By Devin Scott–Political Cartoons in the 1860 Presidential Campaign: Visual Depictions of Presidential Candidates as Performers
The Presidential race of 1860 was a hard fought contest that was engaged in on all fronts available to the campaigners and their Parties. One such front was political cartoons; cartoons were widely printed and distributed. As such, political cartoonists’ representations of the presidential candidates are a rich area for study. In this post, I compare and contrast two cartoons that depict the four presidential hopefuls in a contest for the presidency. The first cartoon, “The Great Political Juggle,” which was printed in the (Cincinnati) Rail Splitter, depicts the four candidates as performers who juggle Electoral College electors, to varying degrees of success. The second cartoon I analyze is Louis Maurer’s “The Political Gymnasium,” which depicts the presidential hopefuls demonstrating their athletic prowess for the public.
In “The Great Political Juggle,” the audience views (from left to right) John C. Breckenridge, Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and John Bell engaged in a Juggling contest for the Presidency. The artist depicted Lincoln as the winner of the most states, followed by Bell and Breckenridge, with Douglas in last place. This rendering is accompanied with an explanatory caption that dictates Lincoln’s overwhelming victory in the Free States and Bell and Breckenridge’s splitting of the southern States. Douglas is humorously depicted as having fallen down under the weight of “squatter sovereignty,” a “Black Pill” he was unsuccessful in convincing the country to swallow. Besides predicting Lincoln as the winner of the election, the cartoonist also predicts that it will be a battle not for popular vote, but rather for electoral votes. This distinction makes the campaign primarily about state to state popularity rather than national popularity. The other political cartoon, “The Political Gymnasium” also favors Lincoln, but stops short of predicting the outcome of the election.
In “The Political Gymnasium” the audience again watches the various candidates performing, only this time they showcase their athletic prowess, rather than their skillful juggling of the Electoral College. The cartoon portrays Constitutional Union Party Presidential candidate, John Bell as a barbell being held up by his running mate Edward Everett, demonstrating his lack of athletic prowess in relation to the other candidates, all of whom are depicted in much more active poses. Abraham Lincoln is shown upon a balance beam apparently supported by his Republican Party nomination, while Stephen Douglas and John Breckenridge, the Democratic nominees for President, box each other for control of their Party. Douglas asserts that he will make Breckenridge cry before taking “a round with the rest of them,” while Breckenridge’s character implies that he will garner enough Democratic support to prevent Douglas from seriously challenging Lincoln for the Presidency.
More interesting than the two political cartoons’ individual depictions of the contest for the presidency is the dominant commonality the two share; both cartoons depict the candidates as performers. “The Political Gymnasium” shows the candidates as gymnasts who are seeking to showcase their athleticism to the American public. This is not a direct contest where the candidates battle each other with a clear winner, despite the depiction of a boxing match between Douglas and Breckenridge. Instead, it is a performance for the public. Are Everett and Bell’s demonstration of Strength more entertaining than Lincoln’s mounting of the balance beam, or is one of the boxers’, Breckenridge and Douglas, performance most enticing? Despite the inevitability of a victor, the candidates and their Parties are shown as independent performers in the quest for the presidency, not direct competitors.
“The Great Political Juggle” provides a more obvious representation of the candidates as performers rather than direct competitors. Instead of depicting the candidates in a race or contest for votes, the Cincinnati Rail Splitter depicts the candidates as individual jugglers performing their act for the American public, with the winner being the candidate who successfully juggles the most Electoral College votes. Again, the candidates are not shown competing directly; instead, each candidate attempt to individually win the most States through their juggling performance. Once the theme of Presidential candidates as performers rather than competitors is recognized, its prevalence in the two cartoons is abundantly apparent.
What are the wider implications of these political cartoons and their decision to highlight candidates and their performances over candidates and their issues?
