This year, 1956, was an election year. This year saw a repeat of 1952 in that both Dwight D. Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson would be opponents in the Presidential race. This time around, however, Eisenhower had been running the country for the past four years. His victory was fairly plain to see. He had ended the Korean war and the country was booming in prosperity. Though issues such as the high cost of food remained concerns of American’s.
Dwight D.Eisenhower and 
Adlai Stevenson.Eisenhower’s running mate would again be Richard Nixon (our current vice-president here in 1956) though privately Eisenhower did not want him. He felt Nixon was too partisan and controversial. Nixon had, since 1952, greatly changed the power and position of the office of the vice-president. He began to use the office as a platform to run and help elect Republican’s at state and local elections, a power never held nor demonstrated by the office before.
Eisenhower would have preferred Massachusetts Governor Christian Herter. I find this a very interesting choice, as Herter, today, would be seen as a liberal elite, though in fact he was a Republican from Massachusetts. But, he had been born in Paris to Artist parents, educated in NYC and Harvard. He was well versed in foreign affairs and honestly, as we were to find out, much more honest than Nixon. So, in the Republican National Convention this year held in San Francisco, CA, there was no discussion, Eisenhower was elected to run for the Republican Party.
Adlai Heralded from the Midwest, Illinois. What is interesting in the political world of 1956, is the south supported him and was mainly Democratic. What I did find interesting about Stevenson was that, though he was wealthy, as any Presidential candidate now had to be, he lived very modestly. He did not have a lavish home nor spend as a rich man. This thrift actually became a laughing point and was used against him (if you can believe it) in a campaign button for the Ike (Eisenhower) party.
There had been circulated a photograph of Stevenson being interviewed and when he crossed his leg, he had a hole in his shoe. This was somehow seen and used against him, in these buttons. I find it interesting that the ‘spin’ in this case was that you might end up with holes in your shoes if you vote for him. But not that he might be frugal and therefore care more about country and saving money than how he looks our sounds on tv. In fact, he did not like the idea of tv ads and was rather wooden in the tv spots he was required to perform during the election year.In response to this, the Democratic Women used the image with pride in this button
Of course, leave it to we homemakers to notice thrift for its good attributes. Even if you were an Ike supporter, and most of the country was, you had to acknowledge the silliness in seeing thrift as bad.Here is a map of the results of this year’s election.
You can see that the south farming states were strongly Democratic.A very interesting thing happened at the Democratic Convention when Adlai Stevenson was chosen, he let the convention choose his running mate. This was never done before and the two leading contenders were Kefauver and a new young Senator, John F. Kennedy from Massachusetts. Adlai Stevenson privately wanted Kennedy, but in the end it was to be Kefauver. Of course we now that we would hear from Kennedy again come next election, when he became our president in 1960. Many changes are to occur from now to 1960.
I have often been shocked, in the modern world, by both political parties use of advertising to get elected. Their ‘subterfuge’ is really quite modern and savvy. Yet, I was surprised to see, this was happening here in 1950’s. In fact, the political arena has always been a platform of finding what the country cares about and play it up during the election year. What is different about this year, 1956, is we are really comfortably in the TV/Media age.
In 1952, when this pair ran against one another, there were less tv sets. And prior to that fewer still. In 1946 there were 6000 tv sets in America, by 1950 there were 12 million. That is a large increase. Yet, by 1956 more than half of Americans owned a TV set. It was not only here to stay, but it was a talking platform in our homes. Commercials and ads had become a normal part of the American evening. So, that platform was finally really utilized.
This was an ad against the current president Eisenhower. It is interesting how they use his words against him, much as is done in today’s political climate.
The idea of running a campaign based on fear rather than simple facts was already becoming the norm. And in this ad we see, already, that one party wants to use simple buzz words such as family and religion, as if only one party truly cares about one’s families.
I have been accused of being political before on this blog, though I have never intended to be. In fact I hate politics in that it seems just another game to play and all it does is separate the majority of people and turn us against one another. When, really, we would be greatly helped if we put these things aside and just tried to actually make a world we could be proud of that was fair for all.
I might be considered political in saying things against the large corporation of today, but honestly, all that we love about the 1950’s and earlier are very counter-big corporation. The very demise of the small business and the American dream is due to their monopoly on our towns and wallets. Even the immigration problem that seems to worry so many is in fact due to the corporation, as they are working on large corporate run farms and not at the local privately owned drug store or mom and pop restaurant.
