Coming off the excitement of Vanderbilt’s historic win against top-ranked Alabama, it felt fitting to dive into how presidents win elections through campaigns in our class. Just as sports victories often hinge on strategy, so too do political wins—and we learned that presidential campaigns weren't always the way they are now.
As Professor Hemmer explained, early presidents didn’t campaign for themselves. It was even considered improper to do so. Instead, their surrogates would hit the trail hard, often engaging in nasty attacks on the opposition. Specifically, familial attacks, questioning race, adultery allegations, and scandal were rampant in presidential campaigns… which is not too different from today’s campaigns. Truly, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
One pivotal shift in campaign strategy came with the rise of television. Hemmer highlighted how Eisenhower was the first to really use TV to his advantage, famously with the catchy jingle "I Like Ike!" Kennedy also successfully used TV, and this “convinced campaigns that television is critical to winning the presidency” (Hemmer). Now that television ads have lost their novelty and instead feel like more of a nuisance, the advent of new technology and communication remains important for campaigns. As we learned previously, David Axelrod and his use of social media for the Obama campaign was revolutionary. Recently, podcasts have become the latest frontier for candidates to reach voters, with Vice President Kamala Harris making headlines by appearing on Call Her Daddy. However, the use of the entertainment industry as a happy medium between advertisement and journalism is also not new, as President Nixon made comedy appearances during his campaign…“Sock it to Me?!”
Geer took the stage and continued with the campaign lesson arguing “Attack politics are actually good, overall, and we need it.” Ultimately, negative campaigns are more likely to be about issues rather than personal traits, they are much more specific and have more evidence compared to positive ads about a candidate. Altogether this makes negative ads crucial in informing voter decisions. Despite this, there is a lot of “negativity against negativity,” since most individuals say they are tired of these ads. Geer asserts that while they are necessary, we are entering a new and troubling era for negativity that may breed incivility.
Lastly, Meacham closed the class by explaining how all of the negativity has created a psychological test for candidates. Attacks are no longer sent via a letter from a horse and carriage; instead, the barrage of attacks can be 24/7 through social media. Therefore, our candidates must be able to function when receiving a nearly constant stream of 50% hate and 50% support.
Tuesday’s class is the only one of the week. As students go off for fall break, they are left with the lesson (from class and football) that success requires not just strategy, but also the ability to adapt to changing circumstances.
Comments