tv Lectures in History CSPAN February 7, 2016 6:30pm-8:01pm EST
it's not just a place where there is a scripted speech. its first inakes the nation primary status really seriously. >> this is one of a series of town hall meetings we will be having. >> this is my 20th town hall meeting. 5th townme to our 11 hall meeting in new hampshire. ♪ >> this coming tuesday is the first of the nature new hampshire primary. next political science professor andrew smith teaches a class on the history of the primary and its significance in the presidential election process. we recorded the class at the university of new hampshire in 2011. this class is about an hour and 15 minutes. welcome.: today people talk about the
history of the new hampshire primary. ,efore we get into the history i want to talk for a bit about the history of the nomination process. how do we nominate the candidates for president. the think and want to talk about overall, first off, giving you a sense of the new hampshire primary. it did not start with the first president of primary. i will talk about how it developed in importance over the years. particularly since 1952. the third part i will focus on is efforts to bump new hampshire out of its slot is the first primary. how those things happened. what was done to respond to them in particular, that the secretary of state is required by law to set the primary date of new hampshire one week before any similar contest.
later on this week secretary of state geithner will be coming to talk about -- secretary -- the secretary of state will be coming to discuss these issues. thise time we had a saying is always first, always right. it is not always right. the candidate who will become the eventual nominee or president does not always have to win the new hampshire primary. when did primaries start and what happened? first off, there's nothing in the constitution about nominating candidates for president. the constitution is pretty quiet on how we choose who the nominees are going to be. section --, paragraph two defines it as the states will appoint electors in the manner of their choosing to the electoral college." we have a two-step process only elect people for president.
-- when we elect people for president. we look for representatives to the electoral college. the electoral college does the election. this is understood to range from popular elections in some states to selection by the legislature. that is how the original electors were done. the reason was the states had a lot of different qualifications for who counted as the voter. the south was different from the north. was much more of a tendency in the early years to have popular sovereignty were people could actually choose the delegates to the convention's, states with slave populations do not have that. the constitution does not say anything about the nomination of candidates for president largely because when the constitution was written we did not have a we think of now as political parties. they were generally frowned upon
by the framers of the constitution. they did not like the idea of political parties. is, politics being what it soon after we instituted our constitution and it was ratified in 1787 we started to see the formation of the factions within the early government. election we saw the creation of what we think of as our first political party in united states, john adams represented the federalist party and thomas jefferson the representative of the democratic republican party. by 1800 we are seeing parties. nominate candidates for president back in these days? we have something referred to as king caucus, or the congressional caucus system. we had numbers of congress. they again if i was political parties. they vote as political blocs in congress often.
what they would do is meeting caucus throughout the house and the senate of these particular party caucuses. they would choose and vote on who they wanted to have as their party representative, or the nominee for president. most states still elected electors to the elector college -- electoral college rather than having them appointed by the legislatures. what we started to see was that voting for slates of electors became common. parties started being more important to the nomination process but they became much more important and how campaigns are being run in the states as well. king caucus goes on for a while. it finally falls apart -- it started to come apart with the demise of the federalist party in 1816. there was a time we refer to as the "era of good feelings."
it was essentially a single party government. you was still see phasers started developing -- fissures starting to develop. it came to a head in the election of 1824. classes on the american presidency, 1824 it was a four-way election. it went to the house of representatives. in the house of representatives it was john quincy adams who was chosen to be president over andrew jackson, even know andrew jackson got more the popular vote across the country and he got more of the electoral votes. he did not have a majority. after that happened there was a real mess. the parties really started to break up and out required a new settlement of parties as well as a new nominating system for the parties. what we saw was what we call the national nomination conventions. the started along the lines of about the 1836 election. they lasted really to what we
have today. we still have national nominating conventions. they are very different now than they were back then, but they still of a function within the party. the republican and the democratic parties will meet in the summer before the election and hold a convention for the nominate a candidate for their already representative for president. we had the breakup of the parties. we have seen some major technological changes in the early parts of the 1800s. we had great improvements in transportation. the development of roads and early derailment -- development of railroads. you didn't have to have your congressional delegation stuck down in washington and not really be able to communicate with people back in their homes. you also saw improved medications. amongst people we saw the development of large-scale newspapers.
the pennycress, mass newspapers were for you to get information about what was going on in washington to other people around the country. then he saw the development of the telegraph in things like this are you correctly have faster communication. the post office was much more efficient as roads were being built and railroads. communication was better and it made it so having a national convention was more feasible. in the past it was that something you could do. another reason we saw the development of a national convention was the whole nature of politics changed. the big difference was a huge increase in suffrage, the ability to vote. the right to vote. in 1824 only about 400,000 people were eligible to vote. this is white males who are eligible. to1840 this and risen up 2,400,000. a big boom in the number. old-fashioned system
of having a caucus in congress, choosing the nominate, this did not seem right. if you had that many people voting, people clamored for more democratic system of choosing for the nominees would be. new hampshire was at the forefront of that. franklin pierce may not have been the best president or is often on the list of some of the worst presidents was issued or one of the first representative for the first nominating conventions. what we saw this conventions, the delegates were chosen by the party leaders. the formula was set by the parties congressional representation, not within their strength of an states. they had actual nominating campaigns for those conventions. it was also important to remember that back in the early conventions, different from now is you had considerable veto power.
the democratic party required a two thirds majority to nominate a candidate. you often saw these conventional -- conventions with multiple ballots. 20, 30, 50 ballots. now our actual nomination vote that you watch is a foregone conclusion. we know who the nominee is. the delegates are pledged to that nominee. it's just largely for show by that time. to the idean a bit of presidential primaries. what is the presidential primary? it's a system in which the voters of a state, because all of our elections are state-based, the voters choose delegates to their party's convention. they are not necessarily voting for the candidate. essentially you are voting for a the people delegate, who represent you at the party's convention.
these originated as a reform in the early part of the 1900s. part of the progressive era reforms we saw, coming largely out of the midwest. going all the way across the country, including things like professional civil service. primary elections in some states thesaw the institution of process in which voters can vote for actual bills. that sort of thing. the idea of a primary was to and voters more of a stake a say in hitter party's nominee was going to be. the actual voters. make it more democratized. wisconsin was the first day to have a president of primary back in 1908. if you study the progressive era, you will see the name of lafollette.
