Johnson’s daisy ad
Commenter “Baltimoran” makes the following interesting observation in connection with my discussion of the effects of lies in political ads:
I suppose the campaign ads we’ve seen the last few months are worse than what we’ve all gotten used to in recent years, but they aren’t that bad by historic standards. No one’s trying to accuse Mitt of wanting to start a nuclear war for example.
True. Baltimoran is no doubt referring to LBJ’s famous daisy ad, which I discussed previously in this post. Let’s watch it again; it’s pretty abominable:
However, there are quite a few differences between then and now. The most important one is that the ad aired only once and then was pulled by the Johnson forces as being too controversial, because of the hail of criticism it immediately evoked:
“Daisy” aired only once, during a September 7, 1964 telecast of David and Bathsheba on The NBC Monday Movie. Johnson’s campaign was widely criticized for using the prospect of nuclear war, as well as for the implication that Goldwater would start one, to frighten voters. The ad was immediately pulled, but the point was made, appearing on the nightly news and on conversation programs in its entirety. Jack Valenti, who served as a special assistant to Johnson, later suggested that pulling the ad was a calculated move, arguing that “it showed a certain gallantry on the part of the Johnson campaign to withdraw the commercial.”
So was pulling it a cynical move as Valenti suggested? Or did politicians adhere to a higher standard back then, as a result of public pressure? Or would it be more correct to say that, if so, it was actually the public which had the higher standards, and forced the politicians to adhere to them?
Pretty clever. So they only had to pay to air it once.
It sounds like its purpose was the same as the “Romney killed my wife” ad: Put the meme in people’s minds and make it a topic for discussion.
Agree with rickl. They probably calculated, perhaps after it was shown and the reaction provoked, that once was enough to set the stage.
Though, maybe even before. Have you read Caro’s bio of Johnson? The legal battle over the Coke Stevenson vs Johnson senate primary election might be instructive; as (if I recall correctly) a deliberate loss in a lower court was seen as paving the way for a more positive outcome on appeal. Appear to overstep, and move up a level to a friendlier venue.
I was going to find a confirming cite to support my speculation , but decided to call it a wrap for the night.
This looks interesting for those interested in this kind of thing :Historical Lawyering as a New Viewpoint on LBJ v. Stevenson, http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=josiah_daniel
As my memory serves me, Lyndon Johnson was a conniving crook.
Johnson was always going to win the 1964 presidential election handily; no one within a light-year of this planet ever imagined ^seriously^ that Barry Goldwater had a chance.
So what was to lose by airing the ad and then claiming the high ground on second thought? “Rickl” is right on.
That was an honest ad.
Someone told me that if I voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964, we would have a war in Southeast Asia.
Well I voted for him and sure enough we went to war in South Vietnam
Higher standards? Still voted for LBJ.
And JD, we a;ready had a war in SVN, courtesy of JFK.
Sam, I think he was being totally facetious…
============
I think this piece shows what a pair of two-faced PoSes both Johnson and Humphrey were:
Democratic Debacle
The goings-on in the back rooms of the 1964 Dem National Convention.
They didn’t give a rat’s ass about civil rights, not one whit. You probably knew that, but this piece makes it crystal clear.
There’s only one party based on, supported by, and endlessly lifted by overt racism.
Hint: It’s not the GOP.
This, all by itself, set the stage for all the racial turmoil of the late 60s and early 70s.
Standards have been pretty low for all of the Republic’s existence. The John Quincy Adams/Andrew Jackson race was horrible. FDR’s campaigns were abominable — defamation and class war in a big way. Read Caro’s book about LBJ’s stealing of his senate seat in Texas in 1948. And of course, JFK knowingly lied about a missile gap in order to close the electoral gap to a size small enough to allow him to steal the election in 1960.
I think a more important point overall than the propriety of a single ad is the way that the Democrats have developed a playbook that they have used for years which employs the nastiest defamation of the GOP and GOP voters every campaign. It is an article of faith that the GOP is (use liberally from the following list: hate-filled, mean-spirited, racist, sexist, anti-science, homophobic bitter clingers bent on killing seniors, starving kids, raping the environment, and exploiting workers).
See e.g. Pelosi’s claim that the GOP wants kids to get E Coli.
There is a nasty, vicious quality to Democratic campaigns, but we are so accustomed to it that we don’t even notice much any more.
So was pulling it a cynical move as Valenti suggested?
no..
it was lawyers being lawyers and expecting to be called to the bench on it, and it would be stricken from the record, but not from the minds of people who saw or heard it…
As my memory serves me, Lyndon Johnson was a conniving crook.
yup, and what was his middle name?
Baines
🙂
Too Far? New Attack Ad Targeting Allen West Depicts Him Beating Women
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/too-far-new-attack-ad-targeting-allen-west-depicts-him-beating-women/
Cause without the feminist vote, they have nuttin…
Artfldgr: that’s a great Hanson summation of the situation. He can really pack a lot of thought into two paragraphs.
Not all of us (including me!) can be that brief :-).
On a somewhat related topic – campaign ads.
I just received the first slick multi-colored brochure in the mail for this November’s election. It was from a Democrat (not surprising consider how blue my area is), But, I had to really look hard to even find the word Democrat anywhere in the brochure. Usually the “sponsored by” lists the county’s democratic committee – nope nothing there. Nothing after his name, no (D) or anything to indicate that he was a Democrat. Finally found one reference in the middle of a paragraph on the inside. Just one mention of the word “Democrat.”
Maybe I am reading too much into this; but it seemed as if this guy was not wanting to admit that he was associated with “them.”
I distinctly remember seeing that ad and I never saw David and Bathsheba, so I must have seen it on the news. It evidently got a lot of play even though it was “pulled.” Pretty smart (and nasty) on the part of the Dems. And wasn’t the Fairness Doctrine in effect? A broadcast had to be “balanced.” So Johnson’s fancy visuals were probably followed by a distinctly un-fancy press statement by the Goldwater campaign.
By the way, NJ is so blue that Chris Christie’s reelection ads don’t mention he’s a Republican. They just say he’s led “bipartisan reformers.”
“Sam, I think he was being totally facetious…”
Yes I was…. Thanks, IGotBupkis