The Obama and McCain Camps are surrendering to the Rove mentality. Shame!

DAF 7/31/08

The Election In Miniature
31 Jul 2008 01:51 pm
By Daniel Larison
The campaign controversy of the moment seems to be whether McCain has been telling lies about his opponent, with the additional accusation from the opposing camp that he is also engaged in race-baiting. Of course, he is telling lies, and he isn't engaged in race-baiting, but in this bizarre election cycle you can be sure that he will be rewarded or at least forgiven for the former and then punished for something that he isn't doing. This is exactly what happened during the primaries when McCain lied about Romney's views on the war and Obama's campaign and supporters denounced the Clintons for exploiting racism, and it is all happening again just as it did earlier in the year. It is happening again mainly because this is how the two campaigns seem to operate when they are in closely-contested elections, which means we will continue to see more of this until November.
Trivial as they seem, these episodes sum up both campaigns and the media's treatment of both remarkably well. As he did in the primaries, McCain is simply making things up about his opponent's positions and actions, and just as his campaign did during the primary fight against Clinton Obama and his supporters are pushing fantastic claims that McCain is exploiting racism. (As with Clinton, McCain may be benefiting from prejudice, but attempts to show that they are actively exploiting it have been laughably weak.) Remember the memo the Obama campaign circulated documenting the instances of how the Clintons allegedly politicized racism? Then as now, the things that have provoked criticism have typically been entirely or mostly unrelated to race, and even when there is some small connection it requires hysteria and hypersensitivity to find something malevolent in that connection. This line of attack on Obama's opponents is not a new one, but the Obama campaign may be making a serious mistake in assuming that this attack will work as well in the general election as it did in the Democratic primary. Regardless, it will receive more attention and gain more traction in the press on the assumption that they have been using all year long, which is that whatever race-baiting the Clintons were supposedly employing, the GOP would use it even more extensively.
Back in January, the media criticized McCain for his lies about Romney, but ultimately forgave him on the twisted grounds that he doesn't enjoy lying, and so he remained their hero. The same will happen concerning McCain's lies about Obama. Meanwhile, McCain will suffer more damage from sustained media criticism that he is supposedly trafficking in racist tropes, despite the self-evident absurdity of the charge. The phony controversy about the alleged racism in McCain's horrible ads will distract attention from their insipid quality, but it will still generally work to McCain's detriment if journalists accept the idea that McCain's campaign is trying to promote or use racism in the election. If their response to the accusations against the Clintons is any indication, many will accept this idea, and Obama will profit from this sort of scurrilous charge. One thing seems likely: as I guessed a few months ago, the election will turn heavily on the biography and character of the candidates, and it will therefore be one of the more divisive and unpleasant general election campaigns we have experienced.

From Time
McCain's Anti-Celebrity Storyline
By Michael Scherer/Washington
At their most basic levels, Presidential campaigns are storytelling wars. After John Kerry lost the 2004 election, the Democratic strategist James Carville summed up his candidate's problem this way. "There's a Republican narrative," he said on NBC's Meet the Press. "And there's a Democratic litany."
His point was that Kerry had campaigned on a laundry list of specific issues that all polled well — clean air, better schools and more healthcare, to name a few — but failed to inspire. George W. Bush, by contrast, campaigned on a story fully intended to appeal as much to the heart as the brain. In the Republican tale, Bush was a strong leader ready to take on a dangerous world, while Kerry was a "flip-flopper," who held his finger to the wind. Or as Carville crudely put it, Bush effectively told the country, "I'm going to protect you from terrorists in Tehran and the homos in Hollywood."
Flash forward four years, and the political dynamic has been turned upside down. Democrat Barack Obama has one of the most remarkable storylines in modern political history: He brands himself as a new, multi-racial, principled politician, who can change not just the policies of Washington, but the fundamentals of how politics works around the world. "People of Berlin — people of the world — this is our moment. This is our time," Obama announced last week, before an impressive European throng.
McCain, meanwhile, has struggled. His own well-known heroic narrative, as a prisoner of war-turned-battle-tested senator, has been eclipsed by the nation's Obama excitement. A Wall Street Journal poll last week showed that 55% of voters are more focused on Obama in this election, with just 27% of voters more focused on McCain. The Arizona Republican has been reduced to listing off a series of issues he thinks will help him with voters: a temporary gas tax reprieve, more offshore oil drilling and an energy plan called "The Lexington Project," to name a few.
For a long time, Republicans inside and outside the campaign have griped privately about the need to find their storyline. And there have been fierce debates about how to do it. Some of McCain's former advisers have said that McCain needs to stick to his historic strengths, his maverick, straight-talking approach, which appeals to the political center. Others have urged McCain to charge at Obama head on. If the race is going to be about Obama, they reason, then Obama must be taken down.
Now the debate has come to an end, and the more aggressive approach has clearly won out. The McCain campaign, under the direction of its new leader, Steve Schmidt, has settled on a storyline that could last through the election. It is, at root, an experience argument, adjusted to undercut the enormous enthusiasm that Obama generates. It can be seen in the recent McCain campaign ad that compares Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, or the recent Republican Party ad that compares Obama to David Hasselhoff. It can be seen in the recent self-deprecating distribution of "junior varsity" press passes for reporters on the McCain campaign, and in the daily discussion of Obama as "The One" by McCain aides.
It is an argument that amounts to this: Barack Obama is a huge phenomenon, but he does not have the experience, or the judgement, to lead the country. In fact, he is just another polictician, an empty suit, who will do whatever he needs, and make as many vague but eloquent speeches as he has to, to get elected. John McCain, on the other hand, is a proven, principled leader you already know.
In a conference call Wednesday with reporters, the campaign laid out its cards. "It's beyond dispute that he has become the biggest celebrity in the world," Schmidt said of Obama. "The question we are posing to the American people is this: Is he ready to lead?"
"Do the American people want to elect the world's biggest celebrity or do they want to elect an American hero, somebody who is a leader, somebody who has the right ideas to deal in a serious way with the problems we face?" Schmidt continued. "And that will be the fundamental choice that Americans will make as they focus in on who to elect the 44th President of the United States 97 days from now."
McCain's new storyline speaks directly at the apparent concerns of a vast swath of voters who are still hesitant about supporting Obama, despite their disapproval of recent Republican policies and an unpopular Republican president. But it also carries a risk for McCain, because at a time of great economic anxiety, when voters claim to be eager to hear positive solutions, it is fundamentally negative in tone — a pose that McCain has been less comfortable with in the past.
On Wednesday afternoon, after the ad with Britney Spears was released, Obama adviser David Axelrod struck back along these lines. "It makes you wonder who's behind all this because this isn't the John McCain we expected," Axelrod said in an interview on MSNBC. Obama himself chimed in at a campaign stop in Missouri. "He doesn't seem to have anything to say very positive about himself," Obama said of McCain. "He seems to only be talking about me. You need to ask John McCain what he's for and not just what he's against."
A former McCain adviser, John Weaver, also expressed worry to the Atlantic Monthly that the spot would make McCain look "childish" and "diminish the brand." On the other side of the argument, Republican strategists worry that the new approach may not be enough to take down Obama, especially in the absence of a third-party group, like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004. "They have managed to scare off outside groups," said one veteran party strategist of McCain, who as a longtime supporter of campaign finance reform is opposed to such third-party spending. "The outside groups have always been able to say what the candidate can not."
The new McCain storyline has also been hurt by factual problems in many of their charges, which could cause McCain problems over time. One advertisement, which included the chants of Obama supporters, accused Obama of being responsible for high gas prices, a claim without evidence to back it up. Another suggested that Obama avoided meeting with troops in Germany because he could not bring along the media to make it a photo op. In truth, Obama canceled the meeting because he did not want to be accused of holding a campaign event with wounded soldiers.
But these developments are certain to be less important over time than the fact that the McCain campaign, for better or worse, has finally settled on a a storyline that could carry the presumptive Republican nominee through the convention and into November. As a second Republican strategist put it late Wednesday afternoon, "They at least have somewhat of a message." And for one of the first times in months, the campaign has managed to maintain that message for almost two weeks in a row.

