The Candidates: Style and Character, reel 1

If this isn't done other third party phenomenon like a third

party let's say what Mr Henry Wallace the third party of Strom Thurmond

third party Mr. George Wallace is a major phenomenon of our

in some ways may I say far the most interesting phenomenon Boston

University radio presents the presidency 1968 a

series of four programs taken from lectures by the noted political scientist Max

Lerner.

Dr. Lerner is a professor of American civilization and world politics at

Brandeis University and is the author of several books including

America as a civilization the unfinished country an anthology of his

best newspaper columns and the age of overkill is

syndicated newspaper column is published nationwide and abroad the lecture

series is made possible by a grant from the SNH Foundation sponsored by the

Sperry and Hutchinson company. In this first program Dr. Lerner discusses

the topic the candidate's style and character. Now here

is Dr. Max Lerner on the presidency 1968.

I was saying that I was coming up here just a moment ago.

They're in a sense side trying still to claim my

original innocence. If you define an innocent

as one who still believes in possibility

I would cling to my innocence I still believe in

possibility even in the kind of world

we have now.

People say to me very often Miss Lerner as you look toward the future are you an optimist or a pessimist.

I say what do you think this is Wall Street. You think this is a question of whether I'm bullish or

bearish about the gyrations of stocks on the stock market I'm neither an

optimist or a pessimist on a possible list. I believe

we are going to be able to survive this election

campaign perhaps even survive. A

president who's chosen.

I think we're going to I think the republic will survive.

I think that the experience through which we're going is a shaking plowing up

experience not a pleasure. And before I'm through

with these talks of mine and our discussions together I

think I made it very clear why I think it's a plowing up

experience which goes down to the very

depths of the very roots of our being as a nation as

individuals and turns up often with some lovely

things.

But I believe that through this whole process a process

of digging down deep and plowing up and even coming up with some lovely things.

I think this is the way in which a nation grow is

just a way of an individual growth by

the life experiences that he has the courage and the strength to face

encounter and to transcend that

also is how a nation grows.

We've had this kind of experience of course for a long time

sometimes it's more unpleasant than other times. It's never

quite the same as at any previous time and don't let anyone tell you

that the 1968 campaign is like some other campaign it isn't. It

may have some similarities but each change because of the

revolutionary changes that have been happening in our society are happening so fast

that it's a different people a different society

which encounters experience.

Here we are.

Any talk coming toward the end of a kind of an annus

mirabilis year of wonder and portent.

Think back a year ago.

Do you remember when it looked still as if it was LBJ

against Romney. Most of those seem archaic know

as candidates and so many things happened.

Romney was pushed out because he

somehow incalculably surprisingly made his way in

with the New Hampshire victory that forced LBJ out.

It brought Robert Kennedy in brought Rockefeller

wrote Reagan in LBJ

exit brought Hubert Humphrey in and the

succession of deaths particularly those

with traumatic events.

Yes Dr. King. Yes of Robert Kennedy the murder

of each year. Sasa nation is

here. Riots.

Your convention is ending up with a

Chicago convention Surely there has never been anything in American political history

quite like that as a political convention and the things that happened all

around it.

So I say the honest problem. It's the

year of wonder.

And it's a year in which anyone who tried to predict at any

point during that year was bound to be proved wrong

because again it was a year of possibility because of the very

fluid nature of the events that year.

Things were never totally impossible they were always possible

and where we are now of course seems to many of us and I include

myself in that a good deal of an anti-climax after a year of

wonders importance with the field

presumably narrowed to man each of them I suppose the

choice of his party at least of the stalwarts in that

party the professionals in the party. Neither of them

having shown at least until now haven't shown much strength outside of his

party.

A number of people are satisfied with

either choice.

If you look at the whole country the number of people satisfied with either choice is not a very

large number. The number dissatisfied with one or the other is very large

and the number dissatisfied with both is very considerable.

And this too we haven't quite had at least not recently in

the same way so that to many it is an invitation

to apathy a plague on both your

houses. A plague on both your party's A plague on both your

candidates.