One possible explanation is that these political cartoons are overtly about the presidential race itself, but are actually critiques of the characters and Party politics that defined the 1860 presidential campaign. The cartoons may speak to a view of the presidential campaigns as primarily performative, rather than direct contests where the best candidate wins; the campaigners are shown as mere performers that compete on the grounds of character and Party, rather than on issues. These cartoons may be subtle critiques of the lack of issue based campaigning and the reliance of the candidates upon personality and Party to elect them. If this explanation holds true, these cartoons provide a powerful, yet subtle, critique of character and Party based campaigns, at the expense of issue based campaigns.
In other words, we might wonder, if these political cartoons are clever, prescient, critiques of “Man over Measure” politics?
“The Great Political Juggle”: http://elections.harpweek.com/1860/cartoons/RSCN0801600003d5w.jpg
“The Political Gymnasium”: http://elections.harpweek.com/1860/cartoons/PolGym12w.jpg
On May 7, 2008, Republican presidential candidate John McCain made his thirteenth appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. McCain had previously run for president (in 2000), but his appearances were unrelated to his previous candidacy: rather, McCain’s affinity for The Daily Show (and vice versa) grew from McCain’s advocacy for campaign finance reform. As a strong supporter of campaign finance reform, Jon Stewart was more than willing to provide Senator McCain a venue to inform the public about his work.
McCain’s many appearances–and particularly this appearance amidst the escalating presidential election—call to mind a historical parallel from October, 1931. President Herbert Hoover, up for reelection one year later, presided over a deepening economic depression. The conservative president turned to the private sector to revive the economy (and, consequently, his chances for reelection) by creating POUR: the President’s Organization on Unemployment Relief.
Perhaps Hoover didn’t recognize the tragic irony of calling this organization POUR, but he knew how to boost its success. He asked popular comedian Will Rogers to appear on the radio with him to promote the program.
Roger’s brief remarks—dubbed “Bacon and Beans and Limousines”—are found below. John McCain’s interview on The Daily Show is available here.
I don’t want to belabor the content of either broadcast, but rather to raise some points of comparison.
In both situations, the comedians (to use Peter M. Robinson’s excellent phrasing) “dominated the middle ground between the people and the president” (or presidential candidate, in the case of McCain). In his book, Robinson traces how this domination solidified over the course of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, but it’s always been there. From Finley Peter Dunne’s Mr. Dooley columns to Will Roger’s Letters of a Self-Made Diplomat to His President, from Chevy Chase’s Gerald Ford impression to Tina Fey’s Sarah Palin, comedians have helped us evaluate our presidents—and given us standards by which we might judge presidential candidates.
In 1931, the politician asked the comedian to help him advocate for a policy; in 2008, the comedian invited the politician. While acknowledging the constant “mediator” role comedians play, it’s also important to acknowledge that the tables have turned somewhat. Fey’s impression has been cited by several scholars and many cultural critics as a contributing factor to Sarah Palin’s public unraveling, and appearing on The Daily Show was a rite of passage for nearly all of the Republican and Democratic candidates who sought to succeed George W. Bush in the 2008 presidential campaign. Right or wrong, American citizens seem to have ceded a great deal of vetting power to comedians.
In 1931, all radio stations carried the politician and comedian’s address; in 2008, the comedian and the politician addressed only a segment of the population who paid to see them. There are three points I wish to make here. First, changing technologies now allow us to see the comedian sitting next to the president. I’d argue that this is a stronger validation of the comedian’s political contribution than hearing his/her voice in tandem with the president/presidential candidate. That being said, it doesn’t carry as much weight if fewer people see it. Perhaps McCain said something insightful, or important for citizens to know as they evaluated his candidacy, when he appeared on The Daily Show…but unless citizens seek it out, its civic contribution is diminished. I am one of those who ’don’t have cable, meaning I’d need to go online to watch the interview; I’d need to make an affirmative decision, and then take steps, to watch it. This leads to a final point: comedians increasingly play to specific audiences. Will Rogers played to everybody, as did Bob Hope, Burns and Allen, Jack Benny, and the other radio comedy greats. This obviously relates to the broadcast technology they used, but the outcome is what’s important. They did political material alongside jokes about their pets, and their stupid neighbors. Because cable enables narrowcast audiences, comedians in that medium can rule out certain types of material. Coupled with broadcast networks’ concerns about political comedy emerging from the Vietnam War era, this has contributed to a walling-off of political comedy.