it caught on quickly. pennsylvania adopted one in 1906. south dakota by 1909. by 191626 states had by 1916, 26 -- states of presidential primaries. new hampshire did not have the first primary. they were not assigned the first slot. it developed over time. it's fine of happenstance. -- kind of happenstance. we at the first primary in 1910. that was for governor and other state offices. it did not include a presidential primary. we do not have the first presidential primary really until 1916. in 1912 the republican party had this quasi-presidential primary. it was just run by the party. kind of a hybrid party convention. , the first bill
that talks about this was hb 430 , the bullock act. it was named after a state representative from richmond, new hampshire. a small town. is basically inactive provide for the election of delegates at the national convention by direct vote of the people. he first set the date for the third tuesday in may, 1916. new hampshire being a frugal state said, you know, let's think about this. there was a piece of legislation ofroduced by john glassner bethlehem, new hampshire. a change from may of the town meeting day, the second tuesday in march. why would you move into town meeting day? cheap. >> everyone is getting together anyway? mr. smith: use the microphone to give a good answer.
think about it as you walk up. because everyone is getting together anyway, so it would save money. mr. smith: save money, exactly. if you grew up in new hampshire in a small town hall, old wooden buildings. doesn't have a heater. it's often heated by a wood stove. why would you spend the money to heat it twice and you can do it once in march? wayne that up with the primaries first because we were cheap. or frugal. yankee frugality. primary we had our first primary in 1916. indiana in 1916 had one a week earlier. we were not even the first in 1916. minnesota had one of same day as us in 1916. by 1920, indiana said enough of this early primary. they moved it back to may.
the midwestern states may primaries are typical. minnesota said they don't want it anymore and went back to a caucus. the turnout was low. this is something that plagued the new hampshire primary throughout the early part of the 20th century. by 1920 minnesota is gone. indiana has gone. new hampshire has a primary on town meeting day. we have the first primary by default. it just ended up that way. that's an important point when you think about state 20 to move ahead of new hampshire. why is it so special? nobody else wanted it first is the answer. you think of those early new hampshire primaries from 19 six 1916-1920, after world war ii. nobody paid attention of those things.
we do not have many delegates. if you had precious time to campaign, why would you bother to go to new hampshire. you can do better by doing -- going to one of the larger states. voters in negative vote for the candidate. they voted for delegates. localwere typically politicians, state politicians, well-known figures. most of the time those delegates were not committed to a candidate. they were uncommitted delegates. it wasn't as if you could vote for your person by proxy voting for delicate. it was not that way. turnout was not very good. not many people voted in those elections. this is a major reason why other states dropped the primary. with is aded up speaker of the house named robert upton, the father of the primary. he said we've got to do something to try to increase interest in our primary.
turnout is low. people are not paying much attention. is there anything we can do here? what he did was introduce a bill in 1949. he amended the primary law so that the ballot now would have the names of the delegates who you could vote for, but also have the names of the presidential candidate listed. you can separately vote for the delegates as well as voting for the candidate you preferred. people call this a beauty contest because the people you said you were going to vote for, the actual candidate, that did not count. the levine accounted was the delegate vote. that was what mattered. the delegates were still chosen by the votes they received. this went into effect in the 1952 primary. there was some politics that goes with this. 1952, sherman adams was the governor of new hampshire. big eisenhower supported. at that time people did not know
if eisenhower was a republican or democrat. there were efforts by both parties to draft eisenhower to be there presidential candidate. push figured he could eisenhower into the new hampshire primary and it would be a big vote because he's a popular guy. and the.s. forces allied forces in europe in world war ii. of course he is going to win. this might give him a leg up politically. that fortuitous timing of the new hampshire primary in 1952 in this bill went into effect was really important in the later development of the new hampshire primary. we saw at that same election the real beginning of television, and television news in 1952. you have newscasters coming up to cover this quaint new hampshire primary.
nothing else to talk about about the presidential election in the middle of march except this new hampshire primary. big is some national attention that way. the other thing that happened in 1952 was two very interesting races. the eisenhower race was the first one. kee -- he' help wins new hampshire and he goes on from there to become the republican nominee. on the democratic side, there was a historic election as well. harry truman is the president in 1952. there was an amendment to the constitution passed in the wake of fdr, his four elections. to limit the president to two terms. harry truman was grandfathered into that. he could run for president in 1952. bythe 1952 primary he loses
50%-40 4%. he announces he will not run for president in 1952. it's an instance in which a sitting president really gives up the opportunity to continue as president based on what happens in part in new hampshire. new hampshire gets this reputation as a kingmaker after the 1952 election. as thehave new hampshire kingmaker in the press is paying attention. the only other major change we have had to the new hampshire primary is that by 1976 we got rid of the idea you were voting for delegate. you just voted for the candidate. we no longer vote for delegates anymore. you vote for delegates essentially -- even for the candidate and whatever the proportion of votes to the candidate gets, and is slightly different on the two sides, but
whatever proportion of opposing , and thes get republican side is sometimes winner take all. you get that many going to the convention. that is what changed. the political part of this is this picture has dwight eisenhower in the middle. governor hugh gregg on the right. and the guy with the smile on his face over here is sherman adams. he went on after helping eisenhower when the election in 1952 to become eisenhower's chief of staff. incredibly powerful position. he's not the only person that has done that. we will talk later on about the 1988 election between george herbert walker bush and bob dole. there was a governor, john sununu who helps president bush become vice president -- then vice president bush.