From Rachel Lucas

"What I hate about Shopping!"I

I used to hate going to the grocery store under any circumstances because it was a physical impossibility for me to get through it without wanting to murder at least one person and likely more. Depends on how many assholes with no concept of GETTING OUT OF THE WAY are shopping that day. I’ve covered this before but it always bears repeating: move your stupid cart out of the middle of the stupid aisle you stupid stupid monkey.
But it always bears repeating: move your stupid cart out of the middle of the stupid aisle you stupid stupid monkey.
But there’s more to hate about the grocery store than aisle-blocking cart jockeys. Such as those ridiculous “membership cards” that allegedly will Save You Money! And thus we have my third peeve of the week.
I would like a show of hands: how many of you actually believe those cards save you money? If you raised your hand, I’m sorry but you have emotional problems. My friend Jim Carson brought this up to me the other day and I was reminded of an experiment I did about five years ago involving Tom Thumb, Kroger, and WalMart that might be helpful for those of you laboring under the misimpression that you’re not getting screwed over with your membership cards.
Three weeks in a row, I went consecutively to the three different above-mentioned stores and bought pretty much the exact same things each time. Your basics, such as bread, milk, chicken - nothing fancy or unusual because I am neither fancy nor unusual. I had membership savings cards for Tom Thumb and Kroger.
At Tom Thumb, about half the stuff I bought was priced with a big discount if you used the card. Awesome. They’re looking out for me! The total bill was something like $60, and the “Savings!” was something like $20. So it would have cost me $80 without the card.
At Kroger, buying the exact same grocery list and again with roughly half the stuff “discounted,” my total was right at $50 with a “Savings!” of $8. I remember this one exactly. So the full price would have been $58 without the card.
At WalMart, which YES is full of white trash and YES I feel ashamed to go there, the same grocery list again came to a whopping total of $45. No joke; I even saved the receipts for a long time because I had it in my head to stomp up to Tom Thumb and bitch at the manager for thinking people are fools. Which obviously they are though, so I never did stomp and bitch. Hey, if I ran a grocery store, I’d charge as much as people are willing to pay, too. It’s called capitalism, and capitalism is my lesbian lover.
But. The point is, those “Savings!” cards are silly. The only way you can “save” a lot is to pay a lot, and how that escapes otherwise intelligent people is beyond me. Of course it is much more pleasant to shop at Tom Thumb than at WalMart, oh lord so much more pleasant, but still. It’s your money we’re talking about here. I’d rather slog through the hordes of unwashed masses than spend twice as much of my hard-earned cash to shop among upper-middle-class housewives. It’s worth the pain.
Anyway, I said up top that I “used” to hate to go to the grocery store, and that brings me ’round to end this post on a positive note. Because I now love going. I love it so much it hurts and do you know why? Self checkout.
Speaking of emotional problems, I obviously have them because honestly, self checkout gives me happy feelings in my viscera. It literally almost makes me drool and I tell you I am not joking about this. You know how some physical actions just make you feel all sharpminded and effective and serene? Some people get that feeling from cleaning or cooking or even dancing and whatnot. Cleaning does it for me as well, especially scrubbing a dirty pan in hot soapy water. But the self checkout at the grocery store is almost at the top of my list.
I love the beep sound as you sweep an item past the barcode reader. Beep! It sounds all crisp and sharp. For some reason, I especially love this part of the process when I’m doing canned goods. And then the bagging, oh the bagging! The earth-killing plastic bags are so new and fresh, so nicely affixed to their little arm thingies in a smart little bundle. Each new one is like opening a Christmas present.
The best part is bagging things EXACTLY AS I WANT THEM. Because this was one of the top reasons I hated grocery shopping in the past, the way the bagger people clearly had no concept of categories and efficiency and simple rational decision-making. Excuse me dumbass but why are you putting that frozen spinach package in the same bag with that cardboard box of noodles? I do not want a soggy box of noodles, which is what I’m going to get because have no familiarity with concepts of melting and condensation. Or you just don’t care, but either way, you’re a dumbass.
My favorite was when they put a carton of eggs at the top of an almost-full bag. Yes I realize you think you’re saving the eggs from being smashed but what you are not doing is considering the fact that the bag will topple over in the trunk of my car, thus dumping the egg carton. I will have to tie that bag off and I don’t like to do that because when I get home, I have to rip a hole in the bag to get the stuff out and then that bag is worthless to me.
Because I use those bags. They are trashcan liners and dogshit picker-uppers and excellent padding for shipping boxes.
I told a friend of mine about all of these very important issues some time ago, and she said I was a control freak. Cram it, I said. It’s my money and my foodstuff products, why shouldn’t I attempt to control them in the most efficient manner possible?
So now I can control-freak to my heart’s content, and all because of self checkout. I want to marry self checkout. And I know what some of the comments to this post will be. But Raaaaachel, why should I do something that someone else is already being paid to do? Well you shouldn’t if you don’t want to, but I say you’re nuts. You’re in good company; Rupert refuses to use self checkout, too. I do not fully understand why but I just look at it as one of those things that keeps him mysterious to me. It’s romantic.
UPDATE: When I thought about writing this post last night, I made a mental note to myself to be SURE to point out a few things when I got to talking about the self checkout. And of course that mental note burned up in my brain by the time I posted this. And of course many of the comments say exactly what I thought they’d say that made me make the mental note in the first place.
So what I wanted to be sure to mention in my ode to self checkout, is that the place I go to now is a brand-new Neighborhood WalMart (not a real WalMart of the giant white trashy sort) that has an absolutely flawless self checkout system. And I do mean flawless.
First of all, they have six fully-functioning and open-at-all-times self checkouts with no limit on items - you can have 200 things and still use these. Second, each one has a 5-foot long conveyor belt so you can get all your crap on there before you even start.
Third, they don’t have the infuriating “Please put the item in the bagging area” requirement. This is THE BEST PART. You can scan your stuff, bag it, and immediately put the bag in your cart, which is empty because you were able to get everything on the conveyor belt. Your groceries never have to touch that little “weighing” area I’ve seen in other stores. Apparently, they trust you, which is frankly shocking. I haven’t and won’t test the system, but you could easily steal.
Fourth, the system never ever gives you those retarded errors that makes you scan shit 10 times. I’ve used it every week for almost a year and never once had to ask for assistance. Really, it’s remarkable. Nothing has to be weighed except for produce, and only some of that. Most of the produce just asks you for the code (which is always on a sticker on the produce) and the quantity (as in 5 lemons).
Anyway. As you can see, this is a very exciting issue for me. I always saw the grand potential of self checkout but it was never realized until this new store, and it is everything I ever hoped for. Thus my desire to marry it, impregnate it, grow old with it, and have written on my tombstone that my favorite thing in the early 21st century was SELF CHECKOUT. Hey, there’s not much else to be excited about these days in America; you take what you can get.