It is a sad side affect that my project has, along with creating my love of this time and respect for the people of that era, it has made me see, more clearly, our own current world. I have to say I am not happy with our current or even recently prior conditions of this country. I can see the writing on the wall, as they say, and as the digital world increases I think we will see more than just our manufacturing leaving our country for overseas. I believe what is left to the majority of us, our towns and small business the ability to care for ourselves and children and our land, is slowly vanishing. The sad this is the smoke screen of worry over the government controlling us hides that we are really very controlled now by the corporations and in fact the government is largely run by those involved in the big corporations. The idea of ‘two sides fighting it out’ is almost some great ruse to keep us separate, when really they all seem to be fighting for the same master, the Almighty Dollar over us. I wonder, then, when we are so quickly sold out to the large corporations for a fast buck, what shall we have left. And those who are left, what shall we care about? I am sorry if that seems political, but it is, quite honestly, how I now feel after two years of very detailed study of all facets of our country.
Who would have thought when I began looking through old magazines for recipes or dress styles, that I would find myself falling down the rabbit hole of discovery of our current American condition. I am sorry if this seems offensive to anyone, but it is in fact my LOVE of America and what it once meant that I feel saddened. You can call a duck what you like, slick it up, throw smoke screens or put it in an expensive three piece suit on TV, but if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, you can bet it IS a duck. And it seems rather Republican or Democrat, we have many fancy ducks these days.
I hope we gals and gents can make a little difference.
You don't have to apologize for your analysis. I think it is very valuable. And so true. Here in the Midwest, corporate farms are taking over. It is hard for the little family farms to make it.
ReplyDeleteJohn Kennedy did not become president until 1960.
ReplyDeleteThis all reminds me of a song in the musical (later turned movie musical) "Call me Madam". The title of the song is "They Like Ike" with lyrics such as 'The new election year, will soon be drawing near, I wonder what they'll do in 1952, I wonder who they will send to Washington?! They like Ike, and Ike is good on a mic, and whats more is he says that he dont wanna and that makes Ike the kind of guy that they like and, they seem to think hes gonna!'
ReplyDeleteanon-that is what I thought I said, that he became president in 1960, not sure where I mispoke. I just mentioned Stevenson wanted him for his vice-president.
ReplyDeleteOff topic a bit but does the lady ont he right in the top pic have a tattoo on her leg? It makes the pic look so modern. :) Or am I seeing it wrong?
ReplyDeleteamy m-it's funny you should mention that. I almost used that pic as a way to show that even then ladies liked 'decoration' in that form, but would never ever consider a tattoo. Really only sailors/military men (usually not higher ranking officers though) and some 'unmentionables' would ever have a tattoo. What they did have was lovely lovely stockings! Oh, the stockings I have seen in my magazines. SO, it is simply a pattern woven into the stocking and would have a matching design on the other leg. Rather a fun way to wear something 'arty' without the commitment of a tattoo.
ReplyDeleteOh, and I fixed my error, obviously I knew Kennedy wasn't President until 1960, since my whole post is about Eisenhower winning the 56 election, but I type fast and edit poorly, so that has been amended.
Oh how neat to have designs on the hose... And much less of a commitment! Very cool.
ReplyDeletebefore I read further, I wanted to comment on the map. I cannot believe how many were republican compared to today. It amazes me, for I am a democrat :)
ReplyDeleteThe 1950's democrat was interested in how things were changing. The failing of small farms and business were of importance to them. That is why so much of the 'deep south' were Democrats as their way of life was literally being taken away (again, since the civil war had also greatly ruined them). I think the reason so many were Republicans then, and a 1950's Republican (even though today they would want you to think differently) is as close to a present day Republican as a fish is to a desert. Unfortunately, as the country was growing many were happy to take on all the 'new things' and didn't want to be reminded that the 'work was not done' after the war. We still had issues that were never dealt with from our Depression, so many, just because it was literally easier to live for the ease of today, didn't want to know about failing small farms or the future plight of the small business. In 1950's you could have large growing grocery stores and bigger department stores while still having a thriving downtown, but the writing was on the wall. We simply didn't want to read it and I can understand that. It is also amazing how little we were really, as a nation, noticing or caring about Europe's complete destruction after the war, as we didn't really have to see it. I wonder how different it could have been had Eisenhower had his way and had Herter as his running mate. Then the combination of capitalism could mingle with a more left educated interest in foreign affairs and maybe we could have become a one party system of well thought people who wanted business interests but also wanted a cap or fairness so all could be a part of it instead of the growing separation between the 'haves and have nots'. We can all see what was to become of the Republican party as Nixon and his cronies worked his way through the party. While Eisenhower was a great general who had honest care and hope for our country Nixon was using his position to align the 'right' Republicans to ultimate build, really, what we have today: Business interest run government instead of government for about and by the people. It is amazing how a few people can affect the world for so many. I can't honestly say today that I am of either party, as I don't feel an affiliation with the overall politics of either side. I just want people to be rational and do deal with our country in a way that makes sense for all of us. Even if we do not agree with a persons life choice, that should not be our topics at hand, but rather how are we getting and making our food, how and what will our housing market be like, how are we viewed by other countries, what is the future of jobs and real American production for our children. But, instead, smoke screens of silly topics that are really beneath public discussion become the way to take away from the real issues. Sad, really.