My own feeling is that if either of the other two

Republicans who made the final showing at Miami had been

nominated he would be running strongly today.

I think Mr. Rockefeller more strongly than Mr Nixon because he had

so much strength outside of the party among Democrats and independents.

I'm going to say something that may surprise you coming from me I think Mr. Reagan would be running strongly if he

had been the nominee and he would be running strongly not because

of strength among Democrats and independents he'd be running strongly

because he'd be running in the same direction and Mr. Wallace basically.

In fact it's quite conceivable that a Reagan candidacy would have meant

not much of a Wallace candidacy because they they feed

on the same man the man of the law and

order issue. Many of the fears that

have been generated in the country because of the domestic violence. Yes.

So I would say that either of the three Republican candidates was bound to make a

strong race in this year of great discontent

with the war and great discontent with the right. Great

discontent with demonstrations and great discontent with

what's happening on the campuses. Great discontent with

LBJ and the Democratic administration. Any of those three

Republican candidates I think would have made a very good run of it

and probably would be winning as Mr Nixon is winning no.

I'll go father. I didn't get either of the other two

Democrats who figured so prominently in the

primaries before the convention. The convention either of them

would probably if he were the nominee be doing better than Mr rejoined.

I think if Mr. McCarthy had been the candidate while I did still think he would be

running second I think that would probably be less

distance between the candidates than there is now

and I have no doubt in my mind that if Robert Kennedy had lived

if he had not been cut down.

If he had lived I think he would have had an extremely good chance of

being the nominee and if he were the nominee today what an

exciting race it would be. I say this not in the sense

of lamenting what no longer is possible. I

say it simply for historical perspective.

You know one of the thing when I said a while ago I'm a possible list. One of the things

that I find when I write history or read history or teach history

I see. History not only is the record of what happened but also as the record of what didn't happen.

What didn't happen but what might have happened if things had broken

differently if a different road had been

take. Can other people remember Robert Frost poem

Two roads diverged in a wood.

Two roads diverged in a wood and I took the one less traveled by

And that has made all the right. And I think the first lesson in

politics if I may suggest to the very first lesson in politics

is that politics has no inevitability about it.

Sure there are object your forces moving in a certain direction but the

question of how fast they move and how they are could be channeled that depends on individual

leaders and on the relation between the leader in the people the

Marche and the league.

And those relations can be very different relations I say again. Not only what happened but what

didn't happen but what might have happened if other decisions had been taken if there'd been

other leadership it had been a different kind of relationship between the Diem us and the people.

What might have happened. Why is it important to not just study what might

have happened.

The didn't because the future also has a number of alternatives

and we need always to feel and feel very strongly that there is a choice on our

part. The choice of roads and if some road doesn't seem

to exist it's part of our problem to build it to make it exist

so that we can choose it. Now

I've spoken of two parties and two candidates obviously. One thing about this

campaign which makes it different from any that I recall is that it's

a three man affair not a tomb. And this is not just a case

of most of us third party which is a kind of appendage to the election

campaign. This isn't a nother third party phenomenon

like the third party let's say what Mr. Henry Wallace of the third party of

Strom Thurmond. The third party

Mr. George Wallace is a major phenomenon of our time. In some

ways may I say far the most interesting phenomenon of all.

The most unexpected incalculable.

You know already has a strength what some 20 percent according to

straw polls.

Its rate of growth seems to be continuous.

It may end up before and by the time of the election which is

more than 20 percent.

And as you know and have read and have heard

it's quite conceivable that it may get the kind of strength which will mean that there will not be any

candidate with a majority of the Electoral College.

So then we will have election thrown into the House of Representatives

as happened with John Quincy Adams. Jackson and so on Lot hundred and

forty or so years ago.

The House of Representatives Representatives of the new house.

Each group voting by state would then pick the

presidential candidate and obviously the difficulty with

that.