Obama speaks to the brain as well as the heart

Michael Gove; (Times of London)
The Senator writes most of his own speeches, something no president has done effectively since Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt
I wasn't that impressed by Barack Obama's speech in Berlin. It felt a little forced and the comparisons that it so obviously and self-consciously invited with JFK and Reagan only served to diminish Mr Obama. When Kennedy and Reagan spoke in Berlin, they were both raising the stakes in an ideological struggle with totalitarianism. Mr Obama, by contrast, was delivering a honeyed message calculated to offend the fewest possible critics.
But, hey, the guy's got an election to win. By the time that JFK and Reagan were doing their thing, both had made it to the White House. So a little pandering can be forgiven. And what matters more is that Mr Obama has restored the primacy of oratory to political campaigning. Whatever one thinks of Berlin, a host of other Obama speeches will linger in the collective memory for as long as any candidate's.
Last week I confessed that we Brit politicians now communicate in a manner at once both hectoring and evasive - a remarkably irritating double. By contrast, Mr Obama has almost single-handedly resurrected the importance of proper speech-making.
By that I mean not just rhetorical stylishness (the deployment of alliteration and three-part lists, the soaring pulpit repetition of “yes we can”) but intellectual seriousness. A rather brilliant piece in New York magazine by Sam Anderson, about Mr Obama's rhetoric, makes the point that the Senator writes most of his own speeches, something no president has done effectively since the days of Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. Anderson quotes a book, The Anti-Intellectual Presidency, by Elvin T. Lim, which makes clear that the divorce between leadership and authorship has had a malign effect on politics. A hundred years ago presidential speeches were pitched at the reading level of college students. Now, they are delivered at the reading level of 13-year-olds.
By delivering speeches several thousand words long, densely argued and historically referenced, Mr Obama is consciously asking more of his audience. It creates a political vulnerability, making it easier to dismiss him as a liberal elitist out of touch with the good ol' boys who decide the crucial swing states. But it also creates a political possibility - that the presidential election may be decided on the basis of intellectual arguments between two men of impeccable character.
Not-so-beautiful minds
Of course, intellectual ability and writing genius are no guarantee of good character, let alone indications that an individual can navigate ethical shallows. History is littered with examples of fine minds corrupted by their engagement with brute power. Mark Lilla's book The Reckless Mind discusses how intellectuals such as Carl Schmitt and Martin Heidegger placed their formidable intellects at the service of fascism. John Carey's The Intellectuals and the Masses charts how so many academics and writers saw in totalitarian politics a way to emphasise just how fine their minds were compared with others. This week, after Radovan Karadzic's arrest, I read of how another writer's infatuation with authoritarian politics ended in cheerleading for genocide. Alice Kaplan's The Collaborator is a biography of Robert Brasillach, a promising novelist and columnist who enthusiastically aligned himself with Nazism in occupied France. It's compellingly chilling.
Martin Heidegger's lover Hannah Arendt coined the memorable phrase “the banality of evil” to describe the clerical fastidiousness with which Adolf Eichmann dispatched his duties during the Holocaust. Acts of unimaginable cruelty were managed like exercises in local government accountancy. But what is more striking about evil is that it seduces the brilliant.
Clearly something appeals to intellectual vanity in a politics that elevates a vanguard over others and exempts them from the moral codes that bind others. Karadzic, a poet and psychiatrist, thought himself an intellectual, as did Mohammad Atta, the postgraduate and architect of 9/11. The argument has been running strongly of late that the answer to terrorism is economic reform to make the world fairer - and it's a powerful cry. But just as important is to make the case for democracy, in all its raucous messiness, against those who think their superior intellects permit them to cleanse our world of imperfections.
Well played
Talking of collaboration with evil, a new play discusses the delicate question of the composerRichard Strauss's relationship with the Third Reich. Strauss, like the conductors Furtwangler and von Karajan, was deployed to lend cultural lustre to fascism. The extent to which this can be understood, even forgiven, is the theme of the latest from Ronald Harwood.
Harwood's own genius has been put unambiguously at the service of decency and humanity, not least as the screenwriter of The Pianist and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. No disrespect to Harold Pinter, but why is he knighted, and Harwood just appointed CBE?
Michael Gove is Conservative MP for Surrey Heath

Sen. Barack Obama at Berlin
Thank you to the citizens of Berlin and to the people of Germany. Let me thank Chancellor Merkel and Foreign Minister Steinmeier for welcoming me earlier today. Thank you Mayor Wowereit, the Berlin Senate, the police, and most of all thank you for this welcome. I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen - a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world. I know that I don't look like the Americans who've previously spoken in this great city. The journey that led me here is improbable. My mother was born in the heartland of America, but my father grew up herding goats in Kenya. His father - my grandfather - was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.
At the height of the Cold War, my father decided, like so many others in the forgotten corners of the world, that his yearning - his dream - required the freedom and opportunity promised by the West. And so he wrote letter after letter to universities all across America until somebody, somewhere answered his prayer for a better life. That is why I'm here. And you are here because you too know that yearning. This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom. And you know that the only reason we stand here tonight is because men and women from both of our nations came together to work, and struggle, and sacrifice for that better life. Ours is a partnership that truly began sixty years ago this summer, on the day when the first American plane touched down at Templehof. On that day, much of this continent still lay in ruin. The rubble of this city had yet to be built into a wall. The Soviet shadow had swept across Eastern Europe, while in the West, America, Britain, and France took stock of their losses, and pondered how the world might be remade. This is where the two sides met. And on the twenty-fourth of June, 1948, the Communists chose to blockade the western part of the city. They cut off food and supplies to more than two million Germans in an effort to extinguish the last flame of freedom in Berlin. The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe. Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin. And that's when the airlift began - when the largest and most unlikely rescue in history brought food and hope to the people of this city. The odds were stacked against success. In the winter, a heavy fog filled the sky above, and many planes were forced to turn back without dropping off the needed supplies. The streets where we stand were filled with hungry families who had no comfort from the cold. But in the darkest hours, the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to give up. And on one fall day, hundreds of thousands of Berliners came here, to the Tiergarten, and heard the city's mayor implore the world not to give up on freedom. There is only one possibility, he said. For us to stand together united until this battle is won...The people of Berlin have spoken. We have done our duty, and we will keep on doing our duty. People of the world: now do your duty...People of the world, look at Berlin! People of the world - look at Berlin! Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle. Look at Berlin, where the determination of a people met the generosity of the Marshall Plan and created a German miracle; where a victory over tyranny gave rise to NATO, the greatest alliance ever formed to defend our common security. Look at Berlin, where the bullet holes in the buildings and the somber stones and pillars near the Brandenburg Gate insist that we never forget our common humanity. People of the world - look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one. Sixty years after the airlift, we are called upon again. History has led us to a new crossroad, with new promise and new peril. When you, the German people, tore down that wall - a wall that divided East and West; freedom and tyranny; fear and hope - walls came tumbling down around the world. From Kiev to Cape Town, prison camps were closed, and the doors of democracy were opened. Markets opened too, and the spread of information and technology reduced barriers to opportunity and prosperity. While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history. The fall of the Berlin Wall brought new hope. But that very closeness has given rise to new dangers - dangers that cannot be contained within the borders of a country or by the distance of an ocean. The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil. As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya. Poorly secured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan could help build a bomb that detonates in Paris. The poppies in Afghanistan become the heroin in Berlin. The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow. The genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all.
In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them. Yet, in the absence of Soviet tanks and a terrible wall, it has become easy to forget this truth. And if we're honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared destiny. In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe's role in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth - that Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world; and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe. Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more - not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity. That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down. We know they have fallen before. After centuries of strife, the people of Europe have formed a Union of promise and prosperity. Here, at the base of a column built to mark victory in war, we meet in the center of a Europe at peace. Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together; in the Balkans, where our Atlantic alliance ended wars and brought savage war criminals to justice; and in South Africa, where the struggle of a courageous people defeated apartheid. So history reminds us that walls can be torn down. But the task is never easy. True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy; of progress and peace. They require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other and, most of all, trust each other. That is why America cannot turn inward. That is why Europe cannot turn inward. America has no better partner than Europe. Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic. Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It was this spirit that led airlift planes to appear in the sky above our heads, and people to assemble where we stand today. And this is the moment when our nations - and all nations - must summon that spirit anew.
This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope. This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO's first mission beyond Europe's borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now. This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons. This is the moment when every nation in Europe must have the chance to choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday. In this century, we need a strong European Union that deepens the security and prosperity of this continent, while extending a hand abroad. In this century - in this city of all cities - we must reject the Cold War mind-set of the past, and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must, and to seek a partnership that extends across this entire continent. This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. Together, we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth, with meaningful protections for our people and our planet. This is the moment for trade that is free and fair for all. This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East. My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions. We must support the Lebanese who have marched and bled for democracy, and the Israelis and Palestinians who seek a secure and lasting peace. And despite past differences, this is the moment when the world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close.
This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Let us resolve that all nations - including my own - will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere. This is the moment to give our children back their future. This is the moment to stand as one. And this is the moment when we must give hope to those left behind in a globalized world. We must remember that the Cold War born in this city was not a battle for land or treasure. Sixty years ago, the planes that flew over Berlin did not drop bombs; instead they delivered food, and coal, and candy to grateful children. And in that show of solidarity, those pilots won more than a military victory. They won hearts and minds; love and loyalty and trust - not just from the people in this city, but from all those who heard the story of what they did here. Now the world will watch and remember what we do here - what we do with this moment. Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time? Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words never again in Darfur? Will we acknowledge that there is no more powerful example than the one each of our nations projects to the world? Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don't look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people? People of Berlin - people of the world - this is our moment. This is our time. I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions. But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived - at great cost and great sacrifice - to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world. Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom - indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares. What has always united us - what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America's shores - is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please. These are the aspirations that joined the fates of all nations in this city. These aspirations are bigger than anything that drives us apart. It is because of these aspirations that the airlift began. It is because of these aspirations that all free people - everywhere - became citizens of Berlin. It is in pursuit of these aspirations that a new generation - our generation - must make our mark on the world. People of Berlin - and people of the world - the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. With an eye toward the future, with resolve in our hearts, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again.
© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC

Not a good day!

