republican party might have very well been different. one can speculate about that. i think what actually drives the 60 election and what makes it important historically is that it is the point where both money and television entered into politics in a big way. now, money, of course, is not new in politics. and one can go back to alexander hamilton to see that. but money is used in much larger quantities in 1960. and especially when kennedy comes up with the idea that the only way that he can actually win the democratic nomination is through by winning primaries, and he has to spend a lot of money. a lot of it his own money, in order to do so. and the combination of the money for the tv ads but also money for staff and running a campaign that starts way before the nominating convention, all of this is an innovation. nixon, since he has the nomination more or less locked up ahead of time doesn t have to worry about the nomination. but he can see that kennedy is on to somethin
tackle disparate and essential aspects of the nixon era politics, electoral politics, particularly the 1960 election. nixon s relationship with the media. and the vice president agnew. justin coughy is an social professor of history at quincy university in quincy, illinois. he earned his p. hd at the university of illinois at chicago. his specialty is recent american political history. recent american history with a concentration on the ideological battles of the 1960s. and he s currently at work on a by i don t gofy of the former vice president, spiro agnew. and he s published in a number of different journals including maryland historical magazine and reviews in american history. after justin will be tim kiska will take the will go. and he s an associate professor of communications at the university of michigan deerborn where he teaches journalism and journalism history. he joined the faculty there after working for more than three decades as a journalist first with the d
later either and the whole direction of the republican party might have been quite different. one could speculate about that. i think what actually drives the 60 election and what makes it important historically is that it is the point where both money and television entered into politics in a big way. now, money, of course, is not new in politics, and one can go back to alexander hamilton to see that, but money is used in which larger quantities in 1960, and especially when kennedy comes up with the idea that the only way he can actually win the democratic nomination is through by winning primaries and he has to spend a lot of money, a lot of it his own money in order to do so. and the combination of the money for the tv ads but also money for staff and the running a campaign that starts way before the nominating convention, all of this is an innovation. nix nixon, since he has the nomination locked up more or less ahead of time doesn t have to worry about the nomination
60 election and what makes it important historically is that it is the point where both money and television entered into politics in a big way. now, money, of course, is not new in politics. and one can go back to alexander hamilton to see that. but money is used in much larger quantities in 1960. and especially when kennedy comes up with the idea that the only way that he can actually win the democratic nomination is through by winning primaries, and he has to spend a lot of money. a lot of it his own money, in order to do so. and the combination of the money for the tv ads but also money for staff and running a campaign that starts way before the nominating convention, all of this is an innovation, nixon, since he has the nomination more or less locked up ahead of time doesn t have to worry about the nomination. but he can see that kennedy is on to something. and of course in 1968, nixon copies the kennedy formula running in the primaries and using a lot of money and lini
within six years he was president. as joe says, the biographies of nixon range i put them on a scale from he was one step short of canonization, to positive which would be the ageography would be like bella kornitser which is still worth while as a period piece and because he had access to hannah nixon. he had a lot of family stories. nixon could do no wrong. not to demean or dismiss the book. then sort of a positive books and to which i would put jonathan atkins book. neutral books into which i would put conrad black s biography. he knew nixon and is sympathetic. also extremely critical of his personality, his policies and his conduct. then there are the negatives in which roger morris book, which it is finally researched i think it s hobbled by the fact that he sees, tends to see everything in a bad light. then there are the books that i think can only be described as rab id, that would be brodie s book and anthony summers books. these are the authors for whom nixon