Some food for thought while you listen/watch and compare these two broadcasts. There are obviously other points of comparison, and I invite you to both engage my points and note what comparisons you see in your comments.
Governments, Michael Calvin McGee asserted, are made up of men, not measures. Defenders of this proposition avoid the cynical disparagement of “image politics,” recognizing the fundamental role that character serves in defining qualities of leadership. In campaigns, issue and image implicate one another: certain character traits correspond with particular policy positions. A wartime leader cannot be a wimp. An economic leader should be a no-nonsense businessman. The current president—who transcended differences in partisanship and race to secure his election—credibly articulated this appeal as a man with a family lineage born of two continents. Whether or not politics should be this way is inconsequential. The point here is simply that politics are this way, and that the positions candidates take cannot be severed entirely from the types of leadership they expound.
What I hope to highlight here, however, is the other side of the coin. Image politics work precisely because they provide a proxy for the types of decisions candidates might make once elected to the presidency. For this reason, image—by itself—cannot provide a full account for electoral politics, either. When images are asserted by candidates without attention to their corresponding policy implications, the results can be surprising, erratic, and altogether problematic.
Zachary Taylor’s 1848 presidential campaign provides a revealing case study of the implicit issues that belie even the vaguest candidate images. Controversially, Taylor did not adopt any party platform for his campaign. As a war hero without clear political positions, he could well have been chosen as a candidate by either the Whigs or Democrats.
The movement to draft Taylor as a presidential candidate began during his leadership as a general in the Mexican-American War. Famous for his resilient victory in the Battle of Buena Vista over the forces of Santa Anna, talk began immediately of his potential presidential bid. As Abraham Lincoln noted in his eulogy for Taylor, even “Rough and Ready” himself may have been surprised by the attention:
So soon as the news of the battles of the eighth and ninth of May, 1846, had fairly reached the United States, General Taylor began to be named for the next Presidency, by letter writers, newspapers, public meetings and conventions in various parts of the country. These nominations were generally put forth as being of a no-party character. Up to this time I think it highly probable—nay, almost certain—that General Taylor had never thought of the Presidency in connection with himself. And there is reason for believing that the first intelligence of these nominations rather amused than seriously interested him.
Taylor’s prospective presidential bid began to generate talk during a moment of intense controversy in the United States Congress. Battles over the admittance of newly-acquired lands in the West became a source of bitter sectional dispute. As historian David M. Potter writes, the nominations of Taylor, Democrat Lewis Cass, and Free Soiler Martin Van Buren as presidential candidates emerged during a year when pro- and anti-slavery forces wrangled in a deadlocked House and Senate.
Taylor became a compelling candidate because he lacked a clear stake in the debate over slavery in the territories. The Whigs, in nominating him over their leader Henry Clay, implied this rationale throughout their campaign literature. Due to the virtues of leadership Taylor exuded as a war hero, Whigs felt assured that he would uphold their party values. And, due to his background as a Louisiana slaveholder, Southerners of both Whig and Democratic stripes confidently assumed that he would support slavery in the newly-acquired Western territories. To this end, the Whigs strategically nominated the candidate without requiring him to state his positions. As the American Whig Review wrote in July of 1848 following the General’s nomination:
We seek no further proof and shall not agitate the question; we hold it certain that the affections and prejudices of the nominee incline him to the side which we advocate. We do not ask of him an immediate declaration on every point of Whig policy. As he is honest and prudent, he cannot speak without deliberation: his mind has been occupied with military affairs; in these he is well versed; but as the genius of the great commander differs but little, perhaps not at all in its kind, from that of the civil chief, we may be sure his government will be devoid neither of energy, wisdom, nor economy.
