Wednesday, January 28, 2009
The 1968 Presidential Election
When we watched the example political ads from the '68 election in our last class, I think we got caught up a little too much in critiquing the commercials from our 2009 perspective. To truly understand those ads, we need to try to imagine things from the perspective of 1968.
What Nixon tried to accomplish with his ads was to give a sense of a return to law and order. The 60s was a very tumultuous period in U.S. history, coming after the relative calm of the 50s. LBJ had escalated Vietnam and lost the support of the public, sparking protests. His popularity plunged and he decided to not even bother trying to get reelected. The Civil Rights Movement occurred at the same time, and we're all aware of how confrontational it was. Nixon guessed correctly that there was a sizable population that was uncomfortable with all the strife, what he later called the "Silent Majority."
He also had what was called the "Southern strategy," which was designed to appeal to Southerners who were angered by LBJ and the Democratic Party's support for Civil Rights (believe it or not, the South, and especially Mississippi, was reliably Democratic until the 1960s). The South fractured in the 1960s, and Independent candidate ( but a Democrat) George Wallace carried the Deep South away from the actual Democratic candidate. Wallace's pro-segregation positions did not go unnoticed by Nixon.
Nixon's ad campaign was designed to contrast the climate of the 1960s, which was all the fault of the Democrats, with the "peaceful" 1950s, during which he was vice-president under Eisenhower. Although he won by an electoral landslide, he only actually led Humphrey by 0.6% of the popular vote in the final tally.
Knowing some of the context of the 1968 election, what do you think about the ads, from a communication standpoint?
What Nixon tried to accomplish with his ads was to give a sense of a return to law and order. The 60s was a very tumultuous period in U.S. history, coming after the relative calm of the 50s. LBJ had escalated Vietnam and lost the support of the public, sparking protests. His popularity plunged and he decided to not even bother trying to get reelected. The Civil Rights Movement occurred at the same time, and we're all aware of how confrontational it was. Nixon guessed correctly that there was a sizable population that was uncomfortable with all the strife, what he later called the "Silent Majority."
He also had what was called the "Southern strategy," which was designed to appeal to Southerners who were angered by LBJ and the Democratic Party's support for Civil Rights (believe it or not, the South, and especially Mississippi, was reliably Democratic until the 1960s). The South fractured in the 1960s, and Independent candidate ( but a Democrat) George Wallace carried the Deep South away from the actual Democratic candidate. Wallace's pro-segregation positions did not go unnoticed by Nixon.
Nixon's ad campaign was designed to contrast the climate of the 1960s, which was all the fault of the Democrats, with the "peaceful" 1950s, during which he was vice-president under Eisenhower. Although he won by an electoral landslide, he only actually led Humphrey by 0.6% of the popular vote in the final tally.
Knowing some of the context of the 1968 election, what do you think about the ads, from a communication standpoint?
Labels: 1960s, 1968, ads, commercials, election, LBJ, Nixon
# posted by dan @ 11:09 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
I think the ads where appropriate for the time period. Today Nixon's ads seem very outdated, plain, and cold. I think if I were to see these ads in the 1960s I would feel relieved that this presidential candidate would help bring “peace” his commercial ads portray back to the United States. I think it was a good idea to show Nixon in this light it was clearly a successful campaign.
The only thing i didn't agree with on the ads was the second one we watched. It showed all negative pictures of Vietnam and at the end it showed President Nixon's face. I think in some ways that could negatively affect him by put a picture of his face at the end of that string of pictures.
Right, but in 1968, Nixon wasn't associated with Vietnam at all, other than promising to get the U.S. out of there. And I think he said that in the voice over narration.
Vietnam was a very divisive subject in 68, and something the public was seeing on the news in stark detail every night, so those images weren't actually that jarring to the voters. What was more important to voters was that Nixon was saying he'll end it.
1968 is considered a watershed year for the U.S., one of those once in a generation times where a lot of things intersect at one point, and the country can either continue its course or turn a corner completely. 2008 is very similar to it in a lot of respects, and you may find that future historians will begin to consider it in league with 1968. Politics seems to always be the point where these things intersect too.
For example, as in 1968, you have an outgoing president who is extremely unpopular, with a seemingly endless war of his doing. Like Nixon, Obama ran his campaign on promises to get the nation out of a war and return it to some kind of prosperity that we had before the sitting president.
Obama could have used a similar commercial as Nixon's Vietnam ad. In the end, he didn't need to because the opportunity was there to tie McCain to the war and the public didn't seem to need much prompting anyway.
Vietnam was a very divisive subject in 68, and something the public was seeing on the news in stark detail every night, so those images weren't actually that jarring to the voters. What was more important to voters was that Nixon was saying he'll end it.
1968 is considered a watershed year for the U.S., one of those once in a generation times where a lot of things intersect at one point, and the country can either continue its course or turn a corner completely. 2008 is very similar to it in a lot of respects, and you may find that future historians will begin to consider it in league with 1968. Politics seems to always be the point where these things intersect too.
For example, as in 1968, you have an outgoing president who is extremely unpopular, with a seemingly endless war of his doing. Like Nixon, Obama ran his campaign on promises to get the nation out of a war and return it to some kind of prosperity that we had before the sitting president.
Obama could have used a similar commercial as Nixon's Vietnam ad. In the end, he didn't need to because the opportunity was there to tie McCain to the war and the public didn't seem to need much prompting anyway.
Thanks Dan for the overview of the time period when these ads were being used. I think it really helps to put things in perspective. Like you said, we are all used to the glossy television ads that we see today. I personally really liked the first ad we watched. I think it was effective in showing how things were/could be again if Nixon was elected president. The second ad left me feeling disconcerted, which I know was part of the plan. Obviously these ads were effective, but I do definitely prefer the first to the second ad we watched.
From a communication stand-point, I'm pretty sure Nixon got his point across. The only thing I have a problem with was the ad with the pictures from Vietnam. All of America knew how terrible things were over there. I would have been outraged as a parent if my young child was watching saturday morning cartoons and that ad popped up during the commercial break. That, to me, was too harsh of a wake up call for Americans.
I agree that visually the ads were appropriate for the time as far as context, but was not crazy particularly about Nixon's ads. I understand that they were trying to portray a certain image for him. But, it would make me very uneasy to know that the my President could not be trusted in front of the camera or in public appearances for that matter.
I thought the ads were appropriate for the time period. The most effective, I think, was the ad with the images of the Convention. Although it was an incredibly different and jarring ad, it gave the impression of chaos, which would make me feel more comfortable with the Republican Party at that time.
# posted by 
: 4:03 PM
: 4:03 PM
I thought the ads were appropriate for the time period. The most effective, I think, was the ad with the images of the Convention. Although it was an incredibly different and jarring ad, it gave the impression of chaos, which would make me feel more comfortable with the Republican Party at that time.
# posted by : 4:03 PM
: 4:03 PM
I think the ads served themselves well being in the context of the 1960s media. The fact that nixon had a successful campaign says says that his ads were obviously effective.
Post a Comment
<< Home