he then goes on to become chief of staff for president bush. there is a real opportunity for somebody who really makes a president, or really contributes to a president's victory in new hampshire to have a much longer career in politics down in washington. chief of staff is a very important position. this isn't an actual ballot. it gives you an idea of what you are doing back in 1952. this was a flyer put out, it's like a sample ballot put on by the eisenhower people. it says "vote for ike." you can see the names of the people and the towns they are from. they are telling you to vote for the following 10 delegates who are favorable to eisenhower. it doesn't say they are committed, but they are favorable to eisenhower. the top the list is sherman adams. you can see some other names that are famous in new hampshire
. foster stearns. bit. that come up quite a important people in the state. you get a sense of what you had to do then. thing quirky about new hampshire is a sense of who gets ago first. hart's location, person the nation. hart's location is one of the smallest towns in new hampshire. if the sliver of red. it makes up crawford notch. 302ou have driven up rooute towards the mount washington hotel, it's one of the most beautiful places in the state of new hampshire. essentially nobody lives there. there is a law still on the
books that in new hampshire if you have less than 100 voters, you can have people vote anytime during the day. what hart's location did, a woman there said she wanted some national attention for this little town. she said we will have the voting start at midnight. 12:01 on election day. it did get a lot of media attention. they got so much attention by making 624 they quit doing it. -- 1964. they got bothered so much for the press they said enough. i don't be pestered by you. somebody else can do this first. the other first in the nation spot in new hampshire to vote is now hicksville notch -- dix hill notch. it's another spot in the mountains, is essentially not account as much as it is a
hotel. if any of you have been to the hotel in dixville notch, they have the ballot room. you see in the picture were people would vote just after midnight. the process takes about five minutes coast is only about 30 voters. the gentleman you see, the same gentleman we had here, neil tillitson. he was 102 years old. he claimed were asserted he was the first voter in the country untilesident from 1952 up -- through the 2000 election. he had that right for a couple of reasons. in dixville notch the oldest person gets the vote, first. since he was 102 there were not other people. and he owned the hotel. good for having the election at
your hotel, everyone else who is voting is working for you and let him go first. minor celebrity in new hampshire. enough to famous get a bobblehead from the new hampshire historical society. i mentioned things are not changed too much in new hampshire other then we dropped voting for delegates in 1976. there were significant changes nationwide between 1968 and 1972 and how the parties chose their nominee for president. the most significant thing, if you've remember in the 1968 election, there was the vietnam war going on. a real strong antiwar movement in the united states. riots across the country. the riots at the democratic convention in chicago. hubert humphrey, who became the democratic nominee in 1968 did
not run in a single caucus or primary for president. he was picked in the proverbial smoke-filled room by the leaders of the democratic party to be their party's nominee in 1968. not much democratic about that. there was a commission set up after that in the wake of that election to do something about this. it's called the mcgovern fraser. mcgovern comes into play a little later. george mcgovern. commissionn fraser wrote rules that said the party either have a caucus or primary in how you choose your candidates. there are some other rules that go along with it. if the make states now have primaries and caucuses for choosing to the democratic delegates will be for the convention. a big change. you will not have the smoke-filled rooms anymore. now primaries become much more
important. the first primary obviously becomes more important than it had been in the past. what this led to was more primaries and caucuses. more people voting. other states really don't have experience with primaries and caucuses. very few states do. new hampshire is first in the country. in 1976,hire as we see 1980, whoever wins new hampshire kansa get the nomination for the party. other states say they don't like that. they want to get a piece of the action. iowawant new hampshire and to have that much influence. what we're going to do is move our primary up earlier in the schedule, closer to new hampshire or ahead of new hampshire to get the attention that new hampshire has.
to get the political influence that new hampshire has. this process is called frontloading. that is the process of moving primaries up earlier in the election calendar. there are a lot of reasons for frontloading. first off, states think they get more influence if they are at the head of the selection process. they think they get more money too. there is somewhat of a myth out there. you read this article then look at the economic impact analysis in 2008 iowa caucuses. there is a myth that the new hampshire primary brings in gobs of money to the state. swenson asked how much money does the caucus bring into the state of iowa that year? i think it was like $31 million or something like that.
there was an economic analysis done in new hampshire after the 2000 primary cycle. they looked at the whole four-year cycle for 1997 through 2000. calculated the amount of money candidates spent. prof. smith: even using some also plans to try to guess how much does it be worth. they cannot be somewhere north of $300 million that the new hampshire primary brought into new hampshire. it is a good chunk of change. a lot of money. but, we have two nascar races. every year. each two nascar races, year, bring in more money and have a greater economic impact in the new hampshire primary does. that does not diminish the importance of the new hampshire primary, but to put it in perspective, that is not a huge impact on the overall state budget. for certain industries, it is huge. we do polling for debian you are in new hampshire, and if
you have been by their building in manchester, it is a very nice, new building. some people call it the house that steve forbes bill, because in 1996, he spent so much money on television advertising that wmur had a pretty good year and could afford to expand her offices. certain businesses make money. newspapers, if you are in the catering business, or if you have restaurants or hotel business, at the very end, you can make some money there. it is not like it is widespread across the state. in fact, during campaigns, a lot of the money that is supposedly going for campaigns in new hampshire, is actually being spent other places. there's a tremendous amount of television advertising that goes on, but it is in boston. new hampshire is not getting too much of the impact of that. a lot of the people who work for campaigns, they may be getting paid when they're working in new hampshire, but they live in washington. the money is not really staying here.
the economic impact, while it is a lot of money and good for businesses that get it, it is not that huge. state still think that there must be buckets of money that is coming into new hampshire, and therefore, we want to get a piece of that action, too. parties like frontloaded primaries because most of the time, almost always, they get the process over, faster. the nominees chosen faster. that is a big advantage to a party because it means that they do not have to spend as much ,oney beating up on each other and having the democrat beating up on the democrat, they can save that money and spending against the republicans. for the november election. it saves them a tremendous amount of money. in 2008, we had a very different events, the first time in recent years, since the 1976 primary, where the primary went on to a long time frame. all the way into the summer, late spring and summer months. but, that was really unusual.
an unusual election. most of the time, with frontloading, it is over faster. the work that you will read, and we will have professor mayor from northeastern, talk about frontloading and the impact of it. the academic research shows that frontloading actually diminishes the importance of states when they try to move up closer to new hampshire because there is very little campaigning that is actually done in this eighth. it is the momentum that comes out of new hampshire, that tends to be the only thing that people in the subsequent state c. if you're going to vote for somebody for president, had to know that somebody's going to make a good president? what is the most important thing that you want out of your candidate for president? you want somebody who can win. you want somebody who can be the other guy. how do you know that somebody is a winner? winners win. losers lose. to a new hampshire, and you are in south carolina or florida or georgia, some other state, may
be the only thing you know about a particular candidate other than their name is that they were new hampshire. those people up in new hampshire, they have seen these guys for a long time, so that must mean he is ok. you see the momentum build from people in the early states and it usually makes them cruise through the other states. that wave of momentum. we will talk a lot more about that later on in the class and the importance of momentum. there --ve been living there primaries closer to what they call the window, the election window, which is set by the parties. the window refers to the timeframe in which parties say that the states can conduct there primaries or caucuses. the window, this time, the official window for the republican party, i think begins -- new hampshire as an exemption, like the very 14th, and iowa, february 8 -- but, that does not mean that that is
an elections will actually happen. states that raise the push themselves up in the window. they shut people out. largely, the parties cannot really control when a state sets its primary. so, the parties cannot really stop the states from frontloading. we'll talk about how that was attended in new hampshire and how other states had done that, more so, down the road, but, really you cannot do much about it. states have not stopped trying to move themselves closer to the front of the line. the frontloading really was under way in 1980. it has been going on ever since. frontloading, as i mentioned, the first thing i mentioned, there is an earlier selection of the nominee. parties like it. you often have problems with visor morse. you wake up one day and say, this guy is our candidate? there's a lot of buyers are morse in 1996 for bob dole. ,hey spent a lot of money
republicans were very enthusiastic about him. he gets clobbered in the 1996 election. by bill clinton. it costs a lot more to campaign early. if you are going to have a states -- a number of that are up at the early part of the primary window, that means you have to raise a lot more money because you, as a candidate, have to campaign in multiple states. you are not just going to thailand and hampshire. and after,g to iowa, south carolina, michigan, nevada, florida, all right away. some of the states are pretty big. they require a lot of money. it means if you're going to be a credible candidate, you have to start raising money for your presidential bid, a year or two earlier. you really have to get a lot more money. it hurts the little guy. new hampshire price itself, largely on the 1976 nomination of jimmy carter and also for people like gary hart in 1984.