Because Taylor emerged as a candidate on the heels of a military campaign, the argument went, he should not be held accountable to clearly articulate his stance on the issues. Character alone—“Prudence, firmness, justice; invincible resolution, contempt of opinion, of danger and of accident, [and] an elevated spirit”—would lead Taylor to wisely lead the nation through its controversies. Similarly, the Whig Party Platform in 1848 justified the position-less candidate by pointing to his character. Though Taylor had never voted, he assured Whigs that he would have voted Whig in the 1844 election. Citing a “soldier’s word of honor” as reason enough to trust Taylor’s political sentiments, the party felt that no more than “assurance… is needed from a consistent and truth-speaking man.”
One anonymous conservative Whig made the case for supporting the General—a “Whig in principle”—by discounting the import of party pledges in campaigns. “These partisan pledges, these promises of the office-seekers, what are they worth? In nine cases out of ten they are made only to be broken. Pledges! Who that made has ever kept them? Will the lessons of experience never impart wisdom?” Running through the unfulfilled campaign promises of Jackson, van Buren, Tyler, and Polk, he concluded by asserting that the Whigs need not demand any pledges of policy from Taylor to accept his nomination:
What, then, are pledges, what their necessity? when any Administration, rightly conducted, must be guided after all by the progress of human affairs and the exigencies of the moment. Pledges! There can be no pledges but a clear head, an honest heart, and an upright will.
Taylor would thus be run as an entirely character-based candidate. There was no need for him to articulate his positions, the reasoning went, because ultimately his conduct as president would derive from decisions rooted in his virtuous soul and expression of strong character on the battlefield.
In the absence of a clear statement of position, however, Northerners and Southerners alike examined other details of Taylor’s personal narrative to draw assumptions about his policy stances. A critical pamphlet distributed by John Calvin Adams, an anti-slavery Whig from the North, captures the assumptions of both sides of the North-South divide. The lack of a platform, the author asserted, would not fool him or his Northern brethren into believing that Taylor represented a cause other than slave power:
This man is held up by the slave holders of the South as a master for the North during the next presidential term… We are slightingly informed that Gen. Taylor has no opinions on any subject; or does not choose to express them, On the great questions of slavery and the Wilmot Proviso—which more than any others excite the public mind—Gen. Taylor, when respectably solicited to give an opinion, is dumb. He is a Slave owner—a Slave breeder—and the candidate and warrior of the promoters of the Extension of Slavery.
As this sentiment illustrates, the interplay of image and issue—one grafting atop the other—is hard to avoid, even amid a candidate’s silence on the issues. As a slaveholder and a General in a war many Northerners regarded as an effort to expand slavery, Taylor was ascribed an assumed set of policy positions on slavery in the campaign whether he sought them or not. Ultimately, in both the Whig Party Convention and the general election, this assumption of his support for slaveholders took hold. Taylor won the election largely on the basis of his support in the South.
Ironically, Taylor instead deeply offended pro-slavery Southerners. Within a year after his election, Potter writes, the newly elected president committed several fairly bold antislavery maneuvers in the territories. He encouraged California to skip territory status to immediately become a state, thus increasingly the likelihood that its government would ban slavery. Then, in an act that offended Southerners, he explicitly declared he would not veto a Congressional passage of the anti-slavery Wilmot Proviso. By May of 1850, he further agitated the Southern faction of the Whig and Democratic Parties when he encouraged the incorporation of a disputed Texas territory into the state of New Mexico. If not for his death in July 1850, Potter muses, he “might well have started a war” with divisive implications for the North and South.
