The comment about Addison's disease reminded me of an old story about the one televised debate that Kennedy and Nixon had in 1960. Apparently, one of the side effects of Addison's disease was that it gave Kennedy an artificial tan and a rather robust look, so although he was sick he looked well. Nixon, on the other hand, had thin skin. I do not mean that he was unnaturally touchy, I mean literally he had thin skin and the result was that even when he was clean-shaven, under the unusually bright lights used in early television, he looked as though he had a 5 o'clock shadow. It was also reported that when Nixon arrived at the studio for the recording of the debate, he banged his elbow as he was getting out of the car so he was in a little bit of pain. As a result, although he was quite healthy, he looked unwell.
This was the very early days of television and many people listened to the debate on their radios. Afterwards, it was reported that those who had seen the debate on television thought Kennedy had won the debate whereas those who listened on the radio thought Nixon had won the debate.
For some while after that, I use this as an example of the contrast between appearance and reality in politics.
16 comments:
It's a good example.
As Machiavelli put it, "everyone sees how you appear, few touch what you are."
Idle speculation:
HAD Nixon been elected instead of Kennedy, would he have handled the Cuban missile crisis differently, in what way, and would the outcome have been better, worse, or about the same?
Since nuclear war was avoided and the crisis defused, it's hard to see how the outcome could have been better. Whether the outcome would have been worse had Nixon been elected is something I'm not prepared to speculate on, at least not right now.
There is another, I suppose, speculation: *if* Khrushchev's placement of missiles in Cuba had something to do with the Bay of Pigs, and *if* Nixon -- for whatever reason -- might not have launched the Bay of Pigs, then maybe the missile crisis would not have occurred in the first place if Nixon had been elected. But this is very speculative, and I don't know frankly if there's anything to it. Probably not.
There are three books about the missile crisis on my shelf; two of them I haven't properly read (as opposed to just dipping into): (1) Graham Allison, Essence of Decision (the orig. 1971 edition): my not having read this is a bit of a scandal, considering my academic background, or rather it would be a scandal if I had an academic reputation to protect; (2) Michael Dobbs, One Minute to Midnight (pb, 2009).
The third book about the missile crisis on my shelf is Robert Kennedy's Thirteen Days, published posthumously in 1969 and given to me by a friend for my twelfth birthday. Not sure I ever read this either, but I suppose I should read it now, a mere 50+ years after the fact.
On the other hand, there’s the Checkers speech, first outing for Nixon’s “I am not a crook” spiel that he’d be using for the rest of his life (with diminishing success). It was broadcast at a similar time of day and it was widely seen on TV, and Nixon looks pretty seedy in it, at least as seedy as he did in ‘60. Perhaps people were so unused to seeing politicians on TV in 1952 that they were more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt? Or perhaps the difference between radio and TV audiences for the ‘60 debate was more about the difference in wealth between radio and TV owners? After all, Kennedy was rich as croesus but Nixon really did come from a poor family, and voters would have known that from the Checkers speech.
Robert Loughrey
LFC,
You may not have an academic reputation to protect, but you have a Wolff blog commenter reputation to protect, so I suggest you read the 3 books ASAP.
Marc,
ha ha!
R. Loughrey,
In the Checkers speech there was no other politician on the screen with him, so it's really apples and oranges.
The TV/radio difference in 1960 was clearly that TV viewers saw the two men next to each other, whereas radio listeners only heard them and thus had their mostly undivided attention focused on what they were saying. Radio listeners would have been unaware of body language, general appearance, gestures, charisma or the lack thereof, Nixon's 5 o'clock shadow, and so on. I don't think the difference in wealth/income between radio listeners and TV viewers, assuming for the sake of argument that such a difference existed, had anything to do with the difference in reactions when asked who won the debate.
I saw the debate on TV. I was 14 and watched it with my father.
I'd say that JFK won. He seemed smarter and more prepared, quicker with the answers. I'd also say that JFK had a higher IQ, which was very very important to me at that age.
JFK was also incredibly hawkish, perhaps more hawkish than Nixon but at the time that didn't
bother me as much as it does now, although his hawkishness did capture my attention, even at that age, without any anti-imperialist awareness at all.
"I don't think the difference in wealth/income between radio listeners and TV viewers, assuming for the sake of argument that such a difference existed, had anything to do with the difference in reactions when asked who won the debate."
"This was the very early days of television..."
The very early days of TV were over by the early 1950s at the latest. By 1960 television sets were ubiquitous in urban/suburban areas and largely indifferent to wealth/income. Everyone I knew had one by the very early 1950s. 1949/50 was the hinge for the takeoff.
I believe the planning for the Bay of Pigs happened under the Eisenhower administration so I assume Nixon would have followed through. As I recall the Kennedy/Khrushchev meting in Vienna in 1961 didn't go well with Khrushchev not having a very good impression of Kennedy as a leader.
The Cuban Missile Crisis happened in 1962. By the end of 1964 Kennedy was dead and Khrushchev had been deposed.
aalll
Yes, point well taken about the Vienna meeting. Cd have been a factor re Khrushchev deciding to test Kennedy subsequently. But I really shd read those books first.;)
Another of the 1960's rock and roll greats has passed away. David Crosby, deceased today at the age of 81.
Two versions of one of the greatest ballads of the ’60’s – Yes, we can learn from our children.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkaKwXddT_I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHNGHjast8o
One comment:
“I used to listen to this sitting on the guard bunkers in Vietnam looking out to the dark skies and wonder what this song was about. I finally get it 50 years later.”
Off-topic, but some here might be interested in a recent blog post of mine, "Clashes of rights," which references Bowles & Gintis, Democracy and Capitalism (1986).
Link is here.
LFC,
I made a comment on your blog a while ago and it does not appear there.
It may have gone in the spam filter or perhaps I made a mistake somewhere.
s.w.
I think It's my fault - the WordPress default is that I have to check for comments and approve them. I'll do that right now.
Ok, for some reason it did go into the spam filter but it now appears on the site under the post (though not in the sidebar for some reason). I'll reply a bit later. Thanks for commenting.
Fine. It appears there now. Thanks.
Post a Comment