and pat buchanan in 1996. john mccain, 2000. as a place where the front runner, the party favorite does not always win. a place where the little guy can do well. increases,ntloading and more difficult for that to happen. pretty much, you have to be a well-funded, one of candidate to have a chance in any of the early states because you are campaigning, essentially, across the country. it also means that you have a loss of individual contact, a voter contact that new hampshire, in particular, is famous for. there is a joke about a guy asking his buddy, who you vote for a new hampshire primary? and the guy says, i have only met him five times. it is a myth. but, there is something to be said that a new hampshire, if you want to, you can meet everyone at the candidates for president, very easily. multiple times, if you want to.
if you have interest in politics, you can do that. as you have more frontloading, and the candidates are now spread out across multiple states, voters have less opportunity to do that. not just in new hampshire, but in the other states, as well. the most viable thing, the most important thing that any candidate has during an election is their time. you can raise my money, but you cannot create more time for a candidate. there is less face time for the candidates. it results in lower voter knowledge about what the candidates are. what they are all about, what their platforms are. it means you have less chance, as i mentioned, getting an outsider candidate getting the nomination. so, you see this frontloading effort. we have seen states push to the front of the line, tried to go new hampshire out of the way. how does new hampshire state number one? how does it stay the first primary? there are a number of reasons, and i will go through some of these.
we will focus on the procedural reasons for the next part of the lecture. first off, the media likes new hampshire. it is small. it is photogenic. easy to get around, you can fly into manchester and essentially get to where three quarters of the population lives, within about 45 minutes. it has been going on for a long time, so they know the most scenic backdrops. they know the diners that they need to go to. they know the town halls that look pretty. they know what a historic events took place. diss sod this is not a much to iowa, but if it is henry, would you rather be in new hampshire where they are pretty mountains and you can go skiing or in iowa where you may be faced with a ground blizzard? new hampshire is a more attractive place to go. it is easier to do. it is small, so the candidates like it, too. candidates can get everywhere in the state. candidates apply to manchester
can hit a big chunk of the voters in the states or towns where these voter lives within a couple of days. and then get out. it is easy to schedule lots of events. because we have been doing a primary for such a long time, the people who like to host these events, local parties or local calls, do it really well. they can do very easily. have a house party, sure. how many people? no problem. easy to do. it is a sport for a lot of people. it is cheap to get in. in new hampshire. over a thousand dollars to get in. one reason, if you look, we talk about french candidates in new hampshire down the road. there are a lot of people who were not put up $1000 and get on the ballot. i don't know if your member lobster man, one guy who would run. and vermin supreme philly campaign with a boot on his head. also it's a colorful people who
get into the new hampshire primary which adds a little bit more spice to the campaign and the press will do some covers on these guys and it makes interesting. we have high turnout in new hampshire. realmakes new hampshire a test compared with a lot of other states. in the 2008 presidential primaries in new hampshire, about 51% of the adult population in the state voted. to 59% or 60% of the registered voters in the state, voted. some states do not get that time -- that kind of turnout and present election years. we have higher turnout in the present primary do we have in our midterm elections. it is very unusual. primaries, youn might get 50% or 20% in iowa. south carolina, 25% or 30%. we have significant higher turnout than other states. that is very important because it means it is not activists who nominate the parties -- you and the election for a candidate here. it is regular voters, voters who
do not pay as much attention to politics, who are not single issue voters, who are not as ideological. that it reflects more of a general election, a november election, and electorate. if you can do well in new hampshire, ample and a lot of these regular folks that are not activists, it really indicates that you have a greater chance of doing well in the general election. because it means that you are not just appealing to the activists. candidates know that. is, there is a wildcard with the new hampshire primary. we have what is called a semi-close primary new hampshire. if you are registered as her publican, you can only vote in the republican primary. if you are a democrat, you can only vote in the democratic primary. if you are registered as an undeclared you can vote in either primary. about 40% of the registered voters in new hampshire are registered undeclared. again, we will talk about this
later on. that does not mean that they are up in the air or that they are free agents. most of the undeclared are either republicans or democrats. but they do have a choice. so, that means that in any election cycle, you have to figure out, how do i design a campaign to appeal to these undeclared, independent voters? how many of them are there going to be? who will show up? in 2012, we are not going to have a real democratic primary are thoseso, independent to might've otherwise voted democrat -- are they going to stay home? are they going to vote in the republican primary? and if they are, where they going to vote for? will they vote for the weakest candidate to try to sabotage the party? these sorts of story lines get played out every year. campaign folks know how to cut through it. the media loves those types of stories. that is another reason why new hampshire state number one. the major reason that new hampshire has kept its status as
the first in the nation primary is because it is the law, and bill gardner, the secretary of state, is the enforcer of that law. new hampshire is required, by law, to have its primary one week before any similar state contest. so, when another state visits primary up, the same day as new hampshire, or ahead of new hampshire, secretary of state says, ok, we just had to move ours of a week before them. it creates an interesting dynamic and i let the secretary of state talk about that later on this week. i want to go to some of these things now, so you can talk with her about them. the first and that happened, 1972, iowa slips through. much to the chagrin of people in new hampshire, ever since. in 1972, iowa had its caucus moved up to january, the people in new hampshire ignore this, because they said, this is not a primary, this is a caucus, not
the same thing. nobody votes and caucuses. primaries are very different. they are a different animal. since that time, i think a lot of people wish that we would not have let that happen and have done something to stop that, but it occurred. occurred before the law was passed in new hampshire saying that we had done the first in the nation primary. florida try to its primary up to the same day as new hampshire. the argument was, where would you rather be? in the wintertime. campaigning in new hampshire, or in florida? i can see the difference between new hampshire over iowa, the new hampshire over florida -- we have a big chunk of our population that goes to florida every winter. it is a little bit nicer to be down there. but, new hampshire passed a law to move its primary a week earlier in march. originally, it was on town meeting day, the second tuesday in march. the legislature passed a lie
moved it up a week ahead of florida. still number one. 1976, massachusetts tries to move in front of new hampshire. we know this is going to happen for the 1976 primary. a state representative, jim swain out of portsmouth, he will come and talk to us, he talks about the -- around this. he introduces a law to officially separate the primary from town meeting day. historically, ever since the first manager primary of 1916, we have had it on town meeting day. 1972, with the first time it was not on town meeting day. we thought that might've been a one-off. this log is the secretary of state the ability to separate take -- separate the two there. we changed it to be the first tuesday in march, or on the tuesday immediately preceding any other new england state that
shall hold a similar election, whichever is earliest. no avenue and they will get in front of us. the more important thing, this piece of legislation day, a gave the secretary of state the authority to set the date of the primary. this is interesting here, because there are people in the legislatures who said, wait a minute, legionella the secretary of state do that. that should be something that the legislature does. the legislature usually passes laws, in most states, that sets the date of their primary or caucus. the governor at that time, melvin thompson, and some people the state legislature said, no, we want to do is remove partisan politics in the process. the secretary of state is elected by the state legislature. it is not voted on by the public. he is elected by the state legislature. bill gardner was a democrat, originally. but he was elected by republicans when he first ran in 1976. so, he has really held it as a
kind of nonpartisan position there. politics able to keep out of that process. partisan politics, rather. mr. garner was silly talk about all of the politics that goes on in the setting of the day, but try to keep partisan politics out of it. have republicans and immigrants working together to protect new hampshire's number one in the nation status. 1976, bill gardner is elected secretary of state. he is still secretary of state 35 years later. he is the longest-serving secretary of state in the nation right now. oncan ask them about this thursday. he may be the longest-serving secretary of state in u.s. history. he is really close to that. he takes this job very seriously and really protect the primary. that does not stop other states from saying, we want to hone in on new hampshire's first in the nation status. 1977, we respond to some other challenges.
