yearring the bicentennial of 1976, u.s. information agency reduced a series of eight programs about the u.s. election process for foreign audiences. america,n reel election 1976, presidential elections. the first episode in the series includes a short documentary on the history of elections since the first party election in 1831, a discussion with three political analysts on how the system has evolved, and profiles of each of the major candidates in 1976. ♪ >> election 1976, a case study. your hostess political analyst richard scam and. >> with me here in washington hess of thetephen brookings institution and professor howard penniman of georgetown university. this is the first of a series of programs that will extend of the campaign until beyond the election in november and are bicentennial put clear. is to bring ao do 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. 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 aspects of the electoral campaign and begin that discussion with a consideration of an historical overview of just the way in which that 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 how it may be projected forward to meet the demands and needs of our bicentennial presidential year. ♪ >> national conventions are a political process uniquely american. each palooka party needs 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. 1831, when the first national party conventions were held to elect presidential candidates. republican and democratic parties have dominated american politics. theham lincoln in 1860, was first republican elected to the presidency. each candidate is rim ever did 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 19 when he four, 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 the party divided. in the end of a his republican opponent calvin coolidge one easily. today, president coolidge is from everett moore for his cool manner and frequent fishing trips. ♪ in 1928, alfred e smith was one of the most colorful and controversial candidates to hold the number one positions on a party ticket. e the happy warrior, alfred smith. at election time, the iowa smile and 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 wendell wilkie proved to be no match for the billionth emma craddick president franklin delano roosevelt. over the years consent democrat alike have run their conventions in the same manner. a chairman is chosen, delegates are certified, a party platform is adopted, 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, adelaide's evenson. >> in the 1952 and 1956 campaigns, the impeccable style of the democratic candidate adelaide's evenson -- adelaide stephenson provided contrast to general eisenhower. eisenhower's strength rested in the warm father image she 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 sample, john f. kennedy in 1960. chairman, will make majority for senator kennedy. [applause] >> finally, there are the acceptance speeches. in 1936, frank when he was about. >> i accept -- franklin d roosevelt. >> i accept the commission and join with you. [applause] ♪ in 1948, strong third and fourth party movement affected the outcome of the elections. with thomas e dewey, the heavily favored republican candidate impeding with strom thurmond, the chief spokesman for the conservative states rights party at 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 victoire. this was one of the greatest electoral upsets in american history. ♪ -- as the victor. >> national conventions are a palooka process uniquely american -- a political process that is uniquely american. there are crowds, music thomas beaches and suspense. speeches andc, suspense. through the ballot box people determine who will assume the burden and power of the american presidency. ♪ steve, and 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? >> that passing parade of all those historical faces certainly suggests to me a personal response on one level to that question, dig. after all, and 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? what have made any difference if the amerco 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 a course that would. there were very different people. an important part of our election system is 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. we don't not know what will happen the next four years. we do not ask candidates hypothetical question, what would you do with easter germans a wall across berlin? what would you do if the soviets placed a fence of missiles i in cuba. we -- missiles in cuba? these these officials -- individuals through elaborate process we hope that through pressures on them and exposure to them we will 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. there, sadly, the potential candidate, eisenhower, had to make a decision. we watch to make a decision. 1972 when the situation with eagleton, the vice presidential candidate of the democratic ticket came up, series of mental illnesses we do not know. and we watch the potential candidate, george mcgovern, make a decision. that was important to us in trying to judge how that person you're getting this leadership to for a fixed four years is going to respond. on that personal level, it's early make the difference. >> howard, let me put same question to you. 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 that it is to the british people who happens to be a party happens to be elected. importantency is so an office in the united states. the role in both metric and foreign policy of leading the people becomes an item of tremendous importance. whencomes more dramatic you get a crisis. everyone, senators, northerners, wasyone else, something 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, everybody knew 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, 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. i think it is certainly true that when you're looking at the historic prospect of american election, 1860 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 at that time. brian -- in 1896, when bryan with the candidate on frequenters of silver. this produced two generations of a publican control. in that sense it is important. the listening to the language of the election and the election of 76 as well for that matter. talked about the candidates in a struggle perspective, what about the issues and what important