Incredible book quest for the presidency the storied and surprising history of president ial campaigns in america from university of nebraska, press and this is one of these books that is welcoming to scholars and for armchair historians and for general readers of all sorts one of the things that we do together, one of the really only unifying things we do together. All of us as a country is a president ial election every four years. We all have a stake in those of us are voting age that is in terms of where our country is going. And it distills the destiny of the United States into a single human being and index and in essence for range of ideas. This has been a feature of this country since the presidency of George Washington and bob real has pulled together a comprehensive history of every single president ial election in one readable volume. This is the word surprising in the subtitle is not frivolous even president ial scholars, i think are going to find details in here that they havent seen before and i was proud to give a cover endorsement to this book and im really honored to be sitting here talking to to bob. Thank you for doing this job and thank you to the National Archives for hosting us. Yeah. Thanks for having me on time. Thanks for that. Wonderful introduction. I feel a slidered and yeah, i just second thanks to the National Archives for having us on and its a Great Organization for for Research Online or in person and yeah, we appreciate it. Thanks. Yes, and the other Great Organizations that we should talk about here in the United States are coffee houses and taverns exactly. These were the social media of the day certainly and is where a country persons got together to talk argue. Sometimes spiritually about the great issues facing the country and what they were going to do when it came to the massive decisions that we make every four years. So in that spirit, im going to open up. All right, open up a beer. Im gonna get loaded. Dont worry. This is a nonalcoholic bear, but yeah, and then bob. Ive my coffee here and thank you for starting with this tom. Its a its a part of my book as you know. Yes, i tried to make the book accessible to a popular audience and one of the things i did was divide american political history into seven years and the introduction to each era as you know, i set in in historic tavern or coffee shop that was relevant to the time and all of them still exist today. So anybody who reads the book and wants to do sort of a seven site tour of these places is welcome to but what i did was i try to come up with a story that was relevant to that tavern or coffee shop. That was also relevant to American History in that period so for instance, you know a cafe du monde in new orleans, which Everybody Knows today as a pretty big tourist spot you go to the free coffee beignets, but it open in 1862 in the middle of the civil war. And at the time new orleans was under a union blockade. And there was a coffee shortage, so its kind of an interesting time to open a coffee shop. So what residents did was they mixed coffee with chicory roots to make the coffee last longer and today kathy dumont still serves coffee mixed with chicory root. Its there. Its their specialty. So for each error, i try to find a story like that thats relevant, but that, you know provides a bit more context to that era so the cheers to coffee shops and taverns. Heres heres the coffee shops and taverns and and you begin the narrative with a coffee shop that has been reconstructed in a sense write a stride Independence Hall in philadelphia. Can you talk about the significance of that particular coffee house . Yeah, so yeah, this couple coffee houses. Um, yeah, so i interesting because the the version of the book. I talk about city tavern in philadelphia, which was very significant because its where philadelphia was the National Capital for a while. Its where the declaration of independence was written, of course in 1776 and the National Constitution in 191787. And city tavern was just down the street from Independence Hall. And whos who have the Founding Fathers used to go there and they used to grab beers. They had a coffee room. They had they had a tavern and they used to go there and after, you know being an Independence Hall all day and debating the constitution they go down there and have a beer and continue their debates. So unfortunately city tavern closed during the covid pandemic. It was unfortunate victim of of the pandemic. So we made a lastminute change in the book, which may even have been after you read it and we inserted frances tavern in new york city, which is also very very relevant to the founding generation George Washington met with his commanders there during the revolutionary war Alexander Hamilton and aaron burr were actually there for union of revolutionary war veterans just a week or two before hamilton killed burr in in the duel. So anyways, both of them were very connected to the founding of the United States and they both. Francis tavern still exists city tavern. We hope is eventually going to be reopened. We mentioned earlier that these places were like the twitter or the facebook of their day in which ideas were batted around sometimes with great ranker one of the defining features the lasting impacts of president ial campaigns are the if youll excuse the expression the tweets the ways that ideas are crystallized just down to a few words i can think of tippecanoe and tyler too. You look yeah. Thats one of those things that we remember William Henry harrison for yeah, right nixons the one right. Yes, people can a blinking the rail splitter. I like i honest a cool coolidge Barry Goldwater a choice not an echo. Can you talk about the the crystalization of these ideas and some would say the gross simplification of complex policy into these, you know chance. Yeah, and it what i find interesting is yeah, this is obviously a big part of Politics Today it it really started in a way with typical and tyler tour with the 1840 campaign, which i find fascinating democracy was becoming a lot more popularized around the time. I mean began with Andrew Jackson and you know 1828. But prior to jackson politics was still a sport for elitists really and and it began opening up more states began having a popular vote with the of jackson, but 1840. Really interesting story the the wigs nominated William Henry harrison, and the democrats van buren was the incumbent and they originally thought you know van buren beat harrison four years ago and harrisons oldies late 60s, and you know, of