we make a change in the legislation says is the first tuesday in march or on the tuesday and medially preceding any other state. we drop the new england park, now. we are looking at the more broadly. we have to be a week before any other state. has apuerto rico republican primary, they move it up to february 17, 1980. but, bill gardner ignores it and says, i have the authority to set the date. puerto rico is not a state. we are not going to pay attention to it. it probably get him well, cousin might've looked pretty petty if you are worried about saying your primary before somebody was not even a state. then we start playing chicken with the democratic national committee for the 1984 election. the dnc set the schedule for the new hampshire primaries and they say that no state can have an earlier than the second tuesday in march.
we cannotnt says, have an earlier than the second tuesday in march, we will schedule ours on that day. the same day as new hampshire. bill gardner says, i guess it will have to set ours up a week earlier. in, and nancy pelosi was a dnc represented at the time, flies and with a delegation and me to the secretary of state and have a discussion. the secretary of state says that state law says they have to move it up earlier. nancy pelosi says, you are a young man, and you have a future in politics, do not throw it away on something like this. bill garner is still the secretary of state. he was the primary to february 28. the threat that the data -- the dnc used was that, if you do not -- if you violate our window, we will not see her delicate at our convention. new hampshire ms. epperly. guess what?
new hampshire delegates were seated at the convention. the reason this is a hollow threat by the party is, by the time the primary season is over, and you have sometimes very -- primaries like the democrats had in 2008, when you want to do? you want to heal those ones. -- wounds. you want everybody fighting the opposite party. you do not want to carry an ugly disputes into the convention. it is usually a hollow threat. we found 2008, michigan and florida got to have their delegates seated, with a little bit of angst, but they were still seated. it is a hollow threat to keep the delegates out of the convention. we still have more challenges. they do not learn their lesson. 1988, we move our primary to the third tuesday in february because south dakota.
we move ourselves in front of south dakota. 1992, we move it to the second tuesday in february -- the third tuesday in february again, when we got a south carolina. which tried to jump in. -- can see, we're constantly bill garner is essentially following the law and moving it one week ahead of any similar state or contests. a lot of people think that bill gardner has some alternate motives in these hard to read when he is going to set the date. the reality, he looks to see when other people set the date and he does it one week earlier. not too difficult to figure out. by 1996, both arizona and delaware move up. it is good with arizona. arizona adopt the language that new hampshire has in its law. saying that, it will be one week ahead of any similar one. tuesday to early playing chicken with one another. eventually, arizona backs down. there is a great quote by jeff glasscock, a state representative from arizona.
i don't mind playing chicken, but i have a certain version to playing chicken when there is no reasonable expectation that we could win. they back down, as well. delaware was little bit interesting. this is something where politics came into play. and here, there was a lot of effort by people within the republican party to the pressure on the actual candidates to not campaign and delaware. they essentially stop the delaware primary by getting commitments from their public and candidates not to campaign there. the reason they did that was, they said, if they're going to campaign and delaware, those people in new hampshire are not going to like that very much. if you do not win new hampshire, what are your chance of becoming the nominee? minimal. new hampshire had the threat of omentum that they could build from winning new hampshire and the lack of momentum by picking off the voters in new hampshire to keep delaware from being able to schedule its primary.
the candidates, largely, refuse to participate in the delaware primary. you still get more challenges. 1999, we change the law again. it gave the secretary of state even worse -- flex ability to move the primary to any tuesday, seven days before any similar election. south carolina sets its primary for saturday, february 19. what do we do? we move are set to february 8. that is more than seven days, but has to be on any tuesday, so we have to take it to tuesday more than seven days before the other states. michigan friends to move to february 8, they back down, as well. you can see this pattern play now. 2000, is a more interesting one. 2000 is not so good. movesouth carolina there's up, iowa gets up because they thought they had their party schedule. they do not want to move and change things. was they did was, they made a claim that they could not move
it a days and the new hampshire because i was a similar lot to new hampshire. they cannot move there's that because there is a pork producers convention. this convention that was going to be taking over every hotel room and the state of iowa, and of course, we cannot have the caucuses that week. because of all of these people that were in town. this really ticked off people in new hampshire. storm, --efore the before this time, iowa and new hampshire worked well together. to keep each other spots in place. iowa eventually backs down. -- there there's caucuses to generate three fourth. convention turned out to be a relatively small affair that took place in one town for a couple of days. it was not a big thing at all. they were working with what they had, is what they did in terms
of using a threat against new hampshire. great prok convent --pork convention turned out not to be a big thing. 2008, the envelope is starting to be pushed toward silly. florida moves up its primary, which means that south carolina visits that, because now it is the first of the southern primaries. now, they are week ahead of florida. because south carolina ms. theirs up, that has to push new hampshire up a week. it has to push iowa the week. we on this cells into 2007. so, iowa, in order to avoid having its primary in 2007, has to change their law and has their caucus on january 3. new hampshire has its five days later. ony did not want to have it new year's day, it would've been a little bit difficult. although, they could have had
tvs, if the iowa hawkeyes had in plain and a gain. iowa moves there's to third, new hampshire's have theirs on january 8. so, when is the 2012 primary going to be set for new hampshire? anybody know the day? you don't, because it is a trick question. the date is not set. ae republican party has scheduled date. suggested date, at the very 14th. that is probably not going to happen. already, florida is on the books as having there's on january 30. which remain south carolina with the there's that earlier and new hampshire with that there's a earlier. it would be the same sort of circus that we had in 2000 -- 2008. secretaries of state are really working to try to not have that happen so that this is going on. yes?