they may have from the historical overview? stephen: this is where we most often hear that question of tweedledee at tweedledum. doesn't make any difference, because our parties are not heavily ideological. they do not appear, by the standards of some countries, to be very different. but of. course some of they are different and they each present a platform. the candidates each make a long series of speeches, which are commitments to the american people. shows that by and large, they try to honor those commitments. they try to enact when an office the pledges their party makes. they cannot always do it and may find when the president is not wise they were not good minutes they should have made. by lard, politician would prefer to honor commitments that not to honor commitments. there are differences though they are not as sharp as in some other systems. richard: 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 a thousand for an 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 overseas and 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: it seems to me if we come up again in a. of crisis you are going to get as clear and sharp a distinction between american parties as you do between the parties and other countries. richard: or mecca candidates. howard: or candidates -- richard: or american candidates. got a: in 1932 you commitment from both candidates to solve the problem of unappointed and depression. what you had -- 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 in 1936 you had a sharp issue growing nuts 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 in the very sharp on. richard: eddie thing sharp then that would be now in 70's -- to think it is sharper then than it would be now in 1976? howard: yes because we were in the midst of a crisis and now we are not as beasley and the mist of a crisis today. richard: what about fringe issues we care about for 1976 as we have earlier, abortion, gun control, school busing, prayers, a whole host of things above and beyond the economic circumstance. what role they play and what will have a plate in the past? stephen: 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 that, in theory it would be better to have a campaign that focused on perhaps the half-dozen most important issues. nevertheless, candidates are forced to make commitments because they try to appeal so broadly across the board. i tend to think that with rare exceptions, they are 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 develop meant 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 you feel that you have it? you have a job? to think your future is bright? are we at war or peace? we have to find or not? richard: 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 his speech from the end of the train. , orsaw mr. coolidge fishing at least pictures of coolidge looking for fish. lookingnges in 1776 back this panoply of history. d.c. any changes in 1976 in campaign techniques and methods? much of it will be the same. there is a real effort for the candidate in a most any democratic society to make contact with people at the human level. the convention is going to be a rallying ground of partisans on , in addition to actually nominating the candidate. on the other hand, there have been changes. some of the changes are the result of changes in the whole society. a greater dependence on the media that 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 hundred years ago. changer words, it has to as the society and communication instruments change. isn, to some extent, there heightened 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. at debate to a greater extent than they were forced to do prior to the coming of television or to the coming of radio. let me take up the first point you made because it tends to get overlooked. that is not the change for the continuity that we get now. we have the technology for candidate not to have to leave the studio. 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 changing technology. when you had radio, candidates started to use radio and when he had television, candidates started to use television. what strikes me is the amazing similar days over time, rather than differences or differences in technique and response to new technical changes. once said if ae doctor came back from a 1976, they would have to learn new techniques. backdoctor -- velour came would have to learn all the new cases. but a politician would be able to -- if a lawyer came back, they would have to learn new cases. but a politician would fit in. they was a television, you have the theater, you can just do it in advance, nice. you have apples occasion -- amplification of the human voice seizure not have to get something to protect -- to project their own voice. the mechanical changes, the technological changes, while they do affect the way in which to carry on the campaign, they are not so major. finally, what about money? is that going to be vastly different this year? howard: it is going to be quite different this year. one of the reason some of our candidates might stay longer when they're seeking the nominations, is that 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. true thatll also be given the rules that must be in small quantities, may illuminate some people who might get the wealthy backer that wants to push forward -- the ones pushed forward people like stassen and others. i do not think it is normally the wealthy backer that often puts forth the men who ultimately became the president. in general once he became president had a rather broad base of support in their own party and often among independents as well from whom they could get money. richard: and 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 accounts 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. yeah good candidate and organization, whether 1830 or 1930, or 1976, that candidate is probably going to be able, in seeking the presidency, to gather the kind of things needed in the way of money. there are two report can hopefuls in 1976. many more on the democrat excited. here -- many more on that democratic side. here are some seeking the presidency in this 1976 presidential election. >> among the declare candidates for this 48 u.s. presidential election are the incumbent, gerald r. ford. after becoming president following the resignation of former