course we can beat him again and some newspaper editor or columnist wrote a piece saying that you know, you should just retire harrison to his Old Log Cabin and give him some hard cider to drink and heal while away the rest of his days, you know, and the wigs took that and they ran with it and they and they totally turned it around on the democrats and they said yes, of course, you know, he, you know, hes a veteran and he does he lives in a lot of cabin and he does drink hard cider and hes a common person just like the rest of us. And they created this Amazing Campaign and they you know, they had parades with log cabin floats, and they used to sell bottles of whiskey, you know shaped like log cabins and tippecanoe in tyler too shaving cream and all these things and it was really the first mass branding of a political candidate and they did they distilled it right down to that slogan typicanoe and tyler too and many people listening will probably know this but if you dont tip a canoe was William Henry harrison defeated some Indian Tribes at the battle of tippecanoe who are trying to form a native american confederacy and tyler was his Vice President ial candidate. So it typically new and tyler too. It was very illiterative at rhymed and they just ran with that and the irony of this is that harrison was actually a pretty wealthy candidate he grew up in a pretty wealthiest state in virginia. He moved to the northwest territories. He lived in ohio and his 22 were mentioned overlooking the ohio river. And Martin Van Buren was the son of a tavern owner in upstate new york in the hudson river valley. So van buren was actually the common man candidate and harrison was the elitist but the wigs were able to make it so that harrison seemed like the common man and they made van buren the incoming president to the elitists and i mean ever since then branding and especially trying to distill the branding down to a slogan. Its been with us ever since all the way up to make America Great again, you know. Is this a good way in your view and im not just talking about recent crystallization of ideas down to you know, 140 characters. Is this is this a healthy way to run a democracy . Oh, thats a good question. I mean i mean, theres no way around it. Obviously because i mean its its a system that we have and theres pros and kinds i mean, obviously the easy answer is no its not, you know, we should have discussions of issues and we should vote based on that but but its the society we live in i like to think of, you know, 1960 the first president ial debate between kennedy and nixon that was on television and theodore white. Its kind of interesting because now we watch a debate and they give candidates, you know, one minute to make an Opening Statement or to answer a question and the moderators are always interrupting and saying, you know stop, you know your times up back in 1960 when kennedy and nixon debated, i believe i maybe wrong in the exact numbers, but i believe they had eight minutes for their Opening Statement each and you take two and a half minutes to answer a question in theater or white who wrote that great book the making of the president in 1960. He complained even then that it wasnt enough time. You know, how do you explain complex issues and two minutes or eight minutes or whatever you just cant do it, but what he said was that what it did do with the debate did do was it sort of show candidates . Under stress and it showed them, you know in a certain environment and i think these slogans sort of do that too. I mean if you can distill your candidacy into a slogan that resonates with people or that, you know captures the zeitgeist, you know, sort of like obama did in a way. Or reagan did in 1980 or even sell the candidates through the years if you can do that then i think it says something about i hope it says something about your vision for you where you want to take their country. So, yeah, ideally no we have discussions of issues, but thats not going to happen. So i think there is something at least to be said for the way its still down sure. I mean as much as wed like to think of ourselves as rational beings who study complex policy issues and weigh the evidence and arrive at a carefully considered verdict human nature just doesnt work that way, right we as as every car salesman know knows we we go on feelings and we justify it later after the fact with whatever data that we can marshall selectively, you know, cherry picked sure. Absolutely. Yeah. Was there an election that you that you covered in this vast research that how do i say this . Is was more carefully considered than others or did you find that current of passion underneath everything . When you carefully considered as in not emotional. Yeah a more calm thoughtful if youll excuse the phrase kind of boring, you know set of clear differences clear choices that did not come down to raw charisma raw feeling. I think if theres a set of clear choices then no i think emotion is always going to play a part. There are certainly a few campaigns that were less charismatic one that comes to mind are the the battles between Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison in 1888 and 1892. You know harrison defeated clevelands bid for reelection 88 although cleveland won the popular vote and then 1892 cleveland came back and he defeated harrison. Neither cleveland nor harrison. I havent can be accused of being very charismatic and im sure im going to get this quote wrong, but some writer referred to the election they said you know sort of like calm mustachio Grover Cleveland going up against calm bearded, you know, rutherford bas and the Biggest Issue in the election was was tariffs whether we should, you know, raise or increase raise our lower terrorists. It did not inspire a lot of a lot of passion or a lot of parades or you know, great slogan or anything. So yeah, there are a few elections like that, but i think in general most elections elicit a lot of emotion and i think thats one of the things that we forget because were so focused on the present day or the past few elections in American History, you know, i remember youll only goes back so far. But sometimes we forget how fascinating some of these older elections really were and how much emotion they really stirred in people in. In the introduction to my book i quote alexis to talk about and democracy in america where he said, you know elections in the United States are you know like this again, im gonna knock any of the quid exactly, right . But this time in national passion, and