That too means unknown possibilities

and somewhat terrifying ones because as

soon as you begin to get a haze of doubt cast over a choice

it's no longer the majority choice of the people if it becomes a choice in a

smaller body like the house. Immediately you get the

question that we got way back in the 1820s has there been a corrupt bargain. Has there

been a sell out.

Has there been a betrayal in the charges of betrayal will linger

a long time as they lingered a long time then. And I

believe that is being eroded on the part of many young people

today who believe in the basic electoral process

and the basic party structure of the country.

That belief I think might be eroded even more so when I give

you in the first two lectures you say

and I want to tripartite contests how to do it.

When I speak of the candidates and their character

and their personality structure a direction

in which they seem to be leaning and moving I'm talking of all

three.

And that makes it a bit more depressing because the addition of

Mr. Wallace if I may be very candid is one of the most depressing things that has happened

in the American experience depressing and this sense

that it is a response to social anger primarily and social

fears.

Now don't let's be namby pamby about it however.

All moralistic obviously angers

and fears have their role in every campaign.

You will notice that I have postponed until my second talking

and analysis what we call the issues of the campaign and of starting with the

candidates and their character. This gives my own feeling of priority

about that too. I do not think this election is going to be settled on

issues. I think it's going to be settled on candidates and their character.

Because you see the notion that a campaign to settle down issues means

that we are rational beings.

I hold with Jonathan Swift who said man is not homoerotic you know knowledge

he's not rational man he is only right he only has cut box he's only

capable of reason. There is somewhere a glimmer of potential for a reason in

some way. You know where. Very much like an iceberg. The

human personality is the part that we are conscious

about.

Communicate with and so on is the one tenth the book The Night chance

underneath which is hidden is the one chance which is not rational

it is irrational unknown by the way they're not rational and irrational are somewhat different.

The rational for example I call love non-rational

I call sad isn't irrational.

That is the really really destructive drives I call your

rational. But those drives cannot be reduced to rational

calculation like love.

Take the primary one that is not rational.

And human beings are not rational and irrational along with their rationality we are at

Jonathan's face which said We are only capable of reason which gives us some

hope ultimately for organizing a better society and a better world.

You know what has happened is not so much that we have for the first time an election

campaign which deals with non-rationals and irrational but we have for the

first time and a candidate who is getting very

considerable portion of the book. The two top candidates for each of

them under 40 percent.

Mr Wallace is somewhere around 20 and will probably move beyond it.

Candidate who is getting a very considerable portion of the vote has no

notion of foreign policy and only no

experience in it but no notion very little

knowledge of history very little understanding of the

internal dynamics of the society.

But he does express very effectively the fears and social

angers people and his strength lies and

we better recognize.

Mr Nixon particularly is no recognizing

he had been playing a rather cool campaign up to now

holding a lead a pretty considerable lead and feeling that the best thing to do is not to rock the

boat when you have that kind of lead. But now he knows that he has

to go out and divert the vote to make go to WALLACE Because.

And Mr. Louis Harris are perhaps one of our best pollsters says points

out for every vote that Wallace takes from Humphrey he takes two for the

next. That means that the growth of Wallace's

strength means necessarily the weakening of the advantage

that Nixon hands over Humphrey. And if the growth in Wallace's

Springs is large enough and if it comes in the big industrial states

it's quite conceivable that it may throw those states into something

which is something that Mr. Nixon is deeply concerned about that is why he made so

sharp a statement about seeing to it personally

personally. How else would one see to it I don't know what change would

pressure lead that there would be protection for every individual.

You see that's the dangerous one. There is an

irrational sweet tendency like Dish moving in the

country. Once dish is moving and

once it is clear that the motors are

flowing in that direction the great danger range that the

other candidates will move in the same direction.

Let infection the whole campaign and there's no question that the

campaign is going to be infected in that way to an extent it already

has.

I have spoken of the non-rational let me say that

it's rather.

Interesting to look at these candidates in image terms.

Think I've written this somewhere but if you read it I hope you don't mind my repeating it.

