For my blog post today about Conrad Black's Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full,
I will highlight what Conrad Black says on pages 211-212 about Adlai
Stevenson, the Democratic candidate for President in 1952. Black
mentions Stevenson's background as part of a wealthy family and
chronicles Stevenson's career in public service. Black states that, as
Governor of Illinois, Stevenson "had run an effective, reforming
administration." But Black goes on to critique Stevenson's acceptance
speech before the 1952 Democratic National Convention:
"In his
acceptance speech, he had asked that this 'cup pass from me,' and had
expressed admiration for Eisenhower, but said that he had been called
upon to heal a terminal case 'of political schizophrenia.' It was
eloquent, as Stevenson always was, but it was not the right note. It
was too pious about the nomination, too deferential to his opponent, and
not believable in claiming that the man who had received the
unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany in the West could not control
the Republican Party."
I have two items:
1. The part about
Stevenson as Governor running an "effective, reforming administration"
stood out to me because I wondered what that meant. Did it mean that
Stevenson cracked down on corruption? And, if so, was he able to
distance himself somewhat from the notorious corruption of the
Democratic Truman Administration? I'd say that, on some level, it did
mean that Stevenson made government less corrupt. According to this wikipedia article, which draws from Porter McKeever's 1989 book Adlai Stevenson: His Life and Legacy, "Principal
among Stevenson's achievements as Illinois governor were reorganizing
the state police by removing political considerations from hiring
practices and instituting a merit system for employment and promotion,
cracking down on illegal gambling, and improving the state highways."
But
my impression is that Stevenson could not distance himself from the
corruption of the Truman Administration. For one, Republican
Vice-Presidential candidate Richard Nixon was harping on that
corruption. Second, rather than trying to distance himself from the
Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman record, Stevenson was seeking
to hitch himself to it, since FDR had a reputation for getting the U.S.
out of the Great Depression and winning World War II (and Truman as
President played a role in the latter). And, third, while Democrats and
others were criticizing Nixon for having a fund from the donations of
businessmen, Stevenson himself had his own fund. While Nixon's fund was
for political purposes, however, Stevenson used some of his fund for
personal purposes (according to Black). Stevenson's fund was legal, but
it probably didn't look too good, when the Democrats were criticizing
Nixon's fund. (Nixon was upset, however, that Stevenson's fund was not
criticized as much as his own fund.)
2. Black says that a
downside of Stevenson's speech was that it was "too deferential to"
Eisenhower, the Republican nominee for President in 1952. There are
plenty of political strategists who maintain that going negative is an
effective political strategy. Democrats James Carville and Paul Begala
argue this in their book, Take It Back, as they critique John
Kerry's 2004 Presidential campaign. I'm all for candidates setting up a
clear contrast between themselves and their opponent, and yet I
actually like it when candidates find something to praise about their
opponent. I think of Al Gore in the 1996 Vice-Presidential debate
praising Republican VP candidate Jack Kemp's record on affirmative
action, civility, and race, or Republican Presidential candidate Arnold
Vinick on the West Wing praising the grace, dignity, and leadership of the President he hoped to replace, Democrat Josiah Bartlet (see here).
There may have been sincerity in what the men were saying, but there
was also a likely political motive. Al Gore probably wanted to
highlight that Jack Kemp flip-flopped on affirmative action when Kemp
joined Bob Dole's ticket, and Vinick (according to Bartlet) was seeking
to gain Democratic votes, while (according to Toby Ziegler) Vinick was
exalting himself as Bartlet's natural successor, as the Democrats
running for the nomination came across as little kids trying to get a
place at the adult table. Granted, there aren't many things in politics
that are done out of a pure motive. Still, I for one tend to respect
candidates when they find something to praise about the other side. To
me, that comes across as mature.