he said its as if a fever takes over the entire country during an election, but you wrote that in 1835, you know, and so he saw that way back then and so in that sense, you know the passions that were seeing today. Are not very different because people always think that the future of the country hinges on the outcome of the election and sometimes its really true. Sometimes its not but i think people often feel that way. Sure. Its easy to look at composites a portraits gatherings of all the president s you get these guys with the mutton chops. And as you mentioned various interesting facial hair particularly in the mid to late 19th centuries, and you know their names come down to you know, some older high schools. Perhaps bear their name chester a Arthur Benjamin harris and James Garfield. Yeah. Theres a vaguely familiar, but you know, we we obviously forget that at one time these were pitched battles spirited arguments titanic wife or death struggles and some of them over issues that as you say are have receded into our National Consciousness and you know when i think about those guys, whatever reason like maybe because im from the west i think of james k polk, but a tennessean whos one term presidency was enormously consequential and i dont think is is widely appreciated. Just how much was done during that presidency in the 1840s enormous decisions, you know. Yeah. It was yeah a lot of people dont think of poke these days, but yes, you know, excellent work enormously consequential and i have i have a piece when one of the other things i do in my book is at the end of every year three or five elections. I have a piece that sort of tries to put these elections into context to try to connect elections across time that so we have a better understanding and so but either those elections in context or put them in context of the current day, and i have a piece after folks presidency he won in 1844. I mean just by the skin of his teeth he won the popular vote by a small amount and he went one the Electoral College because he won the state of new york by i think was 5, hundred and six votes over henry clay and clay lost new york. There was a Third Party Candidate james bernie of the antislavery the Abolitionist Liberty Party who won about 15,000 votes in new york that might otherwise have gone to clay. So pope came very close to losing the election and whats interesting is that this was when the annexation of texas was on the national agenda, john tyler had introduced it and polk being a protege of Andrew Jackson and being a southern democrat was in favor of annexing texas. They wanted more slave territory in the country and henry clay although he was from kentucky. He was more northern in his sensibilities. He did not want to annex, texas and he he came out and he said, texas is going to be settled by our race. Theyre gonna have similar customs to us that theyre going to speak english. Were going to be good neighbors, but theyre going to be their own country. And so if clay had won the election, its at least possible. I mean, nobody knows with history, but its possible that texas would never have an annexed and certainly that there were never have been a mexicanamerican war because it was the annexation of texas and then pulled put troops in in west texas, you know over the dispute of boundary. That the war started and then the United States, course, you know in troops went down as far as mexico city, i believe and the peace treaties after the war the United States acquired new mexico. What is now, new mexico, arizona, california parts of colorado, nevada . So its possible none of that would have been part of the United States, which is fascinating to think about and the civil war. I mean, who knows . I mean there would have been disputes over slavery, but the civil war was triggered in large part because it disputes over whether there should be slavery in the west. So its fascinating to think that 5100 votes in new york in 1844. Determined you know, whether the United States. Would have california and the pacific northwest. Its just in mind bogging to think about and and folks presidency, you know was enormously consequential in that respect. Sure, and i think also want to about the moving parts of and the way that small strange incidents sometimes precipitate these large movements of armies and and borders. Its almost tolstoian and scope and i think of the canon explosion that that killed the secretary of state. Im sure who was not nearly as rabbit and advocate for the annexation of texas as his replacement john c, calhoun right of south carolina. Insisting that texas must be brought into the union in the scope of your research. Did you come across other . Unpredictable incidents that had big effects on National Choices interesting question i mean thats that thats the one that comes to mind immediately that i always think about. Let me think about that. I mean, whats lets look at florida 2000. Well, yeah, i mean yeah sure we can make a case that you know had the Supreme Court been one vote different had there not been a staged riot and miami al gore would have been the president arguably no iraq war arguably. None of the things that George W Bush did would have on and on i butterfly flaps its wings. Right, right. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah, thats thats really interesting to look at and yeah in the 2000 election i go through it extensively in my book and you know the debate can go on forever about who the extra winner of that election was, you know, the recounts showed that depending on how you counted it. It could have gone either way, you know if they had continued with the over vote count bush would have won if they had included under votes. No the opposite the included with if they continue with the undervotes bush would have won if they included over votes gore would have won if you know the palm beach butterfly ballot hadnt you know caused thousands of people to unnecessarily vote for Patrick Buchanan gore would have won easily. Yeah, and the iraq war Afghanistan War and Supreme Court justices. I mean something that were dealing with, you know today. I mean if you want to think about Something Else in terms of the Supreme Court, i would go back to 1968 something. Thats sort of lost a history. Nobody really talks about but you know, that was your George Wallace obviously ran a really strong third party campaign. And his goal. He didnt think he could win the election, but he wanted to win enough electoral votes in the south running as a law and order candidate