we do not know when the 2012 primary is, ask secretary gardner on thursday. what he thinks the date is going to be. i do not think you would say different of the cameras, but that is something we can do. is theow, we have current law, this is passed in may of 2010. -341, the primary election shall be held on the second tuesday in march, or on a day selected by the secretary of state which is 70's are more immediate preceding the date in which any other state will be holding a similar election in each year that the president of the u.s. is going to be elected or the year previous. ind primaries shall be held connection with the regular town hall meeting. still billing which about town hall meetings. day, aheld another
special election, the secretary of state for that purpose. then they put in some specific language that defines with his means. it says the purpose of this section is to protect the tradition of the new hampshire first in the nation potential primary. it is very, very clear for this theat not only is specific language of the law, but this is the intent of the law. gardner, he will set -- you secretary of state. he will set the primary date sometime after the filing. for the front -- the filing timeframe for the ballot. the timeframe is scheduled for the states right now, he could even push that later, which would give him some more flexibility in setting the date. new hampshire is great flexibility. secretary of state has great flexibility of setting the date of the new hampshire primary.
most other states, because they require legislation to set their primary caucus states. they're in a much or difficult spot. legislation means they have to have people in your capital. you have to have a vote. you have to the governor willing to sign it. there are some logistics that take place in this other states that we do not have to worry about. so, we are plain chicken with a lot of other states, but we have a lot more tools in the secretary of state still back in the other states have. now, because we are talking a history, we got in a little bit of recent history. and how it impacts modern elections, but we talked earlier about some of the historical elections and new hampshire. historic primary elections. there have been a lot of them. i think this is one of the reasons that new hampshire is still seen as a real special place by the media and by candidates, as well. election with the 1952 when eisenhower defeats taft.
truman is defeated. tremendous back to being independent. that is very historic. the president decides not to run. 1964, another historic election. this is the first one in which a write-in candidate wins. henry cap a lot, who is the senator from massachusetts runs a campaign and wins just barely. he comes in ahead of their goldwater. the thing he does is he knocks nelson rockefeller out of the race. nelson rockefeller, a northeastern republican thought that he could with the new venture primary, which gave him a real inside track to winning the nomination, but he was not able to do it. it split the moderate republican vote. otherter went on to win contests and begin the republican nominee in 1964. 1968, another one. a historic election. this is the get clean for gene.
eugene mccarthy runs as an antiwar candidate against lbj in 1968. he recruits all of these college kids to come up here who cannot vote, remember in 1968. they were not allowed to vote and present elections until 1972. so, he has all of these kids were politically -- politically activated and motivated what nothing to do. he gets into work for the campaign. he says do not come up to new hampshire with long beards and scraggly clothes. and knock on doors and scare the natives. get yourself cleaned up. get your hair cut, shave your beard off. dress nicely with a jacket and tie. then go outing campaign and show it nice, young people you are. mrs., thathy, the mccarthy beat lbj here, and therefore, that can't lbj to choose not to run. is, remember, 1968, we
still had the dual system where you voted for delegates and you voted for the candidate. lbjhe beauty contest park, one. 50%, versus 42%. the mccarthy people figured that they probably were not going to be able to beat lbj anyway. they were more doing this to make a point. they figured, if that attempt to beat lbj, what they would need to do is concentrate on the delegates. get people to vote for the delegates. they would say, vote for whoever but ift for president, you go for delegates, vote for these delegates. they were successful enough that they won the delegates vote. lbj both won and lost in 1968. in either case, it really showed that he had significant problems within his own party, which was one of the reasons why he pulled out and decided not to run in 1968. again, raising the impression that new hampshire is a king- maker or a place raking can get knocked off.
1972, and musky, a senator from maine is running. he thinks he is a good chance because he is from a neighboring state. , 46%-30new hampshire 7%. but he wins by less than was expected. people thought that he would be able to knock out these other guys. george mcgovern, south dakota, nobody ever heard of them. here, this is where and musky is standing in front of the union leader who had written a scathing editorial criticizing his wife. the union leader said that he was crying out there. --says, no, that was just no snow. it left an impression in the minds of some people that he was not tough enough to be the leader of the united states during the cold war while we had wars going on in vietnam and so forth. it is probably something that hurt him. he still one year, but not by
enough. we'll talk about the expectations game later on in the class. how candidates try to lower the expectations so they can exceed them and seem to be doing better than actually do. bill clinton is famous for that one. into aimmy carter walks general store in hopes that new hampshire. he says, hello. jimmy, who? says jimmy carter figure out the importance of momentum in the early voting states. the governor forms come into play. he knew the system. jimmy carter figured out the system, too. he concentrated on iowa. he cannot win the iowa caucus, uncommitted, and decided one. but he came in second. he is that as momentum coming to new hampshire where he had been campaigning, essentially by
himself or a long time. he got momentum in new hampshire, london venture primary and actually went on to become the democratic nominee. showing the importance of momentum and winning the early states. in 1980, i don't have too many things to play, but this a good one. 1980 was an important election because there was the kennedy-carter election in 1980 which really split the democratic party. ted kennedy got 37% of the vote against the sitting president. it really went the jimmy carter and made probably a major reason why he did not get reelected in 1980. but, ronald reagan comes up your. he finishes second in 1970 62 gerald ford. he finishes second in the new venture primary. he ought to do pretty good here. he ends up winning by 50%-20 3%. here's a memorable moment from the primary.
