Election 1976, a case study. Your host is political analyst richard scannan. With me here in washington today are mr. Steven hess of the Bookings Institution and professor Howard Penniman of georgetown university. Now, 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 the parties and the media, and the campaign technique and polling and the rest. But 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 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. Who what we hope to do is 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 election, 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 the needs of our bicentennial president ial 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. It is happening again in 1976. It all ga inn 1831 when the First NationalParty Conventions were held to elect president ial candidates. Since 1956, 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 has own particular campaign style. William Jennings Brian for his fullness of phrases and flamboyant gestures. Teddy roosevelt for his vigorous, direct, and no nonsense manner. 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 cool sij 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. A happy warrior, alfred e. Smith. Yet at election time the iowa smile and the press ant 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 landin and Wendell Wilkie proved to be no match for the brilliant democratic president Franklin Delano roosevelt. Over the years, republicans and democrats alike have run their conventions in basically the same american. A chairman is chosen. Delegates are certified. A Party Platform is adopted and candidates for the presidency are nominated. Confuse fellow delegates, i give you the man from little bittertiville, the next democratic nominee, and our next president of the United States, al fed e. Stevenson. The campaigns offed Aly Stevenson provided an interesting contrast to the personal style of eisenhower. Eisenhowers strength rested in the fatherly image he projected into millions of american homes. When the demonstrations for each candidate are completed the roll call vote follows. Sometimes zeist decisive, other times a formality. In recent years most candidates have received the necessary majority on the first ballot. For example, john f. Kennedy in 1960. Mr. Chairman, wyoming vote will make a majority for senator kennedy. Finally, there are the acceptance speeches n. 1936, franklin d. Roosevelt. I accept the commission you have handed me. I join with you. I am enlisted in 1948, strong third and fourth Party Movements significantly affected if outcome of the elections with thomas e. Dewey, the heavily favored republican candidate speeding with Strom Thurman the chief spokesman for the conservative States Rights Party and George Wallace. Harry truman walked away as the victor. It 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, the speeches, music, and suspense. After the candidates are chosen and the campaign has ended, the people speak. And through the ballot box determine which candidate will assume the burden and power of the american presidency. Steve, in looking at a film like this, i suppose there are some who would say, well, isnt it all just tweedle dumb and tweedle deand really isnt that important, elections dont really decide anything . What do you think . Well, that passing parade of all of those historical faces certainly suggests to me a personal response on one level of that question, dick. After all, an election by definitions is 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 a difference if the people chose stevenon over eisenhower in 52. Or hoover instead of roosevelt in 1932, i think the answer is of course it would. They were very different people. An important part about your election system is it isnt a fixed term. We are electing people for the next four years. With one exception they will serve four years unless they die. We dont know what is going to happen in the next four years. We dont ask our candidates hypothetical questions, what would you do if the east germans built a wall across berlin . What would you do if the soviets placed offensive missiles in cuba . So we put these individuals through an elaborate long, grueling process, which we hope by constant pressures on them and exposure to them we are going to find out some things that will be useful to us in making this choice. Dramatic examples would be suddenly in 1952 it was discovered that the republican Vice President ial candidate had a secret fund that was paying for his personal expenses. Now, there suddenly the president ial candidate, eisenhower in this case had to make a decision. We watched him make a decision. 1972 when the situation with eagleton, the Vice President ial candidate on the democratic ticket came up. A series of Mental Illnesses we didnt know. And we watched the president ial 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 certainly make a difference. Howard, let me put the same question to you, in the view of stevens response to it, what would you think . Let me begun by quoting david butler, who is a great scholar of american, british and european politics who wants said that 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 of the people, it 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. And the moment the election took place, you began to get a revolt in the south. This was 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 dont 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 if you are looking at the historical prospect of american elections, 1860 is very clear that any man other than lincoln elected under those conditions would have produced measurably different results in the long run perhaps, within 50 years, the results might have been the same. But certainly americans at that time and again in 96 when bryan was the candidate on the free coinage of silver. These produced 96, it produced almost two generations of republican control. Certainly in that sense it is very important. Though i suppose listening to the language of the election and the election of 7 6, too, for that matter that people might have a different view. What about the issues, steve . We talked about the candidates in Historical Perspective . What about the issues and what import they may have from the historical overview we are doing today. This is where we most hear the question of tweedel deand tweedel dumb. Our policies are different. They each present a platform. The candidates each make a long series of 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 that their party makes. They cant always do it. They may find when theyre president that its not wise, they werent good commitments that they should have made. But by and large, a politician would refer to honor his commitment than not honor his commitment. Im sure this is true. When we look at the way in which not the platforms of the parties, but the research pronouncements