“I ask no favors, and shun no responsibilities.” Taylor’s campaign slogan epitomized the supreme elevation of image over issue in the 1848 campaign. The slogan sought to sever him from party connections or associations, stressing only his moral compass as a virtuous general willing to take on necessary challenges as they emerge. In execution, however, the ambiguity about his positions ultimately proved a source of supreme confusion for his supporters. In the absence of a clear statement of pledges, the public invented one; and, as it turned out, invented it incorrectly, failing to anticipate the antislavery policies Taylor would pursue as president. Taylor’s case illustrates the ways in which the identity propositions of a campaign about the virtues or background of a candidate almost inevitably provoke corresponding assumptions about policy positions. Whether candidates try to make an election entirely about issues or, in Taylor’s case, about image, the two concepts imply one another. Despite their infinite violability, then, campaign “pledges” provide an important role for candidates by allowing them to assert—and thus better control—the relationship between their identities and the policies they may pursue.
 Michael Calvin McGee, “‘Not Men, but Measures’: The Origins and Import of an Ideological Principle,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 64 (1978): 141-154.
 Trevor Parry-Giles, “Resisting a ‘Treacherous Piety’: Issues, Images, and Public Policy Deliberation in Presidential Campaigns,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 13 (2010): 37-64.
 Abraham Lincoln, The Life and Public Services of General Zachary Taylor: An Address (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922). Ebook.
 David M. Potter, The Impending Crisis: America Before the Civil War, 1848-1861, ed. Don E. Fehrenbacher (New York: HarperCollins, 1976), 63-89.
 “The Nomination.—General Taylor,” The American Review: Devoted to Politics and Literature 2 (1848): 4.
 “Whig Party Platform of 1848,” June 7, 1848, The American Presidency Project, online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25855.
 A conservative Whig, “Considerations in Favor of the Nomination of Zachary Taylor by the Whig National Convention,” Washington, April 4, 1848, online by The Library of Congress, 8.
 John Calvin Adams, “A Northern No! Addressed to the Delegates from the Free States to the Whig National Convention,”Philadelphia, 1848, online by The Library of Congress, 8.
 Potter, The Impending Crisis, 87.
 Ibid, 107.
COMM 760–Seminar in Political Communication Update: For the spring 2014 semester, the graduate political communication seminar at Maryland is actually reading…campaign discourse. Along with all the required theory and criticism about political communication, the seminar is examining a range of campaign texts, from speeches to broadsides, pamphlets to ads to party platforms.
This week, COMM760’s starting with two fascinating campaigns–1800 and 1808. Starting with Alexander Hamilton’s letter “concerning the public content and character” of John Adams, the seminar’s going to discuss a series of letters, speeches, and pamphlets from these elections.
Here are a couple of interesting contemporary takes on 1800:
It happens every four years–some dispute about campaigns and their appropriation of specific songs at rallies, in ads, at conventions, etc. The newest dust-up involves Michele Bachman and her use of Tom Petty’s American Girl at rallies in Iowa and South Carolina.
Of course, one interesting dimension of these struggles involves the lyrics. In the chorus of American Girl, for example, Petty sings “Oh yeah, all right/Take it easy, baby/Make it last all night.” What exactly is the “it” that should last all night, and is “it” something Bachman wants associated with her campaign!?
Here’s an interesting article in the Washington Post about this campaign problem.
“The Fourth of July at Kansas City” is a piece of campaign rhetoric reflecting the belief of some voters in the 1900 elections that the Democratic Party is one of chaos, corruption, and insanity. William Jennings Bryan, the Democratic opponent of incumbent president (and winner of the 1900 elections) William McKinley, is notably featured in a prominent portrait on the right side of the cartoon as a threatening figure who poses a danger to the country. The first indication of the cartoonist’s belief that Bryan (and the Democratic Party as a whole) is unfit for the presidency is the top of the barrel in the back of the cartoon that has the “16:1” ratio written on it, the silver to gold ratio proposed for unlimited silver coinage. This is a reference to Bryan’s steadfast adherence to “free silver,” a movement to tie American currency to silver that Bryan insisted would bring about better economic times. Bryan’s adherence to free silver puzzled many voters because America’s use of the gold standard had brought about economic prosperity for three consecutive years under McKinley’s term, and the Gold Standard Act of 1900 was passed enacting this practice as law. Bryan’s stance as a Silverite made voters feel he was simply stubborn for refusing to budge from his clearly defunct position. In the words of Republican congressman Thomas Reed, “Bryan would rather be wrong than [be] president.” Evidently, the cartoonist agrees.