ReplyDeleteMelissa, it was about this time that the party platforms began to flip. My great-grandfather was a registered Democrat to the day he died. But for the last 50 years of his life he voted Republican. He got mad at my grandfather, his only child, when Papaw switched his party affiliation to Republican.
ReplyDeleteI identify myself simply as a conservative, a VERY conservative conservative. The Republican party has ceased to represent me and I voted third-party in the last presidential election. I still vote largely Republican because the things that are most important to me, Democrat candidates rarely fulfill.
I love that our group has all party affiliations. It makes me feel that we ladies have the ability to see one another's views and understand each other in spite of our own differing feelings. I only wish the political climate in our country could be that way and see that really, though we all may hold differing personal views, as a nation we really want one thing, freedom and a good way of living for ourselves and our family. I am happily still unplugged from the 21st century but every so often, in a store on a magazine, or in the off chance I hear a bit of modern radio here or there, I am always so appalled, even more so now, at what qualifies as news. The topics are always so sensational and so outrageous that I am surprised it is not a joke. Again, the people of the past almost had a dignity of what was appropriate to talk about and some of the 'talking points' now seen as relevant would hardly be considered worth the effort. I hate to feel I am quietly shrinking into my safe 1950's world, but now I am so sensitive to the modern world that a few minutes of any 'news' or 'political' talk, either party, is almost insanity to me.
ReplyDeleteI grew up in a split household, in that my mother was staunchly Republican while my father voted Democrat. Even when they were first together, which was the early 1950's, my mother always was very outspoken about her separate party affiliations. My father always laughed because whenever he asked my mother, 'Why do you vote Republican', she always said, "My father was a Republican and so am I" that always made him smile.
An interesting aside about the 1960s Presidential election is that it was the first Presidential election to have televised debates. The interesting part is, that those who watched the election on the TV thought that Kennedy won the election, while those who listened to the debate on the radio thought that Nixon had won.
ReplyDeleteactually the first televised presidential debate happened in 1956, only it was between the two Democratic members Stevenson and Kefauver. That was the first official debate regarding the presidency televised in the country. The 1960 may have been the first between the two running for president though, not sure about that.
ReplyDeleteTHE KENNEDY-NIXON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES, 1960
ReplyDeleteOn 26 September 1960, 70 million U.S. viewers tuned in to watch Senator John Kennedy of Massachusetts and Vice President Richard Nixon in the first-ever televised presidential debate. It was the first of four televised "Great Debates" between Kennedy and Nixon. The first debate centered on domestic issues. The high point of the second debate, on 7 October, was disagreement over U.S. involvement in two small islands off the coast of China, and on 13 October, Nixon and Kennedy continued this dispute. On 21 October, the final debate, the candidates focused on American relations with Cuba.
The Great Debates marked television's grand entrance into presidential politics. They afforded the first real opportunity for voters to see their candidates in competition, and the visual contrast was dramatic. In August, Nixon had seriously injured his knee and spent two weeks in the hospital. By the time of the first debate he was still twenty pounds underweight, his pallor still poor. He arrived at the debate in an ill-fitting shirt, and refused make-up to improve his color and lighten his perpetual "5:00 o'clock shadow." Kennedy, by contrast, had spent early September campaigning in California. He was tan and confident and well-rested. "I had never seen him looking so fit," Nixon later wrote.