By David A. Fairbanks

By any standard, Sen. John McCain is a decent, at times generous man. He has lived a tough life and never lost his decency or honest kindness. He is not evil or even remotely so. Nevertheless he is running an amazingly clumsy and at times laughable campaign. I am saddened that his staff lack the skill in protecting their guy from humiliation. This photograph with President George HW Bush and Senator McCain is a good example of the law of unintended consequences. Bush looks great. Nevermind he is 87. McCain looks like he needs to pee. John McCain must get some savvy and realize nuance counts. This is the time for Steve Schmidt to show his talent and save his guy from certain defeat. I am a Obama partisan; no doubt, but I want Sen. Obama to win on merit, not because John McCain ended up as a joke.

The United States in 1960
By Vaughn Davis Bornet
The author of this contemporary appraisal of the nature of the year 1960 in the United States, Vaughn Davis Bornet, is familiar to HNN readers for (among other things) his reminiscence published in our September 3, 2007 issue, “How Race Relations Touched Me During a Long Lifetime” and in the April 28, 2008 issue, “Letter to my Granddaughter: How to Decide Whom to Vote For.” At the close of his formal education (at Emory, Georgia, and Stanford) and Navy service in World War II enroute, he engaged in full time research at four nonprofit organizations and wrote books on two year long grants. Readers will want to keep in mind that this narrative description, published here for the first time, was written as 1960 was about to fade into 1961. The text has not been modified in facts, wording, or indeed anything except a few commas and several paragraph modifications. Retyping was by the author; both the mss. written in Bornet’s RAND office (after hours) and the one typed recently by the author were sent to HNN.
Author’s Afterword (written in 2008)
The wording of the following essay is precisely that placed in the mail on December 30, 1960. It was written for the New International Year Book for 1961. Although I was duly paid for this after working hours effort, the manuscript was returned to me, for there was a dispute between the publishers and the writer over the paragraphs dealing with Fidel Castro’s degree of attachment to Communism, for example, “…the Castro regime…turned to the Communist Bloc for military and economic aid and for ideological comfort.” That sentiment may have been regarded by the encyclopedia’s final review persons as conjectural, or too pessimistic, as unsuitable for their audience, likely to provoke overseas readers or, perhaps they thought me downright wrong. As for me, then a confident administrative editor who read Cold War material almost daily as a RAND Corporation staff member, my assessment of Castro’s movement toward the Third International seemed fully warranted and not to be edited out. In addition, after looking at the unsigned and much shorter version ultimately run by the yearbook, I think there may have been editorial decisions of which I was not made aware at the time.
I was left with a manuscript probably publishable “somewhere,” but I was very busy with daily writing and editing. I quietly routed a few copies of my text to friends and several superiors. (It was not eligible to be issued within the D, RM, or R system of publication, for it was in reality a scholarly hobby, just like a book and various articles I published during three and a half years with RAND.)
Summary assessments of calendar years have been commonly prepared and published by encyclopedias from that day to this and long before. I apprenticed for this effort by twice writing the long articles “United States” in 1956 and 1957 for the Encyclopaedia Britannica yearbooks--of 1957 and 1958 respectively). The methodology was not unique: clipping and saving from the better periodicals of the day—in my case especially the sober New York Times that then came days late in the mail. I outlined repeatedly, wrote rapidly toward year’s end, and made sure to meet the troublesome deadlines that made publication possible in February. Payment was by the word.
Anyway, here is a contemporary appraisal of what the year 1960 seemed like to one who was living and observing it. Readers will see instantly that there is no awareness of the future Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, advisors building up toward a Vietnam War, JFK assassination, a War on Poverty and new laws on civil rights, two more assassinations, a Moon Landing, and the birth of environmentalism. The Nixon mentioned here is not yet the one who will run for California governor, beat Hubert Humphrey for President, be reelected in a landslide, and leave the office after abusing the public trust. Isn’t it sobering to think that at the very moment one is living, that is, now, there are momentous events in the offing that could change our appraisal of reality and modify our lives profoundly?
Original Text: The United States in 1960
Introduction. The Year 1960 was for the people of the United States a time of expectant hopes—and developing apprehensions; of accomplishments in science and productivity—and weaknesses in humanity; of triumphant self-government—and unsolved economic problems.
It was a Presidential election year and a census year; the beginning of a new decade: “the Sixties;” and for the national image a period of unusual distortion. The red, white, and blue emblem came to boast fifty stars on July 5 and the population topped 180 million (April 1: 179,323,175). Yet the year saw a powerful President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his last year of eight in office, forced to endure the ignominy of having invitations extended by two major powers to visit their lands withdrawn in the glare of world publicity.
The year began with professional business forecasters proclaiming a forthcoming economy that would warrant the term “Soaring Sixties.” Year’s end, however, saw steel production at a dismal low, unemployment climbing slowly, and uncertainty in federal government finance.
The national, state, and local elections received more attention from the mass public and mass media, perhaps, than any in ready memory. The drama in the persons and conduct of the youthful Presidential candidates, tensions born from a religious element last raised in 1928, the central role of television in the quick magnification of particular issues, and the uneasy realization that the world was watching every move with intense self-interest—all served to make the election of 1960 memorable. The startling closeness of the final result provided a fitting climax to the spectacle of a free people choosing those they wished to lead them in peace or, if need be, in war.
Better housed, clothed, and fed than ever before, Americans were reminded repeatedly of the plight of migrants, slum dwellers, the unemployed, and the handicapped in their midst. The health status and financial status of aging citizens was debated, and facts and figures were assembled in many patterns to prove various legislative cases. As the nation prepared to commemorate the coming centennial of a Civil War born in large part of issues deriving from the enslavement of the black man, the problems faced by America’s largest minority race were still headline news.
Soviet-U.S. relations were often given top billing in 1960 by journalists who knew the uneasiness with which the man-in-the-street was gradually coming to view Khrushchev’s technologically accelerating and obviously imperialist nation. While specialists followed the news of disarmament negotiations in Geneva, every taxi driver could and did pontificate on the U-2 debacle. And even school children by year’s end had been indoctrinated on the whereabouts of Quemoy and Matsu, the continuing existence of a darkest Africa, and the reality of a satellite (Echo I) that all could see as it ignored the existence of national boundaries. Events in Cuba and Laos disturbed policymakers in Washington; and looking to the South it was considered expedient by the President (but not the Congress) to permit the flying of the Panamanian flag side by side with the stars and stripes in one place in the Canal Zone.
All mankind in 1960 knew that the United States was a power in the world; more than at any time since it had risen to first rank among the nations; however, the leaders of foreign governments felt it necessary to listen—not only to the latest word from Washington—but to that from Moscow. The year was one in a rapidly changing period when thermonuclear or biochemical catastrophe might accompany a breakdown in one’s relations with the outwardly volatile Communists. Thus high posts in national capitals and in the United Nations contained many leaders disturbed that even competent leadership might not be able to guarantee the future of mankind.
The Election. Victorious in the congressional election of 1958 with 56.5 percent of the vote, and free of the necessity for running against Eisenhower, the Democratic Party had looked forward with optimism to the Presidential race of 1960. But a noticeable rise in the popularity of Vice President Richard M. Nixon in 1959 and the abrupt withdrawal of Governor Nelson Rockefeller on December 26 disturbed many who favored the fortunes of Senators Stuart Symington Hubert H. Humphrey, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson. Backers of Adlai Stevenson hoped that their favorite might be selected in 1960 to do battle with a political figure rather than a war hero. Close observers in January thought the election might possibly turn on peace, prosperity, and personality (but not necessarily in that order).
Kennedy announced his candidacy on January 3; Nixon did likewise on the 9th, with President Eisenhower coming to his support on March 16. Humphrey had long been a candidate. Not until March 24 did Symington announce, while Johnson held off until summer (July 5). Victorious in the New Hampshire, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Oregon primaries, Kennedy was a Democratic frontrunner on the eve of the Los Angeles convention of his party—although former President Truman called him “immature.” Stalwarts such as Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt expressed sharp misgivings, and reaction to his Catholic religion was adverse in the South (but not among Northern city politicians).
The first ballot Kennedy victory in the convention was decisive. He partially disarmed disgruntled Southerners by the designation of Senator Johnson of Texas as his running mate, and somewhat cheered uneasy or dismayed Americans for Democratic Action and Adlai Stevenson elements by a forceful acceptance speech pledging national movement toward New Frontiers. Senator Henry Jackson of Washington replaced Paul M. Butler as national chairman.
The Democratic platform was more of an issue in 1960 than in recent elections. Entitled “The Rights of Man,” it made clear an intention to use federal machinery to do a multitude of things that were thought to need doing. There should be a restoration of national military, political, economic, and moral strength, it stated, pledging reaction against job discrimination and the inability to pay for medical care, and the institution of many new services and controls. The platform was exceedingly popular with liberal elements in the party, unpopular in the South, and a prime Republican target.