As you can see it's often very instructive to ask not so much.

Where does a candidate's stand on issues.

But what is the image that he presents to the country

and what kind of an image does he want to present to the country.

For example take Mr. Nixon Mr. Nixon has worked

very hard to rebuild and reshape his image because the last image he

had he got beaten. Not only did he get beaten in

1960 in the very close race with Mr. Kennedy.

But he got beaten very badly in 1062 race in California

which was a low point for Mr. Nixon's political fortunes that you

remember was the time of the tirade against the press after he had lost

the governorship.

That's the old Mr. Nixon he has worked very hard in May I say very

successfully to reshape the image

not the image of what the hatchet man who was sent out

50 to 1 and 56 both times

related to the sharp chopping that had to be done they felt.

I can recall Mr. Nixon's attack on at least Stevenson

repeatedly and being soft on communism.

When Mr. Agnew by the way tried that on Mr. Humphrey the other day there was general shock

because we've moved beyond that. At least we have with the

two major parties behind them. Beyond that I'm not sure we have with the other candidates.

But this was the early image of Mr. Nixon.

He has just changed that very much.

It's been an amazing lesson in the proposition that if

you work hard enough and if you're intelligent enough and skillful enough you can

remake your public image.

Mr. Nixon's image knowing is that of the cool and

calm statesman like person working for

unity within his party working for unity

in the nation.

Along with that image of course is the comeback image

man who was down almost out who swore in 1962

that he was through with politics and he made his comeback.

Americans by the way I like to be identified with

someone who has made a comeback.

Question of how he did it is interesting the way he he puts it

is that he did it in terms of withdrawal and return. It's going to

be in concept if you read it on your 20s best what

15 volume study of history you will find several volumes in that

sequence. The concept of withdrawal and return the leader

who finds himself.

At all odds with his political situation and withdraws

but he withdraws in order to meditate in order to reflect

and he comes back refreshed and strengthened by the meditation.

And the image that Mr. Nixon would have us believe in is that of withdrawal and

return within the six years that have intervened since the California

episode there has been this medication and reflectiveness. Perhaps

so but it's been also a very busy six years particularly the last

four years in 164 in 66 and 68 and in those

other years 64 66 he traveled throughout the country speaking for a

candidate supporting Mr. Goldwater loyally staunchly in 64

speaking for other candidates getting a lot of what do bills political

bills which in 68 he was able to collect on showing himself

to be loyal party work. But

also what he has managed to do has been with great skill to move into a vacuum

that was left by the other candidates. Here again one should ask what might have

happened if Mr. Romney had not succumb to that curious

foot in mouth disease that he did succumb to. We should never quite know

what might have happened had Mr. Rockefeller I had not suddenly gotten confused

exactly at the point when he should have that that you been valiant

and had courage and decisiveness and moved into the campaign.

I think if any would have carried the thing what would have happened if Rockefeller had not

done that.

The two major blunders by the two major opponents were there and

Mr Nixon moved and moved in fast.

And he has shown enormous skill in maintaining that lead.

I will yield to no one in my admiration of his tactical political

skill and his capacity to make you believe he is a new

person.

But that is not the whole problem is it with a candidate.

The trouble with Nixon lies not so much in the question of whether he used the old Nixon or

the new Nixon. But to me if I may be very candid and

you expect me to. To me it lives in the fact that he has never displayed the

qualities that prepare him for

the presidential tasks and burdens in a deeply

split American society.

He may have these qualities.

Certainly he has them more than his running mate. May I

say it is quite possible that I should be praying for Mr.

Nixon's health and life. After November praying very

hard praying very hard indeed it may well be that he

has these qualities but we cannot help asking questions.

How will he end the war that he speaks of ending with an honorable peace.

By the way talk about sleight of hand. This is really remarkable from the

start Mr. Nixon who has been a hawk ever since the Indochinese war

and the Eisenhower administration it is he who proposed the sending of American intervention troops

into the Indochinese war.