president nixon he is seeking an elected term to continue programs and policies of his first months in office. ronald reagan, former governor of california and before that a film star. reagan is attempting to gain that republican party nomination for president. his platform contends the federal government has become too large and powerful. ♪ among the democratic party candidates are to be carter about former governor of the state of georgia. he started as a peanut farmer and turned politician. he is waging a campaign of personal contact that is lifted him from obscurity to national attention. former u.s. senator from oklahoma, harris, an earlier no, state sounded short is running vigorous all volunteer candidate -- campaign with a strong youth backing. sargent shriver, who helped create and later directed the peace corps under president john f. kennedy, served as ambassador to france during the johnson administration. he was the democrat vice but initial nominee in 1972 -- vice presidential nominee in 1972. indiana, the by of u.s. senate, he has long enjoyed labor union support and achieve national attendant -- attention with amendments providing for the 18-year-old vote and presents a succession. henry jackson of washington on a scoop jackson has taken a strong position on major issues over his 34 years in congress. he is considered liberal on economic issues but leading spokesman for military preparedness. ♪ arizona,te udall from congressman for 16 years as an called link and ask because his height and 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, is known for his strong stand on the rights of the states. he campaigned in 1972 as an independent after losing the bed for the democratic party nomination. bidippling -- losing his for the nomination. has notsination attempt stopped him from caring on a full schedule. >> what is most perplexing questions about an american president election is how did the candidates get there? in other countries, there is usually a 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 and they nodded states. how do i become a candidate for president, if i want to be one? howard: if you want to be a candidate and you have the nerve and energy to do it, you civilly 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. some notion of the kinds of people are who have the interests and the desire and nerve to go out doing it, take a look at the kinds of people that are coming in this time. governors whox have been talking about it and participating. they're not absently unemployed as former governors but 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 x senators, former senators seeking the democratic nomination, one running as an independent. and you have some senators holding office. a member of congress holy office. a former vice president -- a member of congress holding office. a former vice president. and the women interested in preventing abortions. and these people decided they want to be president of the united states and have gone about campaigning and will principate in the primary elections. -- will participate in the primary elections. probably more than anywhere else, you're free to become one of the candidates if you want to. there is virtually nothing that bars you. do not have to be in office. you do not have to have the endorsement of anybody in your party. it is useful to have it, but you do not have to have it. it is free and open. course certain qualifications by law. our constitution says you have to be 35 years of age. you have to be a natural born citizen. there are traditions. over the years they tend to break down the cars we are basically a white anglo-saxon country. that tends to be the type of person who runs. in 1960, we had never had a catholic president before, we had our first catholic president. talk 19 talk, there was 72 of a jew running for vice president. there was talk in 1976 of a black running for vice president. there have been women candidates coming along more frequently. a day disabling quality or qualifications of a person have gradually been eliminated. richard: but you would agree that it is basically a matter of self declaration. what about self identification on the scale of political values , ideological thermometer? stephen: that is a fascinating game and it is a game a can to deal children's game of ms. gulch errors, or there -- of musical chairs, or there is a row of chairs and when the music stops you have to sit in a chair. if you think of each chairs having an ideological chair from the left or right, when the music stopped each candidate tries to sit in one. since we are busily centrist country, the best chairs to sit and are in the middle. we start taking away chairs from the ends when the mesic starts again. in a classic -- when the music starts again. in the 1952 democratic nomination fight, averill harriman who not been known as a liberal in his earlier career, the music stopped and he sat in the liberal chair. alvin barclay had been a liberal most of his life, that tear being occupied, he had to sit in the conservative chair. are thesee 1976 candidates moving the chairs trying to position themselves when the music stops to be able to sit in a good chair. stephen: what is not want to suggest by that. what does not want to suggest that when changes philosophy as one goes by the chairs. some people have a fairly firm base of support in one ideological category or another. are so manyhere candidates, the candidates have to differentiate themselves and make this clear to the public. in this way, they are trying to be conservative in one a little less conservative. >> don't you always have this problem? the candidate takes one position to win the nomination, but the center of his party is not the same position. let'sbe charitable, he the light of truth shine on a different aspect. gentlemen, i want to thank you for being with us in washington. hess and mr. hauer howard -- o ♪ announcer: during the presidential election year of 1976, the u.s. information agency dues programs about the election process for foreign audiences with documenting the election and place 1976 in historical context. from march 12, 1976, the second episode in the series, election 1976, the primaries. three political analysts discussed the nominating process and results that year when ronald reagan was challenging gerald ford for the republan