The expected nomination of Vice President Nixon was quickly made by the Republicans in their Chicago convention, and his last minute choice of photogenic U.N. ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge for a running mate quickly met with gratifying approval. Since the Democrats had charged declines in American power and prestige in Republican years, party speakers tended to evoke images of American greatness and called on their opponents to exhibit increased patriotism. The Republican platform “Building a Better America,” tried to avoid unduly complacent pointing with pride at the Eisenhower years. A dramatic convention-eve conference between Nixon and Governor Rockefeller had helped to shape its planks to minimize committee and floor fights. Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, recognized spokesman for classic conservatism, was not entirely appeased, however. Indeed, the platform was a far cry from those of only a few campaigns back. Compared to the Democratic document, it was less inclined to rely on federal as against state power, more concerned with the concept of freedom from government intervention in private matters, less alarmist in assessing national strength, and did not offer as many promises of benefits that would flow from a party victory.
Both Democratic and Republican platforms showed the concern of their framers for foreign affairs in general and national defense in particular. Both platforms opposed admission of Communist China to the U.N., but the Democrats added that they would “welcome any evidence that the Chinese Government is genuinely prepared to create a new relationship based on respect for international obligations….” Both parties spoke well of the United Nations. As for the “captive nations” behind the Iron Curtain, both parties displayed sympathy and a willingness to use peaceful means to hasten their day of freedom. Indeed, in foreign affairs, despite numerous references by the Democratic platform to 7 l/2 years of ineptitude in Republican performance, the platforms were basically similar.
In the defense area, the Republicans saw U. S. military might as “second to none,” while the Democrats called for the recasting of military capacity to provide “diversity, balance, and mobility sufficient in quantity and quality to deter both limited and general aggressions.” The Republicans pointed to the maintenance of peace since Korea; while the Democrats referred to a “missile gap, space gap, limited war gap.” The length and strength of language in the planks of both parties in this area showed the underlying concern of responsible political leaders for the national safety.
Planks on labor, agriculture, and social welfare reflected partisan divisions in Congressional voting during the Eisenhower years, although in the civil rights area in particular there was promise of greater federal regulation than legislators of either party had been willing to legislate thus far. No extensive floor fight on civil rights developed in either convention, but it was widely understood that the strong language of the Democratic platform was unlikely to be reiterated in the national campaigning to come.
Republicans accused the Democrats of having promised, in the welfare area, federal action so extensive as to amount to the “buying” of votes; yet there was nothing new in Democratic Party platform calls for federal action, control, or financing in areas such as housing, health, and aid to depressed areas. The memory of New Deal and Fair Deal was frequently evoked by Democratic speakers as the campaign progressed. Eleanor Roosevelt came to Kennedy’s support, and Harry Truman (although absenting himself from his party’s convention) did likewise. Governor Rockefeller campaigned long hours for the Nixon-Lodge ticket, and Senator Goldwater did so in Southern states.
In the long and intensive campaigning that began virtually as soon as the conventions adjourned, the four candidates labored daily and nightly with an intensity seldom equaled. To experts who had once predicted that TV would sound a death knell to barnstorming, this exhibition must have come as a shock. Nixon traveled over 60,000 miles and visited every state, even going to Alaska the Sunday before election day, and Kennedy covered 75,000 miles while going to 44 states. Republicans made much of the fact that Senator Johnson largely limited his efforts to his native South, and charged that the Kennedy-Johnson ticket did not see eye-to-eye on civil rights and other matters. Slips by Lodge (such as a later modified assertion that the Republicans would appoint a Negro to the cabinet), and his indication that he thought parochial schools should receive certain benefits from government, indicated that neither ticket was free of individualism in viewpoint. Republican handled unimaginatively an argument over American overseas “prestige.”
While there was much talk of Kennedy’s religion in the press, in pulpits, and in private, the big news of the election of 1960 was made in four television debates between Kennedy and Nixon. These were unprecedented. They brought millions to TV screens—especially for the first of the discussions. Many newspapers carried full texts of what was said, and citizens of a serious bent in many instances continued to debate the issues at length. Persons whose voting had long been determined by the quality of “the man,” disregarding issues, felt in 1960 that the debating device gave them a new window for peering at a future President fit to govern the nation.
It was generally asserted, and widely believed, that for reasons of lighting or makeup—or because of physical or personality factors—the first TV debate fatally damaged the then existing Nixon image. Although the heavy-browed, perspiring, overly severe Nixon in the TV screens of the first debate faded in those that followed (and was completely eliminated for many of the housewives who ironed or sat through his four-hour TV “telethon” from Detroit the Monday before election day), the damage endured.
Kennedy, not widely and certainly not universally known before his nomination, presented to the public a dynamic and personable young figure, articulate and upright. Some thought they saw a new “FDR.” While both candidates drew vast crowds as they moved through New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and many lesser cities and towns (often speaking briefly at suburban shopping centers), it was probably true that Kenney’s demonstrative and more youthful audiences surpassed Nixon’s measurably in overt enthusiasm. The belated participation of President Eisenhower in partisan campaigning did much to raise Republican hopes in the closing weeks. Yet it was hard to overcome damage done by an ambiguous press conference remark the President had made months before to the effect that it would be hard for him to think of areas where the Vice President’s counsel had been influential on decisions….
An AFL-CIO endorsement of Kennedy-Johnson (and all that went with it) was helpful to that ticket, and many business executives and physicians worked openly for the Republicans for the first time. Polls showed, even before the counting of the votes, that the war hero’s image had not been transferable to the intelligent, articulate, dedicated, and capable—but not quite electric—Vice President. Considering carefully the persons of Nixon and Kennedy, veteran Socialist observer Norman Thomas, approaching 76, judged, “They are exceedingly similar men as far as I see it, and I think they are very able.”
The counting of the votes proved an exciting and long-drawn-out process, as the result in some states proved indecisive for a week or even more. Absentee ballots swung California from Kennedy to Nixon (Hawaii vice versa), and recounts threatened for a time to reverse the result in Illinois. Accustomed to quick and definitive announcement of election results, citizens were disconcerted by the possibility that the apparent Kennedy victory might be overturned—even in mid-December. With charges of corruption in Chicago and elsewhere and intimations that certain Southern electors might switch allegiance from the apparent victors, relief greeted the not unexpected announcement that the Electoral College had certified John Fitzgerald Kennedy as the next President of the United States. The final electoral vote was 303 to 219, with 15 for Senator Harry F. Byrd. The popular vote, 68,832,788, was divided: Kennedy 35,221,531, Nixon 35,180,474, others 502,773. Nixon carried 26 states, Kennedy 23. Clamor for Electoral College system revision, not unusual, was especially strident.
Minor parties amounted to little in 1960, either as salesmen for ideas or ideologies, or as recipients of concentrated votes. Yet enough votes were gained by the Socialist Labor, Socialist Workers, Prohibition, Constitution, Conservative, National States’ Rights, and other parties to keep the victors margin from being a true majority of votes cast. For the first time in the century the Socialists did not offer a candidate. The new Senate would be divided 65 D, 35 R; the House would be 262 D, 173 R (for a noticeable Republican gain).
Following the election, both Kennedy and Nixon dragged themselves to Florida—the vanquished Nixon and his hard-campaigning wife, Pat, to think through the problem of how best to spend the next four years. The winner would take counsel on distributing the spoils of victory that accompanied capture of the executive branch of the government. Relations between the outgoing administration and the Kennedy forces were outwardly cordial, and a visit to the White House was proclaimed “unusually informative in nature.” The hearts of voters of both persuasions were particularly taken during this interregnum by the highly newsworthy caesarian birth of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jr.
The Kennedy cabinet was announced with unusual deliberateness. The cabinet consisted of: Secretary of State: Dean Rusk, 51; Treasury: Douglas Dillon, 51; Defense: Robert S. McNamara, 44; Attorney General: Robert F. Kennedy, 35, brother of the President-elect; Postmaster General, J. Edward Day, 46; Interior, Stewart L. Udall, 40; Agriculture: Orville L. Freeman, 42; Commerce: Luther Hodges, 62; Labor: Arthur J. Goldberg, 52; HEW: Abraham A. Ribicoff, 50. There were six Protestants, two Jews, a Catholic and a Mormon; two (Defense, Treasury) were Republicans. Rusk and young Kennedy were quickly singled out for attack by partisans.
When President Eisenhower referred after the election to narrowly defeated candidate Nixon as “the head of the Republican Party for the next four years” the designation was unacceptable to Governor Rockefeller (who endorsed “collective leadership”), while Senator Goldwater indicated that party ideology would have to move to the right by 1964, so far as he was concerned. Representative Charles A. Halleck, House Minority Leader, said the consensus he sensed was that the initial and primary responsibility for Republican policy formulation would rest on “Republicans in Congress.” (These had sponsored during the campaign a policy document on “America’s Strategy and Strength.”) Nixon soon signified the intention of providing leadership in preparation for 1962; at year’s end his personal plans were not yet ready to be revealed.
Foreign Affairs. On August 9, at a time when the election was beginning to occupy the minds of Americans, Secretary of State Christian Herter told a press conference that there should be no illusions that U.S. foreign policy was going to be immobilized by the campaign. The nation could still move “with speed, force and unity.” Americans take pride, he said, that their mass media are preoccupied with the determination of who is to guide their destinies for the next four years. “The world would be a safer and a better place in which to live,” he reflected, “if the countries of the Sino-Soviet bloc enjoyed the same freedoms of expression, of thought and of choice.” Unimpressed by the concept of electoral choice made without fear of defeat, and attuned to a single party, the Soviet press and public were reported to see the American election as no more than a useless choice between Tweedledum or Tweedledee—between “political twins.”
