Herbert's Hollow History (Check out the links, they're awesome!)

In today's NYT, Bob Herbert laments the sorry state of American politics; the particular bee in Herbert's bonnet is the manner in which Republicans and Democrats deliberately dumb-down (take that as an active verb) complex issues like Iraq and the economy in order to sway a hopelessly ill-informed and uninterested electorate. As Herbert (memorably) puts it:

"...we're a nation of nitwits, and a presidential campaign at a critical moment in world history will be spoon-fed to us like an ad for Wheaties."

In this, Herbert is undoubtedly correct. But, unfortunately, Herbert is not content with making a legitimate intellectual point. He feels compelled to present the issue as a partisan rallying point. And he does an amazingly idiotic job of it.

As we have seen, Herbert's understanding of the political present is not the problem; what we will see is that his discussion of the past is woefully - woefully - inadequate. Let's take a a look at Herbert's claims.

[And in case you missed the title, do check out the forthcoming links! They are pants-wettingly funny. And I don't use that term lightly, or ever, really.]

Herbert traces the current paucity of substance in presidential campaigns to the influence of two individuals who worked on American political campaigns during the past fifty years. Oddly enough, both are Republicans. (Who would've guessed?!)

First off, Harry Treleaven, "an advertising man who took a leave of absence in the mid-1960's to work on the Texas Congressional campaign of 42-year-old George Herbert Walker Bush" and who later worked on the presidential campaign of Richard Nixon [pause for obligatory hiss].

At the time, Treleaven wrote [quoted by Herbert], ''Most national issues today are so complicated, so difficult to understand and have opinions on, that they either intimidate or, more often, bore the average voter.'' Trealeaven's response was to avoid intricate discussion of the issues. As one historian said of Trealeaven [also quoted by Herbert], ''There was no issue when it came to selling Ford automobiles; there were only the product, the competition and the advertising. He saw no reason why politics should be any different.''

It is Trealeaven's influence, says Herbert, that colors America's campaigns today:"Mr. Treleaven died in 1998, but the path-breaking cynicism of his type of politics hangs like a shroud over this year's presidential campaign."

And later:

"These [problems in Iraq and the economy] are issues that should be ruthlessly explored, but the politicians, their handlers and much of the media have taken their cues from Harry Treleaven."

Not bad - the guy's been dead for six years, but the media are still taking their cue from him. And let's not forget that path-breaking cynicism that hangs like a shroud over the campaign. (and you thought that was Elizabeth Edwards' shadow!)

But wait - shouts Herbert - it's not just Trealeaven! There's another villain. Who could it be? why, it's "Raymond Price, a speechwriter for Nixon in the 1968 campaign, [who] was as contemptuous of substance in politics as Treleaven. 'It's not what's there that counts,' he wrote, 'it's what's projected.' In Price's view, 'Voters are basically lazy, basically uninterested in making an effort to understand what we're talking about.' ''

Ok, phew. Now we know the truth. It was Trealeaven and Price - both working for Nixon [hiss] in the 1960s - who engineered this sinister movement in election politics. And hey, is anyone surprised? Who else but Nixon's evil minions could have ushered us into a political world so devoid of substance and seriousness and so condescending to the American electorate? Imagine that - treating American citizens like mindless fools who care not a whit about the issues. Those arrogant bastards!

Perhaps inconvenient to Herbert's self-serving narrative is this little clip from a campaign commercial on behalf of Eisenhower's presidential campaign in 1952. [Hit the little red play arrow beneath the cartoon image of Ike]. Or this clip from Eisenhower's opponent, Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson.

(If you're having problems with the video, just read the transcripts. They're worth reading in any case - and many thanks, by the way, to the American Museum of the Moving Image).


Could this be? Is it possible that Republican and Democratic candidates avoided real issues with catchy campaign slogans - years before Trealeaven and Price showed up on the scene? For anyone with even the slightest grounding in American political history (and my grounding is slight indeed), the answer would have to be a resounding yes. Consider a couple of examples (among many others):

1) 1828 - the presidential campaing that is widely considered one of the dirtiest in our history.

a) Andrew Jackson was portrayed by his opponents as a murderer and adulterer (with his wife, Rachel - the "American Jezebel" - who took up residence with Jackson before her divorce from a previous marriage was finalized).
b) Jackson's supporters took to distributing hickory toothpicks and and walking sticks, in deference to their hero, "Old Hickory" Jackson. [Perhaps Trealeaven traveled back to the 1820s (in a Delorean?) in order to spread this pathbreakingly cynical strategy.]
c) Jackson's supporters, moreover, accused his opponent - John Quincy Adams - of hooking up American virgins with the Russian czar. (Adams had been America's ambassador to Russia).

2) Perhaps no American political slogan is as catchy - and, ultimately meaningless - as that which accompanied the 1840 Presidential ticket of Harrison and Tyler: "Tippecanoe and Tyler too."

Here's one paragraph of the song in which the slogan appeared:

"What has caused the great commotion, motion, motion,Our country through?It is the ball a rolling on, on. (Chorus) For Tippecanoe and Tyler too - Tippecanoe and Tyler too, And with them we'll beat little Van, Van, Van."

And Trealeaven was path-breakingly cynical?

Hey Herby, wake up, human nature hasn't changed much in the past, oh, couple thousand years. Politicians have always been aware that popularity is a function - to some degree - of manipulating the public by emphasizing points and issues that best reflect their own strengths and prospects. Perhaps Trealeaven and Price came up with some fancy terminology or polling data that capture this reality - though, tellingly, you don't provide us with any such data - but cynical and issue-avoidant political campaigning are as old as politics itself, a fact that makes your otherwise-worthwhile lament into a typically misleading partisan screed.