it is argued with one of the tipping point. you can see, even 30 years later, it is a pretty impactful moment on a campaign trail. this is that a gym in nashua, new hampshire. a small town. can you imagine that being done now or any other than say, new hampshire or iowa? far less scripted than in other states. 1984, another interesting one. walter mondale, the democratic candidate, lines up all of the union support and institutional support for the democratic party before he gets in. he is little senator from -- there is a little senator from colorado and in gary hart decides to run against him. he does second place in iowa. he claims he did much better than anticipated, so he comes to new hampshire where he had been campaigning and he thought he had a more favorable electorate and he wins new hampshire primary by 37%-20 8%. this really weekends walter mondale. the primary played out, mondale
had to fight against the money from his own party for a long time. it gave the reagan campaign more ammunition. take already better to ammunition when someone in your party is shooting at you then some outside of the party. it is more believable that way. he was a 1984 in part because he got beat up by gary hart in new hampshire. clinton, dogs by accusations of womanizing, of using drugs, of dodging the draft. but, he runs in new hampshire, he does not win, loses by 33%-20 4% to a senator from massachusetts. he famously claims that he did a hold up better than anyone anticipated, calls himself the comeback kid, and goes on from there to win. so, he is able to take advantage of his expectations. the other important thing about 1996 is this the first time that a candidate gets elected
president without winning new hampshire's primary. in the modern primary cycle. always first, always right. after 1996.he armor side, patublican buchanan. pat buchanan ran in 1992 against george bush and lost in new hampshire, bush one. but he wounded bush and arguably caused him not to be reelected in 1992. he comes back in 1996 running against bob dole. bob dole is not the best liked guy. and all the times that his run for president. but, pat buchanan be bob dole by 1%. bob dole.wounded the campaign plays out all the way to the convention were pat buchanan gives a speech about the cultural war in the united states, causing republicans a lot of problems.
a fairly easy win for bill clinton in the 1996 presidential election. 2000, we have more historic things. john mccain, running the town hall campaign. he did not have the kind of money that george w. bush had. bush got all of the institutional support and financial support from the republican party and john mccain at shoe leather. he came up, can pay to lock, 100-2 lot of events with hundred people and his campaign did a good job organizing these events. he would answer a lot of questions and he seems like a straight forward guy, willing to interact with people, whereas bush at that time was missing to debate, not wanting interact with people, seemingly afraid to get out there and mix it up with the real people and real voters in new hampshire. bushset up this idea that was not tough enough. john mccain wins new hampshire, but he was not able to overcome the institutional support that the bush people had.
similarly, what mondale was able to do in 1984. bush becomes second person to win the presidency without winning new hampshire. there is also a historic primary on the democratic side. bill bradley is running against the sitting vice president, al gore. if it had not been for all of the attention that the mccain victory god, it might've been a very different outcome on the democratic side, because al gore 49%-45%.be 2004, howard dean, from a neighboring state of vermont. running against john kerry from the neighboring state of massachusetts. you notice there's a pattern here. of 2003, and early winter of 2004, howard dean is winning.
he is doing things that are making voters little bit nervous, but he goes to iowa and he is really banking and winning iowa. he spent a tremendous amount of money and time. he had kind of the get clean for gene strategy, but he did not send his workers out there clean guys. they had beards, tattoos, nose piercings, wearing orange, hunting hats. he that it might appeal to people in iowa. people were dancing the door and say, i'm not so sure about talking to these people. he loses iowa, and he has a historic screen. at the end of his speech at the island caucus. he really collapses here. his support dropped 14 points and one day in our polls. he was going along, but his support was weak, and he dropped. that is important, because what it shows is that voters in new hampshire and in most primaries do not make up their minds until near the ends. ,nd last-minute campaign events
such as this, can have a huge impact on what actually happens. in 2008, similar things. john mccain wins again on the republican side. but, hillary clinton rebounds from losing to obama. she is beat up any debate on saturday night. then, on monday morning, she is at a coffee shop in portsmouth, and she chokes up and talks about how important this was for her. and that gets played over and over again in the press that day. the one group that shifted in its opinions from the pre-election polls to the postelection polls, the exit --ls, where women who saw you seem to think that hillary clinton was getting been up on by the boys. they shifted and she wins this historic election and goes on to pull things. he will talk about the impact of last-minute changes in make up their minds at the ends. this is an indication of how that plays out in new hampshire. the campaign in new hampshire is
not over until it is over, really. last-minute things matter. so, the things you want to talk about new hampshire. each primary really has its own stories and its own seems. its own rhythm and own cycles. there are certain trends that occur throughout the history of the new hampshire primaries. the first trend is, you cannot ignore new hampshire. candidates to decide not to campaign in new hampshire, and make it be known that they do not plan on campaigning in new hampshire, do poorly. most really, we saw rudy giuliani's campaign fall apart. he was the front runner in all of the national polls throughout 2007, and he finishes in fourth place in new hampshire. ron paul almost beat him in new hampshire, and he goes on to fade away. he may run again this year, there's still a chance he can get them. if he does, i'm sure he will run a better campaign than he did in 2008. i'm sure he will not ignore new hampshire this time around. you cannot ignore new hampshire. in theond thing, we saw
2008 campaign and 2004 campaign, voters make up their minds at the ends. there is really little difference between the candidates within a party's primaries, on issue positions. they're almost always identical or at best, shades of gray indifference. look at other things like personality, their history, do they look good on tv? do they interact with you while? and the other thing you pay attention to is last-minute campaign events. the last week as an voters really start paying attention. i use the analogy of going to the store to buy ice cream. if you leave the house with your kids are your parents and you go get an ice cream cone, you do not leave the house saying, well i will go out today and get a black tarry eyes can come --blac cream cone. no, you go to the store and look at what is on special. you look at what other people
are having. is, if you got it to the eyes can store, you know that it does not matter what kind of ice cream you eventually choose, you'll be happy with it. you'll be happy with it. candidate in your presidential primary. it does not matter who wins. you're going to vote for that person in november. you're going to support that person. you're going to be happy with the outcome eventually. so, we tend to make the mistake that primaries are just slightly different fridays of general elections. when in reality, they're completely different animals. another thing that we see, is knowingly candidates do much better than to candidates from other parties. they are better known, they know the state, and they fit an ideologically better with the state of new hampshire. the final point is, perception is more important than reality. it is not necessarily matter if you win or lose, it is the expectations that you set for yourself and how big your going
to win by or not win by. we have covered a lot of ground here today. the readings have a lot of this material in its. the people that we will be bringing in for the rest of the course will be able to help you answer these things and they will flesh these things out. --t i wanted to do these today was make she had a good background and understand the names of the people, the events, so it is all familiar to you when you hear this from other people. any questions that you have, so far today? i had a question concerning the voter turnout in iowa compared to new hampshire. we are a 50-60 and you say they are 20-30. do you think that we as a rich tradition, for both states, in terms of holding the caucus, do you feel like it has more to do with the general level of political engagement in new
hampshire, or is it more a factor of the structure of a caucus versus the structure of a primary? prof. smith: an excellent question. i think it is a little bit of both. iowa has a caucus system. it is a democratic caucus that requires that you go to the caucus and going to a room with a few hundred other people from , andprecinct or ward essentially you are in there for 3-4 hours. they have a weird system where you talk and give your speech is about why you should vote for your candidate, and then they want you to go to different parts of the room and line up with people, and a public, no secret ballot. and line up with the candidate that you support. it candidate that you like does not get 50% of the vote in the room, you have the opportunity to go online yourself with somebody else. -- 15%. it takes a long time. that would depress turnout. why would somebody want to do that?