There was little doubt in 1960 that the United States was in and of the world. News of the Congo, of Laos, Cuba, Korea, Algeria, Turkey, and Ethiopia vied with accounts of major power activities in the mass media. The meeting of the U.N. General Assembly brought Khrushchev and a full house of Communist dignitaries from Iron Curtain countries as well as rulers of new African nations. De Gaulle and Macmillan were other visitors to the U.S.
The long awaited signing of the treaty with Japan took place in the White House on January 19, replacing that of September 18, 1951. Full sovereignty was restored to Japan in defense matters; U.S. land, air, and naval forces were granted use of facilities and areas in Japan; and “international peace and security in the Far East” seemed to have been advanced. Attacks on Japanese territory would be resisted by joint action of both nations. Ratification by Congress came on June 22. Crown Prince Akihito and his wife visited the nation in late September, tending to offset slightly the embarrassment created by the leftist riot-caused cancellation in June of Japan’s invitation to be the nation’s guest.
The U.S. in April rebuked the Rhee regime on the death of 125 youths in Korea; the aging Rhee soon resigned and fled his country, coming to Hawaii. The riots in Japan and Korea were followed by similar disturbances in Turkey, Italy, and elsewhere, all of them watched closely by Washington officials apprehensive of Communist expansion through riot techniques.
Anglo-American relations were unmarred by major disputation in 1960, although an agreement to lend a harbor in Scotland for a Polaris submarine base, and a Ford Motor Company plan to purchase control of its British subsidiary, both irritated residents of our leading ally. British decision to abandon construction of her IRBM, Blue Streak, and to purchase Sky Bolt, a future Douglas Aircraft Company missile, seemed to seal Anglo-American interdependence for some years to come.
Senate ratification of a 12-nation Antarctic treaty as a means of keeping that frigid part of the globe peaceful was hailed by some as a sign that the U.S. and U.S.S.R. could reach agreement on some matters. An Eisenhower visit to Latin America in the spring, though marred by a tragic plane crash involving a substantial part of the U.S. Navy Band, was a successful good-will tour, as was a later visit to Manila. French explosion of a nuclear device in the Sahara, accounts of Israeli construction of a reactor, and continuing speculation on the date in the 1960’s when the Red Chinese might possess one or more atomic weapons, disturbed persons concerned with the apparent problems that might come with the spread of nuclear weapon capabilities.
On July 8 some of the native army in the new Republic of Congo mutinied, and the situation there quickly became chaotic and (in the view of whites on the scene) virtually barbaric. As the Security Council urged evacuation of Belgian troops and a U.N. force was flown in, a veritable comedy of jungle-style overturns of local government brought strange names like Kasavubu and Lumumba into American living rooms. The U.S. soon charged the Soviets with trying to make political hay in central Africa, and on September 19 the U.N. General Assembly told the Russians by a vote of 70 to 0 to keep hands off.
U.S. aid to foreign countries for civil and military purposes continued in 1960, as it was revealed that total military aid to 12 Western European countries, 1950-1959, had come to $13,704,990,000. There were signs in 1960 that the nation was increasingly anxious that prosperous European powers increase their aid to underdeveloped countries to ease the burden on the U.S. Senator Goldwater urged that aid be stopped entirely, and there were misgivings as the civil war in Laos in autumn, fought in large part with U.S.-supplied weapons, brought realization that the supplying of aid was no cure-all; yet the situation there was very complex—and by December 31 dangerous. The campaigning of the election year had revealed no evidence that highly placed leaders intended to cut back the giving and lending of foreign aid in many forms as part of our routine foreign policy.
U.S., British, and Soviet negotiations in Geneva, aimed at a treaty to discontinue nuclear weapons tests as a first step toward some degree of disarmament, continued in early 1960. The 14-month old conference boiled down to Soviet desire to sign a test-ban treaty first and to study problems of detecting small underground explosions later. The U.S. continued to insist on enforceability and safeguards. Full East-West disarmament talks resumed, after a two and a half year gap, on March 15, but the Soviets walked out late in June. U.S. offers then (and later) before the U.N. Disarmament Commission, were rejected by the Soviets. There was little meeting of the minds in this area in 1960. Although it was revealed that arms costs in the world came to some $320,000,000 per day, the U.S., at least, was decidedly unwilling to pay the possibly catastrophic costs in unilateral or uninspectable disarmament in a world half Communist.
U.S.-Cuban relations hit an all time low in 1960 as the Castro regime seized virtually all American property on the island, treated civil rights cavalierly, and turned to the Communist Bloc for military and economic aid and for ideological comfort. The U.S. eschewed military action and relied chiefly on an embargo on exports and on mobilization of Latin-American opinion. Reliance lay on the hope that the Cuban populace would come to its senses before an attack by the ever more heavily armed Castro army on our Guantanamo naval base, or some equivalent event, might start a tragic shooting war.
Represented at the U.N. by Henry Cabot Lodge until his resignation to campaign actively, the United States showed once again in 1960 that in the 15th year since the founding of the U.N. it was prepared to meet more than its share of financial obligations and to participate fully at almost all levels of service. The nation was glad to see the Soviet candidate for Assembly president beaten, to see Red China again kept from membership (though by a narrowing margin), and to have Dag Hammarskjold beat off Soviet attempts to have him ousted from office. It was hoped that the non-parliamentary conduct of the Soviet premier before the Assembly had clarified for some neutralist delegates among those of the 99 member nations the traditional Communist contempt for the daily procedures of representative government. Eloquent Adlai Stevenson would be the new U.S. ambassador to the U.N., beginning in 1961.
U.S.-Soviet Relations. The Soviets made headlines as 1960 began with an announcement of a 1,200,000 man reduction on their armed forces (2,423,000 would remain under arms). Firepower was by no means being reduced, however, and rocket equipment would be relied on heavily. President Eisenhower prepared during the winter months for a scheduled Summit Conference with Khrushchev in Paris and for a later visit, by the Premier’s invitation, to Russia.
The meaning to the U.S. of extended Soviet-Chinese autumn negotiations on the inevitability of international war, and on the proper Communist line to take in an age of thermonuclear threats, remained unclear in 1960, although the agreement’s ultimate importance to peace, war, and coexistence was unquestioned.
The nation was electrified on May 5 by a Khrushchev announcement that an American aircraft, something called a U-2, had been shot down deep within Soviet territory. This was probably the year’s most dramatic single event. After high Administration officials charged with press relations operated at cross-purposes, it was formally admitted on May 7 that the captured and unharmed pilot, Francis Gary Powers, had been on what was almost unprecedentedly defended by President Eisenhower as an entirely justifiable photographic reconnaissance (i.e., spy) mission. The world watched apprehensively as the Soviet Premier, professing extremes of surprise and indignation (although the flights had been known to the Soviets for a long period), walked out of the Paris meeting with open rudeness and cancelled his invitation for an Eisenhower visit.
The U.N. Security Council subsequently refused, 7-2, to censure the U.S. on the U-2 incident, perhaps persuaded on the validity of the American position that the flights had long been a real protection for the Free World against surprise (“Pearl Harbor”) attacks. Refusing to give in on the principle involved, the U.S. announced abandonment of further flights of the U-2 type. The decision seemed to stem in part from the fact that the world-wide publicity given the flights had compromised them, and it was also related to the extreme threats made by the Soviets against any of our allies who would in the future facilitate take-offs for unauthorized flights over Soviet borders. The heavily publicized trial of civilian pilot Powers in the Soviet Union took place under a code of justice new and strange to Americans, who read about the proceedings with some bewilderment.
On July 11 the Soviets admitted shooting down a U.S. RB-47 reconnaissance plane over the Barents Sea ten days earlier; the U.S. said it had been 30 miles from the U.S.S.R. A U.N. vote of 9-2 went in favor of the U.S. Refusal to release two captains who survived, and Soviet firing on a U.S. observation plane over Laos in December, were other unpleasant aspects of Soviet-U.S. relations, as the “spirit of Camp David” seemed forgotten. Still, some cultural exchanges continued—even though American tourists within Soviet borders were occasionally accused of spying. Two National Security Agency employees were revealed in September to have defected to Moscow. The FBI soon revealed in a 63-page document that Soviet spying in the U.S. made the U-2 incident “pale into insignificance.” Aerial photographs of the U.S. had been standard items of conspiratorial purchase. Two Soviet spies were arrested October 27. A Soviet threat on July 9 to use rockets if the U.S. intervened in Cuba brought a prompt Presidential reply that the Soviet Union was to keep its hands off the Western Hemisphere. Khrushchev later took an occasion to dilute the earlier threat, as the Castro government displayed an extreme degree of belligerency and the U.S. chose to display unusual naval activity in the Caribbean for a time.
Premier Khrushchev ended a 25-day stay in the New York City area on October 13. During his visit he made daily headlines. He appeared as an interviewee on a long regularly scheduled and (normally) commercially sponsored TV broad-cast, delivered belligerently outspoken addresses at the U.N.—and interrupted speeches by others—and purchased vast quantities of American-made consumer luxury goods to take home.
FBI Chief J. Edgar Hoover stated in December that internal Communist activity in the U.S.—far from abating—was being stepped up, especially among youths. The House Un-American Activities Committee continued to hold hearings despite a bloodless riot at its legally constituted San Francisco meeting in the public courthouse. Federal agencies enforced a variety of security measures in a continuing effort to protect technological know-how from foreign agents.
The Military and Space. Satellites of many kinds made Jules Verne-style news in 1960; it could be said that the year brought to the public a greater realization of the potentialities of space activities in communication, weather observation, navigation, and increased knowledge of the universe. Military uses of rockets were brought home in public discussion of ICBM’s and IRBM’s. There was serious controversy on matters of national strategy. Soviet accomplishments, particularly in elevation of objects of large weight and constant professions of their enormous destructive capability made even casual Americans assume a growing concern for the national safety and “prestige” (a subject much debated).