and was written in a racial conservative the story be the kingmaker so that then he could negotiate with nixon andrew or humphrey for his electoral votes and its he was about you know around 20 in the pollster a lot of the year until he faded near the end and when you know eight or nine ten percent somewhere around there. But it scared the heck out of the country because it became very close to throwing the election into the house of representatives and the country was scared that you know, somebody could do this that somebody came so close to doing this and there was a big movement to abolish Electoral College and nixon after he took office in 1969 was in favor of it. I think like 80 of americans were in favor of it the house of representatives voted to abolish the Electoral College by an overwhelming. Margin. I mean like over 300 votes in the house and established a National Popular vote and it had majority support in the senate, but it was filibustered by southern senators again, this was only a few years after the civil rights and Voting Rights acts of 196465. And they couldnt really abide by the thought of blacks in the south being put on an equal level to the white suit then controlled southern governments and you know the whole one person one vote thing and so southern senators filibustered this Electoral College act. And they killed it. Basically i filibuster even though 80 of americans supported it and if it hadnt been for that filibuster in 1969, we would have abolished the Electoral College and instituted National Popular vote and you think of the ramifications for you know 20 years with five of the six conservative Supreme Court justices and no matter what your ideology is. I mean you can before you can be against this but its the fact that history that five of the six conservative Supreme Court justices were appointed by president s who came into office after first losing the electoral vote, you know, george bushs appointments were in a second term, but he never would have had that second term obviously and donald trump had three appointments. So you think of you know, one small event that changed history. I mean that one filibuster by southern senators in the late 60s fascinating you mentioned a third parties and something you hear a lot in modern politics on the democrats side primarily. Is that both parties are the same. That they both been captured by corporate interests. And so therefore were going to run a Third Party Candidate who offers a true choice, of course republicans talk about rhinos republicans and name only we think of this as kind of a modern complaint. But has that existed since the the 18th century kind of a woman that americans really arent offered a choice. Oh, yeah, absolutely there. Forever i mean the first one was the the Antimasonic Party back in in jacksons day. Was you know. Made up of people who thought that too much of the government was, you know, talk about conspiracy theories controlled by by masons, you know, and there was you know, and they were elitist and they actually won one vote one president ial election. They elected a few governors. But yeah go through it all theres always. Its usually some precipitating issue. I would think i mean, you know ross perot in 1992 and 96 and John Anderson in 1980 or two examples of candidates who i think tapped into the sense that voters didnt appreciate either parties candidates, you know, they in 1980. They they were disappointed with carter and and they were afraid that reagan might be too conservative. They didnt know and in the 90s, you know, it was that lament that the parties are too much alike, but often theres some precipitating issue. I mean go back to 1848 Martin Van Buren ran as the candidate of the Free Soil Party that wanted to limit the expansion of slavery in the west and 1856 milled fillmore interestingly. Both expresident s was the candidate of the American Party which you know, we know as the no nothings which ran a nativist campaign very very similar to the 2016 trump republicans. They you know, they wanted to restore america to a previous age of greatness, to keep immigrants out that were polluting American Culture and at the time it was Irish Catholics that you know, they were they were against and they won they almost 22 of the vote in 1856 running on that campaign. In 1892. There was a Peoples Party which was a prairie populist movement from the the great plains and they won four states, i believe and they basically preach the rise of Williams Jennings bryan in 1896 and and that coming Progressive Movement in the early 20th century. They were running out a lot of the issues that the progressive later ran on. One of the most famous Third Party Candidates was Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 when he tried to arrest the republican nomination back from William Howard taft and was disappointed that he lost it at the Convention Even though he had, you know, one of vastly higher number of delegates and primaries that year, so he started his own party of the Progressive Party and finished second to wilson that year and helps with the republican vote. Yeah all the way through 1948. Truman was he faced a split in Democratic Party on two different wings. The democrats that year passed the civil rights plank in their platform and southern democrats were so enraged that they broke away and they formed the Dixiecrat Party and nominated strong thurmond and on the on trumans left henry a new Progressive Movement emerged and Henry Wallace the former Vice President was a nominee of the Progressive Party that year so yeah, and then wallace, of course in 68 and all the way up through perot in the present, so i think every couple decades something emerges where either people are disillusioned with the two major parties or some major issue emerges that the two neither of the two major parties is doing a good enough job dealing with and so it kind of wells up from below. Um, i was a political reporter once and spent a lot of time with with elected officials and one thing that i of course noticed as as everyone does who spends time with them is that there are enormously usually charismatic, you know emotionally intelligent that they, you know, try and get you on what Robert Hyland would call a grokking level but experience though kind of suspicious of charisma suspicious of campaigns, as you know, i want to vote for the person who most excites me who like really engenders that sort of strong feeling that this is like, you know the quarterback of the Football Team that i want. You