"Nixon passes through them with the odd stick-like motions which are so much a characteristic of his presence...There is something almost touching in the way he does it, as if sensitive flesh winces at the way he must expose his lack of heart for being warm and really winning in crowds...No, it is not so much that he is a bad actor (for Nixon in a street crowd is radiant with emotion to reach across the prison pen of his own artificial moves and deadly reputation and show that he is sincere) it is rather that he grew up in the worst set of schools for actors in the world-white gloves and church usher, debating team, Young Republicanism, captive of Ike's forensic style-as an actor, Nixon thinks his work is to signify. So if he wants to show someone that he likes them, he must smile; if he wishes to show disapproval of Communism, he frowns; America must be strong, out goes his chest."
I chose this quote because in lecture, the topic of Nixon's awkwardness and shiftiness was discussed in terms of his debate with John F. Kennedy. Also, another blogger commented on Nixon's contrived attempts to appear warm and genial. I think that Mailer commented on these issues comically.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Eleanor Roosevelt Quote
"I was happy for my husband, because I knew that in many ways it would make up for the blow that fate had dealt him when he was stricken with infantile paralysis; and I had implicit confidence in his ability to help the country in a crisis. Naturally he had wanted to win, and he wanted this opportunity to serve his country in public life. But for myself I was deeply troubled. As I saw it, this meant the end of any personal life of my own. I had watched Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt and had seen what it meant to be the wife of a president, and I cannot say that I was pleased at the prospect."
(Eleanor Roosevelt on her husband's victory in the 1932 election) Page 162
I chose this quote because I think it is a great example of how the position as the first lady has changed since Eleanor Roosevelt and how her fear of losing herself, inspired her to challenge the rules. The role of the first lady has evolved into an important public position, a position powerful enough that it can help or hinder the appeal of a presidential candidate. More importantly, however, is the growing public expectations of a first lady. Eleanor Roosevelt's tenacity and dedication (both to her husband and public service) set the standard for the "New First Lady". It is no longer acceptable, although expected, for a first lady to stand idly smiling and waving, there is a certain degree of public duty associated with the job. The first lady must have a sense of history and be aware of current world and domestic affairs, she must actively participate in the community, and most importantly she must embrace the power and influence that comes with her position.
(Eleanor Roosevelt on her husband's victory in the 1932 election) Page 162
I chose this quote because I think it is a great example of how the position as the first lady has changed since Eleanor Roosevelt and how her fear of losing herself, inspired her to challenge the rules. The role of the first lady has evolved into an important public position, a position powerful enough that it can help or hinder the appeal of a presidential candidate. More importantly, however, is the growing public expectations of a first lady. Eleanor Roosevelt's tenacity and dedication (both to her husband and public service) set the standard for the "New First Lady". It is no longer acceptable, although expected, for a first lady to stand idly smiling and waving, there is a certain degree of public duty associated with the job. The first lady must have a sense of history and be aware of current world and domestic affairs, she must actively participate in the community, and most importantly she must embrace the power and influence that comes with her position.
Eleanor Roosevelt Quote
"I realized I must not trespass on my husband's prerogatives, that national and international new must be handled by him, but it seemed to me there were many things in my own activities that might be useful."
It seems Eleanor is trying to do the right thing with this statement; however, it is not convincing whatsoever. Based on her writings, she seems to think the First Lady should take on a much more powerful role than picking out fabrics and arranging seating charts for state dinners. There is no question she was a talented humanitarian who did many valuable things during her time in the public eye. It is interesting to see when reading her biography how influential she was in FDR's policies and how often he used his wife as a political instrument.
Miami and the Siege of Chicago - Nelson Rockefeller
Mailer on Nelson Rockefeller, on the eve of the 1968 Republican Convention:
"Still, Rockefeller was trying. He had been mounting a massive offensive for weeks. In speeches which came most often as prepared announcements for television and in full-page advertisements in newspapers all over the country, he had been saturating America with Rockefeller philosophy... He was like a general who had mounted the most massive offensive of a massive war but had neglected to observe that the enemy was not on his route, and the line of march led into a swamp."
I could not help but be reminded of Hillary Clinton when reading this passage from Mailer. Willing to fight to the very end for the nomination, even after all had been lost. The only difference being, Hillary sank more money into her campaign while she still had a shot of taking home the nomination and then dropped out before the convention when she was mathematically eliminated in the delegate count, while Rockefeller kept the fight going right up to the convention, even though the numbers were heavily against him and he had entered the race too late to really make up ground on Nixon.
And yet, we always hear the comparison to 1968 in Chicago to the Democrats this year, when I feel this situation was much more comparable, with the exception that the fight was longer and took to the convention floor. Chicago 1968 was more about ideals and the platform than what candidate was being picked; this GOP convention was about the candidate, rather than the ideals. Same situation in 2008 in Denver. The Democrats were not riled up along pro- vs. anti-Iraq lines, like the 1968 Democrats were on Vietnam. It was all about the candidates, just like 1968 in Miami when Nixon and Rockefeller were the choices.
The Republicans still managed to win the presidency that year despite the fighting, so we will see how things shake out for the Democratic Party this year.