go after work and spend four hours and you know what people that they do not know and be publicly identified as to which candidate they support. on the republican side, they essentially have a primary. they walk in, fill it a secret ballot, put it in the box, and leave. there is no reason that the republican turnout should be that much lower than it is in new hampshire, from a procedural matter. but, it is considerably lower than it is in new hampshire. in 2008, it was difficult to calculate the specific numbers of who voted in what primary, but the estimates for the republican primary somewhere in the 11%-19% range in 2008. considerably lower than what we saw new hampshire. i think part of it is that new hampshire has a history and a tradition of a primary that is longer. it is also -- it has become something that you do in new hampshire. it is a habit. as i mentioned, there are more people who vote in the new hampshire provincial primary then who vote in the midterm
elections. the midterm elections should be more important, you are choosing governors and congressmen and senators. the more people come out and vote in the present primary. there is something about the events, the circus of the new hampshire primary, and if any of you have been in manchester or concorde, the week before the primary, you'll really appreciate that circus, where every tv network, not only in the united states, but from around the world are lined up. every politico that you have ever seen on tv, or elected official is there. can meet former presidents of the united states on the street because they are all out there campaigning. it is a real circus. it is easy to do in new hampshire because it is a more compact space. in a state like iowa, it is a bigger state. you are not exposed to the circus quite as much as you are new hampshire. other questions? the articles that we have
read have addressed that new hampshire is not been choosing candidates quickly for a couple of elections result. prof. smith: we have lost three of them. >> i was wondering what you thought -- what factors may that happen? one of the articles address that new hampshire was not as diverse as the rest of the country. do you think that plays a role in lately as a country that is more diverse than new hampshire, are they not up to par in terms of diversity, does that play a role? prof. smith: i think there is an issue of diversity, but not ethnic diversity as his ideological diversity. the new hampshire republican electorate is a moderate public and electorate. it is a northeastern republican electorate. what we used to call rockefeller republicans. after nelson rockefeller. it will illustrate that new hampshire republicans, likely are more pro-choice on the issue on abortion that a country as a whole.
they are slid on the issue of gay marriage. whereas other states are strongly opposed. we have a second least religious state in the country. on the republicans i, the new hampshire electorate is very different than the iowa electorate, where the south carolina electorate, or some of the other southern states that are very strong parts of the republican party. so a mitt romney or a ready giuliani or a george h.w. bush or george w. bush, if he did not run as a conservative in 2000, they can win in new hampshire. they can do well appear, where is a staunch conservative candidate, particularly a social concerted candidate will have a much were difficult time winning in new hampshire. that does not mean that a candidate from a party can -- acquire the institutional support of the party like al gore in 2000. our walter mondale in 2004. or george dubya bush in 2000. they can get the steamroller together, which means that you can roll over somebody from new hampshire.
but it does not have that sort of organizational strength. so, i think diversity is a problem, new hampshire democrats tend to be more liberal than democrats and other parts of the country. they are high income, high education democrats. more like a liberal elite democrat. that is not the case in states like iowa or other states with a much stronger union, blue-collar democratic base. there are some differences between the new hampshire electorate and the electives in other states, which i think is more important than any sort of racial or ethnic differences between them. i have kept you past time. just a reminder, secretary of state gardner will be on thursday. if you have any questions about the readings from his book, please be prepared to ask him. think you very much. thank you to the folks at home for watching. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> the citizens of the granite state are not easily one. the meeting places are hotbeds of political discussion. in village, town, and city, voters braved bitter snow to cast their votes. thanks to the people of new hampshire, -- >> good to be back in after. >> new hampshire. >> new hampshire. >> new hampshire. >> heathrow new hampshire. >> it's great to be back in new hampshire. >> when reporter has caught new hampshire's primary the most cherished of american rights. ♪ [applause] governor, thank you so much
for coming to new hampshire. >> i think this is a place for you can observe a candidate in the heat of a dialogue, in the heat of getting tough questions about their positions on the issues. it is not just a place where there is his greatest speech. >> new hampshire takes its first in the nation primary status really seriously. >> this is one in a whole series of townhall meetings that we will be having. >> this is my 20th townhall meeting. 120 ofome to our townhall meeting in new hampshire. [applause] ♪ >> next weekend on american history tv, railamerica, vietnam hearings, 50 years later. 1966, the senate foreign relations committee, chaired by senator o bright,
gives equal time to critics of the war and members of the johnson administration. and hearings that were televised live to the nation. here's a preview. >> the vietnam hearings are probably some of the most extraordinary hearings ever held by congress. they were hearings, an investigation into a war that was still being fought. senate wantedhe to know why we were in vietnam. what the administration's policies were, and they wanted to hear from opponents of the war. they gave equal status to critics of the war, as they did two supporters of the war. it was a real debate. george was one of the most distinguished diplomats and also, fearless about diplomacy. it was him who wrote an article for the magazine of foreign affairs -- he cannot take sides on the issue. he really suggested that the policy of the united states need
to be containment. it was the containment theory, the rationale for the united states to send troops to vietnam. here was the author of the containment theory, saying, no, it does not apply here. this is a mistake. >> it is clear that however justified her actions may be in our own eyes, it has failed to win either enthusiasm or confidence, even on people were normally from a to us. our motives are widely misinterpreted. spectacleectacle, the emphasized and reproduced in thousands of press photographs and stories that they are in the press of the world, the spectacle of americans and 15 -- inflicting grievous injury on helpless people, and particularly a people of different race and color, no matter how warranted by military necessity or by the excessive of the adversary our operations may
seem to us to be or may generally be, the spectacle produces reaction among millions of people throughout the world, profoundly detrimental to the image we would like them to hold of this country. i am not saying that this is just or rights, i am saying that this is so. and that it is bound in the circumstances to be so. and a victory purchased at the price of further such damage, would be a hollow one in terms of our world interest. >> vietnam hearings, 50 years later. watch more of the senate foreign relations committee hearings, neck saturday, february 13, at 10:00 p.m. eastern and sunday, said during 14th, at 4:00 p.m. eastern. railamerica, here on american history tv, only on every election cycle remind
us how important it is for citizens to be informed. track theis a way to government as it happens. >> there are a lot of c-span fans on the hill. >> there is so much more that c-span does. next, university of washington professor margaret o'mara talks about her book, " pivotal tuesdays: four elections that shaped the twentieth century." she begins with the election of explores 1932, 1968, in 1992 elections in which argues that all occur during periods of change. this is one hour . >>