know and what ive tried to tell friends. Theyre probably sick of listening to this that you know, what you that candidates are ultimately index system systems for ideas and a whole raft particularly in the federal level of appointments. You know not just Supreme Court justices, but the entire executive branch. Cabinet secretaries, you know who who is gonna be the director of of the bureau of Land Management . You know, thats really important to westerners like me, you know, thats doesnt seem to be on the ballot, but actually it is right by doing this kind of binary choice between two two kind of distinct philosophies of how American Government should work. And so what i tell people is dont get caught up and personalities, you know, it could be you know, the a wooden post that youre electing just so long as it you know is the party label that conforms to you know, the kinds of ideas that you want to see i want to see bob. Do you think thats a good way to vote or am i wrong on this . No, i mean i think an ideal world. Yeah, you should you should vote based on that, but its inevitable that people vote based on emotions and yeah, i mean, i mean idealist and i like to think that people weigh the issues and they vote for they candidate enter the party that most represents their concerns, but its simply not true. You doesnt happen. You know, i mean barack obama was is incredibly intelligent and capable obviously, but people voted for him based on emotion in 2008. Ronald reagan, you know with people voted for him based based on emotion in 1980 john kennedy after people saw the debates. It was a small number, but it was enough to swing the election. I mean when you look at the polling afterwards the number of people who said the first debate when kennedy was perceived as the winner by people who watched on tv as opposed to people who listen to on radio. The number of people who said that as suede their vote was enough to have tipped a popular vote in that years election. So so people do and so what you hope is that you find a candidate who represents youre like you said, you know vessel for idea for those ideas somebody who represents that but is also capable of tapping into the zeitgeist of moving people emotionally. Thats the ideal. Mmhmm. Ive got a ton more questions for bob, but i want to open this up as in the spirit of democracy to anyone who might be listening on the live stream to enter your questions into the chat, and id be glad to ferry them to to our author here. And while were waiting for that i want to ask bob. What was your Biggest Surprise in this research. Did you have a moment in the archives or in the midst of doing your reading that you just were blown away by something that you dont . I dont want blown away, but i think its always surprising to realize how emotional. These elections have always been and im going back to 1796 and 1800 with you know with adams and jefferson. I mean to see some of the quotes that appeared in newspapers back then its you know, i mean adams was called they call a hideous hermaphroditical figure or something, you know, and who had um, he said he wasnt really a man in man or a woman and and jefferson. His opponent said that if you were elected that, you know, and murder would be openly practicing United States and in a bibles would be banned and you know, its and talk about you people thinking it was a life and death, you know election it kind of amazing and all the way through, you know, Andrew Jackson was devastated when he saw a report that suggested his what his mother was a had been a prostitute, you know brought over to the United States. He was a scotts irish immigrant and you know, somebody suggested that is his mother was a prostitute and he was a result of this. My favorite criticisms came actually from the pen of Davy Crockett who you know, we know is this, you know western frontier settler, but it was also a congressman for a while and he took a pen and and totally trash Martin Van Buren. He said if it wasnt, you know, you talked about mutton shops earlier. He said if it wasnt for his money shop sideburns, you know, you wouldnt be able to tell whether he was a man or a woman, you know, giving a tight leggings or whatever you were and so yeah, i mean, i think we tend to think that oh, you know the founding generation, you know, they they do this for idealistic reasons, and they did but they were passionate and they wanted to win these elections and and they thought that this was life and death. And so i think that always surprises me. It surprises me to a little bit Abraham Lincoln, you know, we revere him as one of our two or three greatest president s and seems almost inevitable in retrospect that he you know, of course he wanted 1860 in a fourway race, and it was narrow, but it seems like oh, of course he was reelected in 1864. But credit he was by every side. When historians said that conservatives saw him a radical and liberals taught him a failure and it reminds me of the present day. I mean in a sense, you know, i mean barack obama and joe biden the presidencies are are painted as radical, but by republicans, but yet liberals in their own party think that theyre failures and and you know, they people said the same thing. Well lincoln and a lot of people thought he was not going to win reelection. The country was exhaust. So brother civil war radical republicans didnt think linking was doing enough to end slavery and democrats thought he was doing too much and everybody even republicans the republicans. Thought we need to find a stronger candidate. Theres no way hes gonna win and they talked about nominating Ulysses Grant or salmon chase the treasury secretary. It was lincoln himself. In fact and august of 1864. He wrote a letter and he put in envelope. He sealed it and he had his cabinet sign it. He said were gonna open this after the election in the letter. He said that after i lose that George Mcclellan democratic candidate, im going to cooperate with him between the election and the inauguration to try to save the union during those few months because he assumed he was gonna lose the election and it wasnt until the fall when sherman captured atlanta and grant started painting the confederate Confederate Army down in virginia. In a the radical republicans that actually nominated their own candidate again because they thought lincoln was a liberal enough john fremont who had been their candidate in 1856. And later governor of the arizona territory. Anyways, he withdrew from the race in september because he thought okay the union army