An Eisenhower declaration made in some heat during his Press Conference of January 13 set the stage for partisan political debate on weapons and strategy throughout the year. “I’ve spent my life in this [Defense],” he said, “and I know more about it than almost anybody I think that is in the country….” Secretary of Defense Thomas S. Gates revealed quantities of facts and figures at various times on weapons in the national arsenal, but critics took the view that in the coming Sixties some new weapons, and certain types of problems, would vastly outweigh traditional ones in significance—especially for survival. At year’s end the whole discussion had become more sophisticated.
The successful debut of Polaris heartened the nation. Discussion of such subjects as civil defense, “hardening” of aircraft storage and missile launching sites, problems in maintaining full command, mobility of weapons, capacity to fight “limited wars,” threats from radiation, and the degree (and possibility) of possible survival in the event of full-scale attack were becoming more common at year’s end among serious observers. The degree of safety the U.S. could offer NATO and particularly West Germany through various means began to be discussed at home---as it had long been abroad. A new Chief of Staff, General Lyman L. Lemnitzer, was named in August, and a Symington Committee plan for armed forces reorganization was debated at year’s end. The Triton, a nuclear submarine, circled the globe under water (41,519 miles in 84 days).
Space news was made by Echo I, a balloon-shaped communications satellite; Explorer VIII, heavily instrumented; Transit I-B, forerunner of a space navigation system; the manned X-15 experiments; Pioneer V, an artificial planetoid; Midas, a surveillance satellite; the Discoverer series—which provided airborne recovery of capsules from space; and Trios, a meteorological (“weather-eye”) package of camera equipment. In mid-November, the U.S. had 17 satellites still in space, while the Soviets had only two—but they still exceeded the nation in capacity to orbit great weights (4 ½ tons on May 15). Werner Von Braun foresaw a U.S. man-in-space effort late in 1961. All in all, 1960 would go down in history as a time of much advance by mankind in the penetration of outer space. The U.S. batting average on launchings, .470 in 1958 and .580 in 1959, was .500 by May 11, 1960.
The Domestic Scene. While no single dramatic incident highlighted “the economic situation” in 1960, the outwardly prosperous year was marked by quiet misgivings, uneasy appraisals, and routine politically inspired extremes in prediction. In December, 1959 the Director of the Bureau of the Budget foresaw possible ultimate disaster in a U.S. “public debt and future commitments” total of some $750,000,000,000 (not including annual operating expenses). But public demand for additional government services was shown in many ways in the year; much of the talk of somehow increasing the rate of annual growth in the economy was designed in part to facilitate passage of legislation to enlarge government operations (as well as to finance national survival).
The nation’s employed reached 67,767,000 in early autumn, while unemployment had reached 3,400,000 in August (about 800,000 of these were persons out of work for more than 15 weeks—a figure well under the 1,700,000 of a year earlier). Un-employment was very spotty and was severe in certain communities. Three million citizens for various reasons had one or more jobs in addition to their regular employment.
National income in 1959 had reached the $400 billion level for the first time, despite the long steel strike, and in 1960 the GNP passed $500 billion. The Consumer Price Index in mid-year stood at 126.5 (1947-49 =100), little changed in a year (June, 1959 = 125.3), but by October, 1960 it had climbed another 0.8.
A “gold outflow” was the big economic news of late 1960, and the government made a variety of efforts to stop it. High interest rates in Europe, a sluggish U.S. economy, heavy U.S. public and private expenditures overseas, foreign competition in the American market, and distrust of the dollar were factors in the steady transfer of gold out of the country; their individual importance as causes, and the particular remedies to be pursued, were debated at year’s end. Government spending abroad was to be sharply reduced. American companies were scheduled to invest $3,852,000,000 in facilities abroad during the year. Although annual exports exceeded imports by more than $4 billion, hope was expressed that the differential could be broadened. U.S. investment abroad reached a total of $65.8 billion, as opposed to foreign investment here of $40.7 billion.
Auto output in 1960 reached 6,700,000 units, the second highest on record. Some optimism for the future could be seen in ATT plans to spend $2.5 billion for expansion in 1961, and General Motors plans to spend $1.2 billion, an increase of fifty million over 1960.
The federal debt exceeded $290 billion in 1960, but the revenue surplus came to $1.2 billion even though expenditures reached $76,539,412,799.
It was by no means a year for important legislation by the Congress. Appro-priations for welfare items climbed, and a civil rights bill achieved passage despite the longest filibuster on record (82 hours, 3 minutes). It was the second such measure since 1875 and the first since 1957. That the law would one day be important was unquestioned, but it did not fully satisfy liberal and Negro groups. Legislators clashed, as usual, on expenditures for defense, foreign aid ($3.7 billion) and on aid to “depressed areas” at home. There was much jockeying for political advantage in an election year as a “postscript session” of Congress in August achieved no more than had been predicted. Decision on Forand-type legislation for medical care for the aging on social security rolls was only postponed by passage of a bill that would plug major loopholes in states inclined to participate, but not in the others.
Supreme Court decisions in 1960 appeared to be routine. The session saw disposal of 1,822 cases out of 2,178. Off-shore oil rights were awarded to the states. Decisions on individual rights remained the area of effort most closely observed by the public; the year saw rulings on both sides of this controversial matter. Overall, the divisions in the highest court of the land seemed once again to be on methods of change rather than fundamentals. Charges that the Court was overworked and not able to study cases sufficiently brought stinging rejoinder from world traveler and author Justice William O. Douglas, who asserted there was, more than ever, ample time for “research, deliberation, debate, and meditation.”
As in 1959, the year brought ample evidence that differences over racial equality as concept and reality ran deep in the national culture. In Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and in New Orleans, clashes over Negro rights evoked national attention. “Sit-ins” were born of Negro resistance to traditional chain store restaurant efforts to exclude Negroes. Clashes over school integration scheduling under the Supreme Court ruling of 1954 (particularly in New Orleans) were not unusual in Southern states; meanwhile, surveys showed continuing discrimination in housing in the North and West. Still, 12 Negroes quietly began the new school year at Central and Hall High Schools in Little Rock, Arkansas, and integration victories were achieved elsewhere. Vice President Nixon’s federal committee in December brought in a hard-hitting report against job discrimination, fully endorsed by the recently defeated candidate for President. Senator Lyndon Johnson would inherit this political whirlwind on assuming the Vice Presidency.
As he prepared to leave office, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, at 70, had become the oldest man ever to sit in the White House. Dean of the nation’s aging citizens (average life expectancy for Americans in 1959: 69.7); he planned to retire to his Gettysburg farm after January 20, 1961.
College enrollment hit 3,610,007 in 1960-61, an increase of 6 percent. Local taxpayers approved $387 million in school bond issues on November 8 in an effort to keep classroom space abreast of needs. Voters approved 137 such issues, defeating 34.
The increasingly urbanized nation came to have about fifty cities with populations over 258,000 (1787: 24 towns with more than 2,500). There was an 11 percent rise in serious crime, most of the increase in cities. California’s execution of Caryl Chessman on May 2 after long years of litigation aroused renewed interest in eliminating the death penalty. A White House Conference on Children and Youth called for federal action in various fields to meet defined needs.
The United States was still experiencing a cultural boom (mixed with evidence of bad taste in some motion pictures and a rise in “pornographic” literature on newsstands). Over 3.9 millions visited the Metropolitan Museum of Art, a figure over twice the number who watched the Yankees in home baseball games and more than twice the number who attended the Louvre overseas. The Detroit Art Museum had more visitors than the British Museum, and Houston’s Museum of Fine Arts had more than the museum of The Hague. Some 1,142 symphony orchestras and 35 million concert goers also showed the national interest in culture. The deaths of musical greats Leonard Warren, Laurence Tibbett, John Charles Thomas, Oscar Hammerstein, 2, Lucretius Bori, and Dmitri Mitropoulos reminded the musically inclined of past American contributions, while the passing of philanthropist John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Walter Yust (editor of Encyclopaedia Britannica) comedy’s Mack Sennett, and society’s respected Emily Post were evidences of America’s accomplishments in fields of diverse interest. Clark Gable would be difficult for the motion picture industry to replace (or for the public to forget). Youngsters—and many not so young—would miss Ward Bond of the wholesome and vastly popular Wagon Train TV show.
A ten-man study group, The President’s Commission on National Goals, brought in a report on November 16 which attempted to paint horizons for the growing nation. The final report with its additional statements and essays made a 372-page book entitled Goals for Americans. While it was clear that the panel had been unable to agree in certain areas (labor, welfare, civil rights, federal action in general, and the Connelly amendment), the net result was important. The paramount goal of the nation, it was agreed in a summary, is “to guard the rights of the individual, to ensure his development, and to enlarge his opportunity.” A call was made for a new sense of responsibility, for an increase in personal effort, and for enlargement of attitudes beyond “the materialistic ethic.”
Challenged by the imponderability of daily events in an awesome missile age; concerned over burgeoning population and frustrating economic stresses; and clinging to ever-increasing leisure in which to enjoy consumer goods, the American people lived their respective lives in 1960.
For them it had been another year without war. They were glad. Immersed in the routine of daily living, they looked toward 1961 with fingers crossed—hopeful that it would miraculously bring some degree of freedom from the tensions of modern life on a troubled planet.