In substance, the candidates were much more evenly matched. Indeed, those who heard the first debate on the radio pronounced Nixon the winner. But the 70 million who watched television saw a candidate still sickly and obviously discomforted by Kennedy's smooth delivery and charisma. Those television viewers focused on what they saw, not what they heard. Studies of the audience indicated that, among television viewers, Kennedy was perceived the winner of the first debate by a very large margin.
The televised Great Debates had a significant impact on voters in 1960, on national elections since, and, indeed, on our concerns for democracy itself. The impact on the election of 1960 was significant, albeit subtle. Commentators broadly agree that the first debate accelerated Democratic support for Kennedy. In hindsight, however, it seems the debates were not, as once thought, the turning-point in the election. Rather than encouraging viewers to change their vote, the debates appear to have simply solidified prior allegiances. In short, many would argue that Kennedy would have won the election with or without the Great Debates.
FURTHER READING
Hellweg, Susan A., Michael Pfau, and Steven R Brydon. Televised Presidential Debates: Advocacy in Contemporary America. New York: Praeger, 1992.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and David S. Birdsell. Presidential Debates: The Challenge of Creating An Informed Electorate. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Kraus, Sidney. Televised Presidential Debates and Public Policy. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum, 1988.
_______________. The Great Debates: Background--Perspective --Effects. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1962.
Minow, Newton N., and Clifford M. Sloan. For Great Debates: A New Plan for Future Presidential Debates. New York: Priority Press, 1987.
I remember in 1992 during one of the debates we were at my grandparents' house in northwest Louisiana. We'd been watching the debate and I Was totally caught up in it. But then it was bedtime and since I was only 9 at the time I had to go to bed. I turned the radio on and finished listening to it that way!
ReplyDeleteI did not watch any of the debates this year though. Mr. Obama's speaking style gets on my nerves and I can't listen to him for more than 5 minutes or I want to throw something at him.
THE KENNEDY-NIXON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES, 1960 WAS the first televised presidential debate.
ReplyDeleteOn 26 September 1960, 70 million U.S. viewers tuned in to watch Senator John Kennedy of Massachusetts and Vice President Richard Nixon in the first-ever televised presidential debate. It was the first of four televised "Great Debates" between Kennedy and Nixon. The first debate centered on domestic issues. The high point of the second debate, on 7 October, was disagreement over U.S. involvement in two small islands off the coast of China, and on 13 October, Nixon and Kennedy continued this dispute. On 21 October, the final debate, the candidates focused on American relations with Cuba.
The Great Debates marked television's grand entrance into presidential politics. They afforded the first real opportunity for voters to see their candidates in competition, and the visual contrast was dramatic. In August, Nixon had seriously injured his knee and spent two weeks in the hospital. By the time of the first debate he was still twenty pounds underweight, his pallor still poor. He arrived at the debate in an ill-fitting shirt, and refused make-up to improve his color and lighten his perpetual "5:00 o'clock shadow." Kennedy, by contrast, had spent early September campaigning in California. He was tan and confident and well-rested. "I had never seen him looking so fit," Nixon later wrote.
In substance, the candidates were much more evenly matched. Indeed, those who heard the first debate on the radio pronounced Nixon the winner. But the 70 million who watched television saw a candidate still sickly and obviously discomforted by Kennedy's smooth delivery and charisma. Those television viewers focused on what they saw, not what they heard. Studies of the audience indicated that, among television viewers, Kennedy was perceived the winner of the first debate by a very large margin.
FURTHER READING
Hellweg, Susan A., Michael Pfau, and Steven R Brydon. Televised Presidential Debates: Advocacy in Contemporary America. New York: Praeger, 1992.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and David S. Birdsell. Presidential Debates: The Challenge of Creating An Informed Electorate. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Kraus, Sidney. Televised Presidential Debates and Public Policy. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum, 1988.
_______________. The Great Debates: Background--Perspective --Effects. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1962.
Minow, Newton N., and Clifford M. Sloan. For Great Debates: A New Plan for Future Presidential Debates. New York: Priority Press, 1987.
Thanks for the information. The first debates dealing with the presidency, though, was this year 1956 with the two Democratic hopefuls. Thanks you for all the reading notes.
ReplyDeleteReevaluating the politics of the past does certainly help us understand the politics of the present. It's funny to see that map being nearly totally red (except for the states that are blue which would almost certainly be red today!), but the parties of today are SO very different from the ones we deal with now! I'm personally hoping that we'll see real winners from 3rd or even 4th parties in the next few years-- as a socially liberal/fiscally conservative voters, I'm terribly unhappy with the way our current system is set up. Of course idealists of every generation have mourned their own time's political games, but we can't give up hope that thing will change in the future. Maybe that's something that is both good and bad about your living in the past, so to speak-- your concept and expectations of the "future" are entirely unique.