is inside a victory and im afraid if i stay in the race that its gonna split the Republican Party and its gonna elect the democrat thats going to preserve slavery. So it really wasnt until the last two months of that election that the stars sort of a line from for lincoln and he any one reelection. So yeah, things like that. Things like that surprised me. Because we have the sense that politics wasnt like that then but it was. You you and i and many others are real junkies for this stuff. You know, its just its just popcorn. Its its really fun. Um, but ill confess like a certain weariness when you know fully two years out before the contest, you know, the news is already full of news from rubber chicken dinners from iowa, you know these exhaustive portraits of all the contenders the obsessive focus that the National Press has on these contests and i want to ask do you think some of it is overblown . Overblown or overdone overblown do we do we spend too much time on it . I mean im asking a biographer to um, you know, minimize the importance of his own subject, which is right. Wheres a very rude thing to do, but i want to say like would you think that for as important as they are . Do we overvalue them . Yeah, i think we do. I certainly think we do. I think it personally my personal opinion. I think the elections go on for too long and we i mean, you know we spent so much time evaluating every little thing. You know what everybody says on a debate stage in every gap and every because of this obsessive focus on elections because im really for almost two years before election. I mean everything gets it gets blown up and and becomes a big thing, but it wasnt always like this though. I mean the rise of television and then more recently the rise of the internet as i think certainly accessorated this it was not always this obsessive focus for for a year or two before and you know, we talked a little bit earlier about the 1968 election with George Wallace, but 1968 was also it can its indirectly related to to this topic as well. I think 1968 is i almost think we should ever before 1960 and after 1968, you know dividing land in american politics in 1968 humphrey won the democratic nomination without running in a single primary and he was the last candidate to do that and a lot of the backers of Eugene Mccarthy and Robert Kennedy were pretty upset that he did that and so they started a movement in the Democratic Party and eventually nationally to have more emphasis on primaries and caucuses and so the democrats essentially rewrote the rules between 1968 and 1972 as a direct result of humphreys nomination and they gave more power to primaries and caucuses before that. I mean starting between 1912 and 1968 candidates would run in primaries, but it was mostly to prove their medal to prove that they could get votes, but the decisions were still made by Party Leaders for the for the most part on the Convention Floor after 1968. That was no longer the case and so 72 with mcgovern. He was the first nominee who one his nomination entirely on the basis of primaries and caucuses and and on and i think we we dont often appreciate how much that has changed american politics. Weve we took away Political Parties as gatekeepers, you know, theres no longer this filter there and it i mean television already contributed to the rise of candidate center campaigns, but it just really took off ever since then. And i mean if you think about it, i mean mcgovern wouldnt have won a nomination of 72 jimmy carter and 76 north donald trump in 2016. Without this change in american politics and you can argue a few others. I mean i dont know maybe obama maybe clinton who knows but certainly trump and the governing carter were not have won their nominations. If Political Parties still had to say and so what youre saying, but how this is overdone. I think its overdone in large part because of that because now no longer a Political Parties the gatekeeper, but the media is the only gatekeeper and so the media then obsessively focuses on all of these things, but isnt the extended primary campaign also a fight for donations that we corporate and moneyed interest want to obviously put their cash on the on the winning marker, you know any election. They dont want to see an investment just go up and smoke. I mean those of us who have given as individuals to political campaigns. No, just how how bad it feels when you you know, spend all this money, you know, hoping to get someone elected and then like, well, thats thats it right arent primaries of contest for that that viability and then access to to money which as your book points out speaks louder than ever. Yeah, absolutely. And you know and there is something to be. Said for running this gauntlet because if you cant run this gauntlet or primaries and caucuses if you cant run a campaign, you cant run it over office. I mean, some people can run a campaign and still cant run an oval office, but i would argue that if you cant run a campaign certainly you dont deserve to be president. So there is that to be said for it but on the other side it has also, you know, put the media in the position of being the sole gatekeeper by taking away Political Parties, and its contributed to what you your original question whether this is all overblown. I think its overblown to a large degree. Because of because of the candidate centered nature of the process hmm. Yeah candidates need to start. Years ahead of time to raise donations that they need to get attention. They need to go up in the polls in the further go up in the polls the more, you know, the more attention to get the more donations. They raise so and hence the the kind of cult of personality that that emerges at various times. Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. I see we have a question here and this gets back into the what ifs the sort of alternative history usss grant a pioneer for his time on race relations. But administration was dog with scandal a question from from an audience member here. Had he been reelected would structures have been put in place. That would have had it off the toxic effect of jim crow laws in the south and reconstruction would have been done right instead of as your book points out ending as a compromise of the disputed 1876 election. Yeah. Up. Well grant reelected in 1872. So i dont understand that part of the question. He did actually he not a lot of people know this but he he considered running again. So he left office after 1876 and then in 1880 after taking a two year trip around the world believe it or not. He came back and a lot of republicans wanted to nominate him for a third but nonconsecutive term in 1880 and he was kind of ambivalent about it. He sort of wanted to do a first country, but it wasnt thrilled about getting back into politics and it turned out that the convention split between he and james blaine and then they end up compromising i James Garfield in 1880, but i find it hard to imagine. Yeah, thats a drunkard question because here because youre right grant. He i mean he convinced congress to pass the ku klux klanax, and he definitely was trying to bring blacks in the self into National Politics and international conversation. But we forget it how how furious southerners were over the end of slavery and and be bringing, you know blacks getting the rights of citizenship and voting. I mean in early in reconstruction, they were blacks. They were elected to congress into the senate. But white conservatives in the south, i mean they just did everything they could we think about jim crow, but even before jim crow laws. And they this is where the ku klaus clan came from the m a intimidated blacks into not voting. They would chase blacks away from voting sites and sometimes shoot and kill them and black swirl lynch. They you know, there were bodies of blackstone, you know along roadways for years in early and reconstruction. And and the reason that northern republicans, finally gave up on trying to bring blacks more into the you know, National Political fabric and i think they they get excited. They want to move on to other issues. I mean for a couple of decades republicans kept trying to pass laws that would you know, sort of overrule with southerners were doing you know in Voting Rights or whatever and they kept they kept failing it either didnt pastor could filibustered. And i think northern republicans finally just get exhausted by the effort. So im not sure that. Theres a lot that could have been done to avoid what happened with jim crow short of. Just there and even heavier hand the us government. This is maybe a good time to ask about Vice President ial selection given the the rather disastrous choice in retrospect that Abraham Lincoln made in selecting Andrew Johnson as part of a ticket balancing act here that wanted to appease southern unionists by choosing this tennessean who later went on to i think its putting it mildly do reconstruction in a really imperfect way. I i think of john f kennedy, you know selecting the texan Linden Johnson who later became of course president. I i think of john mccain selecting sarah palin is a kind of attack dog if you will George Hw Bush made a similar decision with dan quayle to create a in a sense of me who was you know younger and more outspokenly conservative to placate various wings of his party . Sometimes this decision comes for not i think it was John Nance Garner who said the vice presidency isnt worth a bucket of warm. He said well support has been sanitized into exactly right its better. He said statement, right . What in your view was . The best Vice President ial selection oh, geez. Yeah, well you mentioned the worst in Andrew Johnson, obviously. Yes, that did not work out. So well. I like truman. Really. I mean true truman the quite a good president and its really interesting how he became how he ended up as fdrs running mate in 1944 because fdr of courses first eight years, john yance garner. We just quoted was his Vice President and then in 1940. He Henry Wallace became Vice President. He was president Vice President between 40 and 44. He was very liberal and by 1944 a lot of people in a Democratic Party. They i mean they knew roosevelt was not in good health. They didnt say no. Hes gonna die a few months into his next term, but they knew he was not good health and some southerners and conservatives were not thrilled with wallace because they thought he was too liberal and they thought he was too much on the side of civil rights for blacks, and he was also pretty eccentric. You know, hes what we today called you followed a lot of new age spiritual beliefs. So he was a bit eccentric and so they they got behind and they convinced roosevelt to dump wallace and 1944 and nominate somebody else and truman was just sort of a compromise candidate. He didnt even want to be Vice President. And so they but they convinced him to run. And there was a big to do with the convention wallace didnt want to go easily and he gave a big nominating speech in favor of roosevelt and he you know, the convention was was you know, he had a lot of supporters and they were you know all up in arms and cheering and the band was playing, you know, because he was from iowa, iowa is where the tall call grows, you know, and sort of wallaces theme song and and convention managers thought that they were going to lose control of this and that they were gonna have to renominate wallace and so they they got the organist to stop playing, you know, somebody sent somebody up there and said, you know something the effect of cut the cables if you have to get you know, stop the music and then they said that there were too many people in the hall and it was a fire hazard so they had to end the convention for the night so they basically stopped this protest this they stopped at sharing they stuck now what was happening and then they reconvene the next day and and overnight these states that had been voting for favorite sun candidates the Party Leaders basically forced them into voting for truman to truman was you know, he was he was derided as the missouri compromise at the time. But yet it turned out to be sort of an inspired choice, you know, truman was turned out to be a good president to leave the United States through the postwar era. And you know, hes today considered, you know, one of the top 10 president s of near great president , but really interesting how he came into office. These these accidents these sort of turning points. Yeah. Theres a saying among democrats a little actually a bit of a dog girl. It goes like this usually set in late november. The election is over. The ranker has passed. Ill kiss your elephant and you can kiss my love and thats thats a statement of of course the reunification thats supposed to happen around inauguration. Your book this wonderful epigraph. From theater h white the great documenter of president ial campaigns who said that inaugurations are a magnificent event. You know the ceremony this this spectacle on the National Mall that we try to bridge the differences. Theres a tradition of course that the elected