"Still, Rockefeller was trying. He had been mounting a massive offensive for weeks. In speeches which came most often as prepared announcements for television and in full-page advertisements in newspapers all over the country, he had been saturating America with Rockefeller philosophy... He was like a general who had mounted the most massive offensive of a massive war but had neglected to observe that the enemy was not on his route, and the line of march led into a swamp."
I could not help but be reminded of Hillary Clinton when reading this passage from Mailer. Willing to fight to the very end for the nomination, even after all had been lost. The only difference being, Hillary sank more money into her campaign while she still had a shot of taking home the nomination and then dropped out before the convention when she was mathematically eliminated in the delegate count, while Rockefeller kept the fight going right up to the convention, even though the numbers were heavily against him and he had entered the race too late to really make up ground on Nixon.
And yet, we always hear the comparison to 1968 in Chicago to the Democrats this year, when I feel this situation was much more comparable, with the exception that the fight was longer and took to the convention floor. Chicago 1968 was more about ideals and the platform than what candidate was being picked; this GOP convention was about the candidate, rather than the ideals. Same situation in 2008 in Denver. The Democrats were not riled up along pro- vs. anti-Iraq lines, like the 1968 Democrats were on Vietnam. It was all about the candidates, just like 1968 in Miami when Nixon and Rockefeller were the choices.
The Republicans still managed to win the presidency that year despite the fighting, so we will see how things shake out for the Democratic Party this year.
Eleanor Roosevelt Quote
"As far as he (Harry Hopkins) was concerned, war needs were paramount. My husband felt the same. I, however, could not help feeling that it was the New Deal social objectives that had fostered the spirit that would make it possible to give people the feeling that in fighting the war we were still fighting for these same objectives . . . I felt it was essential both to the prosecution of the war and to the period after the war that the fight for the rights of minorities should continue." page 230
This quote is revealing not only because Eleanor Roosevelt is a first lady depicting a view very different from her husband, but also because it shows how the war effort could have been very different and America could have prepared for war differently. Roosevelt devotes much of her autobiography going into great detail many of the New Deal programs and how they affected American life. Her view that such programs still demanded the same attention during wartime only further shows how much she really believed in the programs and their success for the country. Although her quote is true in noting how the New Deal objectives fostered American spirit, I am not sure that focusing on more New Deal objectives during the crucial war preparation would have helped as much as she thought. World War II being a total war demanding so much physical contribution (people, guns, tanks, airplanes etc . . .), social reform most likely would have taken too much away from the administrative centralization necessary to accomplish all of the physical demands. But, of course it is hard to know since she does not mention any concrete reform propositions to consider.
Mailer quote
"'Politics is property,' said Murray Kempton, delegate from New York, over the epiphanies of drink, and never was a new science comprehended better by a young delegate...A true property-holder is never ambivalent about his land, he does not mock it, or see adjacent estates as more deserving than his own - so a profession in politics without pride in his holding is a defector...But such property can be used as outright risk capital - one can support a(n)....movement....even risk the loss of one's primary holding in return for the possibility of acquiring much more." - Mailer
I love this analogy, and that is especially rings true in the case of elections. What does each voteer's opinion come down to? Whichever nominee he votes for will give him a chance to improve his own ideal holdings - his property - that which he holds to be true, correct, and the most important. As emphasized in the second sentence of the quote, the voter wants a nominee who is proud of his positions and will not waver. The third sentence of the quote is directly reflected in today's election, as with three past elections we've covered: 1920 (Wilston to Harding), 1932 (Hoover to FDR), and 1952 (Truman to Ike). In these elections, we see party changing based largely on the dissatisfaction of the public with how their ideals and "property" have been treated. One of the election platforms of each of the winning presidents was that they were not the last president - appealing to the people to take a risk and go for a complete change - for the "possiblity of acquiring much more." Indeed, today thatis basically Obama's strongest argument - that he will use the voted he recieves to enact policies which will improve the properties of the Americans that have become dissatisfied with the Bush administration. I'm not taking sides; I just think this quote relates to the election. I wish I could elaborate more...but I've taken up too much room already.
I love this analogy, and that is especially rings true in the case of elections. What does each voteer's opinion come down to? Whichever nominee he votes for will give him a chance to improve his own ideal holdings - his property - that which he holds to be true, correct, and the most important. As emphasized in the second sentence of the quote, the voter wants a nominee who is proud of his positions and will not waver. The third sentence of the quote is directly reflected in today's election, as with three past elections we've covered: 1920 (Wilston to Harding), 1932 (Hoover to FDR), and 1952 (Truman to Ike). In these elections, we see party changing based largely on the dissatisfaction of the public with how their ideals and "property" have been treated. One of the election platforms of each of the winning presidents was that they were not the last president - appealing to the people to take a risk and go for a complete change - for the "possiblity of acquiring much more." Indeed, today thatis basically Obama's strongest argument - that he will use the voted he recieves to enact policies which will improve the properties of the Americans that have become dissatisfied with the Bush administration. I'm not taking sides; I just think this quote relates to the election. I wish I could elaborate more...but I've taken up too much room already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)