From History News Network July 21 2008

McCain turns to Karl Rove for Help

Steve Schmidt, New McCain Advisor (LA Times)

The political veteran Steve Schmidt was named last week to run the stuttering presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain and save it from itself, has moved quickly to install another veteran of previous Republican campaigns that opposed the Arizona senator.
The new style first emerges at lunch hour today in Denver with a trademark town hall meeting and a series of local media interviews focused on, of all things, the economy, which pretty much everyone but the McCain operation has long believed was campaign issue No. 1 in 2008.
On Sunday, as first reported by ABC News, Schmidt named as McCain's new political director Mike DuHaime, whose job will be to provide just such nonstop relevant focus.
DuHaime's most recent political feat was to lead the one-time frontrunning GOP presidential campaign of ex-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to crash in flames somewhere in the Florida swamps.
But don't be fooled. The tough-talking, aggressive Schmidt and the milder but equally methodical DuHaime, both in their 30s and both New Jerseyans, are part of a new generation of professional Republican operatives getting their first chances to direct the unruly multimillion-dollar monsters that massive national campaigns can become.
Many like Schmidt were schooled in the successful style of....
...Karl Rove, who learned his methodical political management skills through the daily minutiae of state races during the 80s and 90s before jumping into national politics.
Schmidt worked in the losing campaigns of would-be senator Matt Fong of California and would-be president Lamar Alexander, now a GOP senator from Tennessee.
In 2004 Schmidt ran the rapid-response team for Bush-Cheney, a job once held by ex-White House counselor Dan Bartlett, before working with Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney.
In 2006, Schmidt went west to head the ultimately successful reelection campaign for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who had lost several important ballot initiatives, was sagging in popularity and had a campaign team pulling in several different directions.
Sound familiar?
The grumbling grew louder among grass-roots Republicans across the country in recent weeks as the feeling mounted that while few work harder than McCain himself, his campaign had squandered its 90-day general election headstart with spinning wheels taking the candidate in too many directions with muddled messages, sloppy staging and clumsy speech deliveries.
In recent days McCain has worked with Brett O'Donnell, a speech coach, to smooth his chronically awkward Teleprompter speech deliveries, which sound particularly clumsy in comparison to his Democratic opponent's well-timed and rhythmic oratory.
Can the veteran and, yes, stubborn Arizona senator, the former free-spirited fighter pilot who prefers the fly-by-the-seat-of-your pants style evidenced in his favorite unrehearsed town hall gatherings, adapt to the more disciplined mode of pro managers? And stick to the polished message without inadvertently inserting some distracting comment?
The McCain campaign has also just hired Greg Jenkins, an experienced political advance team captain and Fox News producer. His job is to spiff up the often-dreary settings and stagings of McCain's campaign appearances that can silently add or detract so much from delivery of the day's political message not to the immediate audience, which are merely living props, but to the thousands more witnessing the event through the prism of TV.
And, according to Bill Kristol, the other shoe will soon drop when McCain hires Mike Murphy, the campaign strategist who helped him nearly upset the Bush family in 2000, as his traveling advisor and strategist while Schmidt drives the campaign from Alexandria.
Does anyone remember Giuliani's relentless 9/11 message of last fall? While ultimately unsuccessful in Republican primaries due to a variety of reasons, there was no doubt what Giuliani's message was. And DuHaime ran that effort. Likewise, under Rove's direction, George W. Bush ran two successful Texas gubernatorial races with but three or four easily identifiable goals.
DuHaime began his political career as campaign manager for Anthony Bucco’s successful New Jersey State Senate race in 1997. He was deputy campaign manager for Bob Franks’ 2000 U.S. Senate race, and, oh, look, regional political director of Bush's 2004 reelection bid.
In 2005 and 2006 DuHaime was the political director of the Republican National Committee, which under several chairmen including former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, Ken Mehlman, Ed Gillespie and Florida Sen. Mel Martinez has since 2000 closely coordinated its efforts with the White House (meaning Rove).
DuHaime's appointment, which also made him deputy campaign manager, is an early sign of the firm, more centralized and pragmatic approach the blunt Schmidt has quickly imposed on the GOP candidate's campaign headquarters in Arlington, Va.
Anyone who's sat in on a national campaign's daily message meeting, which sets and meticulously choreographs the candidate's travels and messages up to two to three weeks out, will recognize the difference between one that's a chorus of possibly good ideas and one that has a presiding officer who listens and then decisively drives a single theme.
Hard to believe, fully 18 months into this presidential campaign and less than four months out from the November election, but DuHaime actually replaces no one on the McCain staff.
That's because, amazingly, until Sunday the Republican presidential nominee's national team did not employ either a political director or a field director.
-- Andrew Malcolm (LA Times)