president invites the the losing candidate and for an oval office lunch. Based on your research. Do you find that this is really the case that after all the shouting is over that we really do come together. We could easily point to 2020 and say well thats actually not the case that you know, the the cut is still open the the bitterness intensifies. Is this new in us history bob or did you see this in prior contest . Well both i think there was a period for about a century or so where we did come together. You know, i mean john adams famously did not attend Thomas Jeffersons inauguration in 1800, although to be fair. There wasnt a tradition yet yet established of a defeated president attending his successors inauguration and Andrew Johnson. Same thing did not attend Ulysses Grants inauguration, but i think from then at least up to 1990s. People were i mean there was definitely frostiness. I mean hoover and roosevelt were not very friendly to each other and carter was pretty devastated. I dont think he talked a lot to reagan in the car on the way. It was inauguration, but i think there was a tradition of the parties coming together at least initially. I mean, thats why we talk about president ial honeymoons. I mean there was an effort to give the new president a chance. It doesnt mean were going to vote for everything but were gonna let you establish yourself in office and i think that really started changing again in the 1990s. You know, we talked about the roots of todays polarization and and part of it goes back to the 1960s and the rise of social and cultural issues that have been with us ever since but the other part of it, you know goes back to the 90s and you know the rise of talk radio and fox news and and then later the internet and social media but Newt Gingrich and you know, this has been talked about a lot Newt Gingrich, really. Changed the strategies of how the two parties would interact with each other. I mean, hes the one who developed the strategy of obstructing everything that a democratic president would propose even have had bipartisan support under the theory that voters wouldnt notice the obstruction and they were just blame the ruling party for lack of progress. He also came up with all these words these poll tested words that democrats were antifamily and antiflag and pathetic and radical and bizarre that you know, were never talked about before and both of those things are still i mean, theyre so successful if theyre still part of our Politics Today, i mean, opposing everything that the you know, the Incoming Democratic president would propose and in this these words that are used and so gingrich had a strategy of you know, were not going to give clinton a honeymoon, you know, we we dont think hes a legitimate president , you know, if pearl had been in the race you wouldnt have won which isnt true. By the way if you look at the polling clinton what a one no matter what i mean, the only thing pro did was stop clinton from getting 50 of the vote, but they painted clinton as an illegitimate president , and i think its going worse since then and obviously, you know, the nader was a you know, the trump Biden Campaign where trump refusing except their results of the election and didnt attend violence inauguration, but i think its getting worse since in 1990s. So i would say that you know from the 1870s to the 1980s. We did try to give the new president a chance and and i think that has started going away and theres no longer such thing as a president ial honeymoon or coming together. Right. I mean i mentioned earlier that some of us are real junkies for this stuff. Its fun. It involves, you know clashes and ideology and personalities part of me wonders and you know, is this exacerbating the the sense that were not really neighbors or that the divisions between us are are exploited by those chasing power and so i gonna confess an ambivalent relationship to president ial politics. Is is this realistic i rethink that position . I i always choose to remain idealistic. But yeah, its been more difficult in recent years. I like to say that in my book. I did not take an ideological prospective. I try to write it as nonpartisan as possible, and i was pleased Somebody Just on amazon that i dont know complemented me on that. They thought it was very nonpartisan, but i feel like it do have a bias in my bias is prodemocracy and you know, it makes me so and i was im not thrilled with you know, whatever happened with southern democrats in years after the civil war with jim crow and restricting Voting Rights that im not thrilled with. That segment of the Republican Party today that one except the results of the 2020 election. So i do have a democracy bias, but i like to remain idealistic and and i think that president ial politics are i like to think they are important and that we we should remain engaged and it does make me a bit sad that. Democracy is suffering these days and makes me a bit sad that. Democracy may be at risk at all. Because i think the United States is you know, since the late 1700 says, you know. Ben a beacon to the world as you know in terms of giving People Choice and implementing democracy and and i hope that you know this continues for centuries into the future. Indeed some may consider that sentiment corny and some may consider. Oh vast elements of president ial politics as corny or cheesy or you know pick your food product, but theres a reason why corn and cheese are popular. Its because theyre pretty good. And so i i want to thank you bob for first of all writing this enormously accessible. Well researched surprising knowledge grounded book and also thanks to the National Archives for the work and preserving our nations past and understanding who we are um, and i think i think thats it. Yeah, absolutely, and i just want to second think in the National Archives for having us on and for all they do and thank you tom for coming on with me. Ive enjoyed our chat. Its been fun talking about two centuries of president ial history with you. Yeah a huge topic. But like i said the time flew by so its it sure did. Thank youhello everyone. Welcome to tonights program and thanks so much for being here. Im marcia eli i come to you from the center for brooklyn history at the Brooklyn Public Library and bpl presents the libraries arts and culture team. Tonight i am thrilled to welcome ben raines author of the new book the last slave ship the true story of how katilda was found her descendants and an extraordinary reckoning
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.