a few signatures to get on the ballot, you get the signatures, there's no problem getting on the ballot in any state in any of the primaries where they are held. i guess some notion of what the kinds of people are who have the interest and the desire and nerve to go out doing it, take a look at some of the kinds of people that are coming in this time. we have got three ex-governors who have been talking about it and participating. they are not absolutely unemployed as former governors, but they are not in politics at
the moment. they are not holding any public office nor had they campaigned for one until they decided to go for the presidency. you have a couple of ex-senators, former senators seeking the democratic nomination, one talking about running as an independent. and you have some senators holding office. a member of congress holding office, a former vice president, and you have got a woman who was interested in preventing abortions. and all of these people have decided that they wanted to be president of the united states, they have gone out campaigning, and will participate in the primary elections. so it is probably more than anything else to go to your original suggestion, you are free to become one of the candidates if you want to, and there is nothing that bars you, you do not have to be in office or have the endorsement.
it is useful to have it, but you do not have to have it. it is free and open. -- stephen: there are certain qualifications by law, you have to be 35 years of age, and a natural born citizen, there are certain traditions. over the years they tend to break down because we are they sickly a white, anglo-saxon country that tends to be the type of person who runs, but 1960 where we had never had a catholic president before, we had our first catholic president, there was talk in running for vice president and talk of a black running for vice president. there have been women candidates more frequently. what was once disabling qualities and qualif
>> it is a game akin to musical chairs where there is a row of chairs and candidates walk around and when the music stops, they have to sit. if you think of each chair as an ideological label, when the music stops, each candidate tries to sit. we are a country. a classic example of this was in .he democratic nomination fight harriman was not known as a liberal and he sat in the liberal chair. alvin buckley had been a liberal
most his life and he had to sit in the conservative chair. we see the candidate moving around the chairs and trying to position themselves. >> it suggests that when changes philosophy as one goes i the chair. they are the french people. le.fringe peop >> because there are so many candidates they have to differentiate from their opponents. make this clear to the public. they are trying to position but one being less
documentary of that meeting the yalta conference. >> i come from the crimea conference with the firm belief that we have made a good start on the road to a world of peace. never before have the major united not closely only in the war aims but in their piece aims. announcer: at 430 on oral histories we will talk with woody herschel williams who talks about iwo jima. >> they jumped up and started firing their weapons into the air. screaming and yelling and that kind of stuff. i really thought everybody had lost their mind for a second. i could not figure out what was going on. , i looked and on there was a wire on top amounts
are bocce. announcer: explore our nation's past on american history tv on c-span3. we look back to the 1992 presidential campaign of bill clinton. he announced his candidacy october 3, 1991 and five days later visited franklin high school in hampshire he ate lunch, play basketball, and to questions from students. >> you come with me. what is your name? i'm governor clinton. you?re can we shake hands? thank you. i like it. i will try not to cheat.