of the candidate are seen, you take the kind of issue that were going to get this year as we have on the past on 1,000 different issues. What this man or woman says, if we have a woman as candidate, it counts. Not the platform. The platform is usually a generalized statement in which you can pay little or no regard. But youve seen it overseas and you can make this comparison. What would you think was the difference here between the kind of historic commitment weve had and that of our friends over the water. It seems to me if we come up again in a period of crisis, then youre going to get as clear and sharp a distinction between american parties as you do between the parties in other countries or american candidates. Or american candidates. If one goes back to the 1932 36 period. In 1932, what you got was a commitment from both candidates to solve the problem of unemployment and depression. What you had had between those years was the development of a program which is different from had been the previous american programs. And here you then had in 36 a sharp issue growing not so much out of the speeches of 1932 as going out of the impact of a president , in this case franklin roosevelt, on the economy, on the politics, on the whole social life of the country. And this was the issue in 1936 and a very sharp one. And you think sharper than it would be now in 76 . Yes, i think very likely. You had a you were in the midst of a crisis and were not as obviously in the midst of a crisis today. Steve, what about these fringe issues, abortion, gun control, school bussing, prayers. What role will they play . What role have they played in the past . Because were so diversified, so many different groups and interests, candidates are forced to speak to this whole menu of issues. Ironically, it doesnt make for the most useful democratic process in that in theory, it would be much 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 that they are, as you say, fringe issues, our elections, by and large are decided on breadandbutter issues and the issue of war and peace. These other are side shows. Very interesting. Very useful in the whole development of a laundry list. But 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 . Will we have to fight or not . Let me shift, if i may, howard, to another thing that we saw in looking at this film. That was technique. You saw these exciting scenes from the convention and Teddy Roosevelt making his speech from the end of the train and you saw i guess it was mr. Coolidge fishing out there or at least looking for fish. Do you see any major changes in 76 looking back at this p panoply . Much of it will be the same. There is a real effort for the candidate to make some kind of contact with the people they at the human level, this is many part what theyre trying to do. And 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 have been some changes. Some of the changes are the result of changes in the whole society. Greater dependence on the media than there would have been 50 years ago when it simply wasnt available. There will be less of the kinds of parades and that sort of thing which dominated it a hundred years ago. In other words, what im saying is, it has to change as the society and as the communication and instruments of communication change. And then i think that to some extent there is a because the candidates move around the country because they 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 plier rior to the g of television or radio. Let me take up the first point you made. Its interesting and tends to get overlooked. Thats not the change but the continuity that we get. We have the technology for a candidate not to have to leave the studio. He can appeal to 220 Million People just by sitting in this chair. But they dont. 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. When you had television, they started to use television. What strikes me is the amazing similarities over time rather than differences in technique and in response to new technical changes. Someone once said that if a doctor came back from 1912 to 1976 he has to learn all the new techniques. If the doctor came 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. He would simply say, well, television, you got the theater, you can do it in advanced, cant you . Isnt that nice . You have amplification of the human voice. You dont have to hit somebody with the voice of his own to project out to the last row of the balcony. You can do it almost anyway you want. Im intrigued that both of you agree that the mechanical changes, the technological changes, why they do of course affect the way in which you carry on a campaign, are not so major. Finally, just quickly, what about money . Is that going on vastly different this year . Its going to be quite different this year. Indeed one of the reasons that some of our candidates may stay in a little longer than might be the case when there is when theyre searching out the nominations of the two parties. One of the reasons they may stay in is there is some government financing if they pick up a minimum amount of money that they can get some assistance from the federal government to help finance it. Whether it will also be true that given the rules, that it must be in small quantities, may eliminate some people who might get the wealthy backer that once pushed forward people, i dont know. I dont think that its the wealthy backer that ordinarily put forth the man who ultimately became the president. In general, the ones who became the president has a broad base of support within their own party and often among independents as well from whom they could get money. They used to say you need a good candidate, a good issue, a good obama administratimoney an. While the money counts and counts for a good deal, it is not the thing which in the final analysis is going to control. If you have a good candidate and good organization, whether its 1830 or 1930 or 1976, that candidate is probably going to be able in his seeking after the presidency, to gather together 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 of those seeking the presidency in this 1976 bicentennial president ial election. Among the declared candidates, the 48th u. S. President ial election are the incumbent, jerald r. Ford, is seeking an elected term so he can continue the policies 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 partys nomination for president. His platform contends that the federal government has become too large and powerful. Among the Democratic Party candidates is jimmy carter. He started out as a peanut farmer and turned politician. Hes waging a campaign of personal contact. Fred harris, an Oklahoma State senator, is running a vigorous allvolunteer campaign with a strong youth backing. Sergeant schriver who directed the peace corps served as u. S. Ambassador to france under the johnson administration. He was the democratic Vice Pre