The issue of U.S. imperialism and the country’s military action in Cuba, the Philippines, and China is also on full display. On the platform are Carl Schurz, Edward Atkinson, and William Lloyd Garrison Jr, vice-presidents of the Anti-Imperialist League, and Emilio Aguinaldo, leader of the Filipino rebels fighting the US. Prior to the 1900 elections, McKinley’s term was marked by wars characterized by many American voters as imperialist. American military involvement in Cuba and the Philippines was a major issue of contention on the campaign trail, an issue McKinley would later examine in what I consider to be the final piece of 1900 campaign rhetoric, McKinley’s Inaugural address. The author of this particular cartoon evidently rebukes these accusations, instead choosing to paint anti-imperialists in the same negative light as the crazy socialists and Silverites in the background.
Admiral George Dewey (left), the man responsible for capturing the Spanish Manila Bay colony in the Philippines, is also present on the platform. It is no mistake that Dewey is present standing next to Bryan’s menacing portrait: Dewey was previously in the running for the presidency until he made a fool of himself by declaring the role of president to be “easy.” Predictably, Dewey was mocked for his statement and quickly disregarded as a serious nominee for President due to his obvious lack of political experience. Placing him next to Bryan leads the viewer to believe the same fate awaits him, a sort of guilt by association. Emilio Aguinaldo’s (right) presence also paints Bryan as a traitor to his country, souring his reputation in the eyes of viewers. A banner in the upper left of the cartoon espousing Aguinaldo to be “a true democrat” solidifies the cartoonist’s intent, painting a sort of scarlet letter on the whole of the Democratic Party. The banner to the right of Aguinaldo’s states, “we express our sympathy with the boxers.” This refers to the Boxer rebellion, a protest by a group of Chinese against America’s presence in the country which was suppressed by American troops acting on McKinley’s orders. With the Boxer rebellion ongoing at the time of this cartoon’s publishing, the statement is treasonous and reflects poorly on Bryan’s character.
In addition to Bryan’s anti-imperialism, he was widely opposed to trusts and made his opposition to big business associations a key element of his campaigning. Supporters of McKinley, though, pointed to the hypocrisy of Bryan’s stance given the involvement of some of his key supporters in trusts and big business activities. The cartoonist depicts this hypocrisy with his drawing of a large block of ice labeled “Tammany Ice Trust” in the middle of the cartoon, as well as a banner in the upper left-hand corner of the cartoon stating “down with the ice trusts.” At the time, Augustus Van Wyck, New York Mayor Robert Van Wyck, and what looks to be John Carroll, the men encased in the block of ice, were associates of Tammany Hall, a political machine backing Bryan for president. During Bryan’s campaign Tammany Hall was embroiled in a scandal over New York City’s “ice trust,” and its support of Bryan calls his positions and character into question. The presence of Chicago Mayor Carter Harrison II and the sign he holds (“Wide Open Chicago,” referring to the lawlessness engendering the city’s political corruption) doesn’t help Bryan’s campaign, either.
Ultimately, this cartoon is a very powerful piece of campaign rhetoric in that it argues the viewpoints of Bryan’s opponents and exhibits the events and controversies surrounding his campaign. It is a snapshot of the political climate of the time and a reminder of why Bryan failed in his efforts to gain the vote in 1900.