ReplyDeleteOh, pardon me, I meant "the parties of yesterday" and "voter" singular.
ReplyDeleteJohn Kennedy was greatly loved.I know many people who knew where they were and what they were doing on the day he died.
ReplyDeleteBut times have changed and issues cause the world to change. Issues that are considered Democratic, Abortion was not legal and not a voting issue.If someone was Gay it was keep in secret. Now people vote on the right to be married. Capital punishment, lots of topics . Times change and Ideas change, We could all be Whigs. What did they stand for? I think Lincoln was a Whig?
My remarks were not to inform you of any political thought on my part. Just thought about history.
ReplyDeleteActually, Mrs. Tailleur, being a whig today, at least the Lincoln era whigs, would not be bad at all. The whigs, (who took their name from the whig party at our time of independence in 1776 were against autocratic rule) The Lincoln era whigs were a break from the then democratic party. The whigs wanted more power in congress over the president (as they wanted not ONE man to yield such power)They also favored a watch and restrictions on traded goods and to be regulated by the congress so as not too much power of production could happen outside the us and therefore giving more power to outside particular states as well as foreign nations. That would be nice to have today, right? But, whenever a regulation on what could be done outside the us came up, even in the 50's, that dreaded word 'socialism' was always marched out rather it applied or not. SO, today we have the few corporations literally moving almost all production outside of the USA. Again the power fear and using fear to control peoples ideas of their own country so that they can be given carte blanche to do as they like. Interesting, isn't it, that Lincoln was killed and also Kennedy? Two men who wanted to try and keep such interests at home.
ReplyDeleteSo, I would have to say, I might feel good in a Whig party today. I also do not feel I am affiliated with either party. I do find it telling of the power of media, though, that a few people who have been somewhat rude to me on here always call me a Democrat and it is usually if I am simply pointing out facts of our current corporate powered government. I think the fear we have been instilled with allows us to hide our own fear of our country's direction and worry about silly things rather than the main important ones, such as our production, our farming, our future of jobs in our country, the ability to live and be a single income family is gone because of the low costs of some things provided by the large corps in exchange for insane real estate, rampant bankruptcy due to NON regulated banks and people who literally have lost it all.
I know some don't like to discuss politics, but I honestly feel that the women of the 1950's the homemakers were political in that they were aware of the politics of their time, were involved in the voting and hosting of local political events and supportive of even down to the simplest town comptroller position. I think we modern people have far too much diversion and are unaware that that very diversion often keeps us from realizing the path of our country. I think a 1956 homemaker would most certainly have discussed politics both with her husband as well as her lady friends. So, on my part, I rather like our discussions such as these. We must simply learn to separate emotions from it and try to look at facts. Then we will see there are no party lines, only people who would like a fair and honest world to live and raise families in at a comfortable wage, with economic future for thier children. Who marries whom, what crazy group is saying what used to not be considered even dignified as news. Today all we seem to want is scandal and drama. I, however, want to focus on the realities of the future and rather my neighbor is doing this or that should be of less concern than rather or not, in spite of those things, I am a good enough human being to be civil and kind to them and want for them as myself the right to be happy, healthy, and to all get along.
Kennedy was so debonair compared to Nixon. I lived in a house divided! My father was a Nixon fan, my grandmother a Kennedy fan. She had pictures of Jack and Jackie on the wall, and my father would rip them down! Many Catholics were also very excited about a Catholic president. The nuns in my school loved him. They were heartsick when he was assassinated. They made us write poems about him. I was in the 6th grade when he died.
ReplyDeleteOh, 50's Gal, you will LOVE this post: http://tolovehonorandvacuum.blogspot.com/2010/10/living-small-often-means-loving-large.html
It is by Sheila Gregoire of Ontario, Canada, at "To Love Honor and Vacuum" blogspot, and the post today is about those little homes that people lived in in the 1950's and how they were satisfied with less. Right up your alley! A great post. I loved it.
Thank you for letting me know of that post Mary, I shall check it out.
ReplyDeleteJohn Kennedy is a great man. Very interesting and informative article. This information increase my knowledge. Thanks.
ReplyDelete