IMAGE (and information): http://elections.harpweek.com/1900/cartoon-1900-Medium.asp?UniqueID=21&Year=1900
The election of 1932 was a landslide victory for Democrats, who seated Franklin D. Roosevelt in the as the 32nd President of the United States. Roosevelt won the popular and electoral votes, holding 57.41% and 88.9% of the votes respectively. However, there was not much time, or money, for celebration, given the nation was in the worst of the Great Depression. Unemployment was peaking at 25%, war was expanding in Asia and Europe, and Roosevelt’s New Deal Program was being put to the test. To revive the faith of the American people he needed to stay in their good graces.
Unlike his predecessor, Herbert Hoover, Roosevelt did not outline specifically, or in detail, what his plans for the country were and instead chose to keep the public at a relative distance, all while keeping them close. Though this seems contradictory, it was made possible by the President’s friendly relations with the media and his style of speaking; an often ambiguous, yet optimistic and authoritative, yet humorous tone. Roosevelt also utilized the radio, an up-and-coming mass media technology, which allowed him to access citizens immediately, while in the comfort of their own homes. In fact, after his first inaugural address in November 1933, he utilized the radio to have “Fireside Chats” with the American people. This gave citizens the feeling that they were getting to know Roosevelt and his policies personally. He spoke simply; in order to explain what he was going to do and to prove that what he was doing was right. Such stylistic components, as well as his fearlessness in adapting to new times and technologies gave Roosevelt an edge not only in the 1932 election, but also in his presidential and international career.
In his nomination address, Roosevelt outlines this attitude on challenging the status quo. He states, “Let it also be symbolic that I broke traditions. Let it be from now on the tradition of our Party to break foolish traditions.” Such a call to action is ‘unprecedented and unusual,’ however it was clear that the traditional approaches to presidency were not working to alleviate the burdens of the Great Depression. Throughout the speech Roosevelt speaks in a very forward tone. It is simple, yet matter-of-fact, showing he stands firmly and is conscious of the goals and progress he wants to make.
Roosevelt speaks with intelligence and competence, but also keeps the common man in mind, thus ensuring his clarity: “Let us look a little at the recent history and simple economics, the kind of economics that you and I and the average man and woman talk.” He puts himself on par with other normal citizens, again making himself seemingly available for others to access. Roosevelt also constantly, and continuously, references the audience as “My friends;” doing so give insight on his appeals to the public and reminds them that they are a priority.
The interdependence of people on each other and of people working together paints a hopeful view for the future, and in conclusion Roosevelt pledges for a new deal. Furthermore, he insinuates that “This is more than a political campaign; it is a call to arms. Give me your help, not to win votes alone, but to win in this crusade to restore American to its own people.” Using a religious metaphor, such as a crusade, insinuates that the problem and solution to the country’s problems are far bigger than any one person, in fact they are divine and that the fight to regain American is a fight to regain the Promised Land.
Roosevelt’s nomination address set the tone for the Democrat’s campaign, looking back, it almost seems reminiscent of a pep talk in that it breathes life into the party, refocusing on specific goals, in addition to setting a firm, progressive tone, not only for the campaign, but the presidency.
Once elected into office Roosevelt moved quickly to put the New Deal into action and reminds American’s that it is his “firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” With this famous speech, he revitalizes people’s spirits and there is a brief moment of prosperity, before another recession, and the ensuing Second World War.
President Roosevelt’s victory in the election of 1932 was a landslide, in part because of the failures of the Republican leaders, but also because of Roosevelt’s ability to evoke an optimism from the American people, always speaking in a spirited, firm tone to his listeners, comforting them and guiding them, even through his last days.
1932 Presidential General Election Results.” Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. Web. 15 June 2011. http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1932.
“Fireside Chats of Franklin D. Roosevelt.” MHRIC Home Page. Web. 15 June 2011. http://www.mhric.org/fdr/fdr.html.
“The Presidents.” The White House. Web. 15 June 2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents.
“Roosevelt’s Nomination Address, 7/2/32.” New Deal Network. Web. 15 June 2011. http://newdeal.feri.org/speeches/1932b.htm.