60's and Such
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
2 gefällt mir•868 views
The election of 1960 for the most part. There's not much text in the presentation. The detail is all in the speaker's notes.
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (20)
Ähnlich wie 60's and Such
Ähnlich wie 60's and Such (19)
Mehr von Dan Ewert
Mehr von Dan Ewert (17)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
60's and Such
- 2. Election of 1960 Nixon vs. Kennedy!!!! TUESDAY, TUESDAY, TUESDAY!! Tricky Dick against the man with the golden tan! Two men enter the electoral ring, one man leaves!
- 3. Election of 1960 Nixon vs. Kennedy!!!! Nixon was vice-president under Eisenhower. Kennedy was the senator from Massachusetts since 1953.
- 4. Election of 1960 Nixon
- 5. Election of 1960 Nixon Platform Continue the peace and prosperity experienced under Eisenhower. Kennedy was young and experienced.
- 6. Election of 1960 Nixon Advantages VP under Eisenhower. Good debater. Disadvantages Could sometimes be a little off putting. Not as good looking as Kennedy. Ate babies.
- 7. BABY!!
- 10. Election of 1960 Kennedy Platform Missile Gap! Stronger defense Get America moving again There was a recession on.
- 11. Election of 1960 Kennedy Advantages Young and handsome War hero Kennedy name and fortune Good in front of the television camera Better on civil rights Knew Superman’s true identity
- 13. Election of 1960 Kennedy Disadvantages Young and inexperienced Catholic
- 14. Election of 1960 Television!
- 15. Election of 1960 Kennedy wins! Close election Popular Vote: 34,220,911 Kennedy and 34,108,157 Nixon That’s a difference of just 112,827 votes or 0.1% of the total. Electoral Vote: 303 Kennedy and 219 Nixon
- 18. Camelot The Kennedy Mythology: Family
- 19. Camelot The Kennedy Mythology: Advisors
- 20. Camelot The Kennedy Mythology: Advisors: Robert Kennedy, aka Bobby, aka RFK
- 21. Sidenote: Eisenhower Edition Eisenhower’s Farewell Address Ike gave this address upon exiting office. Military-Industrial complex. Proper context is needed. Said other stuff too.
- 22. Sidenote: Missile Gap Edition The missile gap Kennedy complained about didn’t really exist.
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Instead of gay Republican?
- JFK was only 43 at the time, which would make him the second youngest president after Theodore Roosevelt, and the youngest to be elected.Nixon was trying to ride Eisenhower’s coattails.
- He could be gruff sometimes.
- JFK claimed that we were experiencing a missile gap against the Soviet Union and that we needed to bolster our defenses.A recession hit in 1958 that gave the Dems the advantage in the ‘58 midterms too.
- Nixon was only four years older than JFK (47 during the 1960 election), but he came off as the stodgy old guy compared to JFK.JFK was the skipper of PT 109 during WW2.It got run over by a Japanese destroyer while it was on patrol at 2AM. Was idling on one engine and couldn’t get out of the way in time to avoid getting hit by the fast moving destroyer.The destroyer may or not have done it on purpose.PT-109 got cut it two, two sailors died and two seriously injured.Two other PT boats apparently thought there were no survivors and left.The survivors paddled 3.5 miles to shore over 4 hours (which was worrisome because of Japanese camps and sharks).JFK dragged a guy by his lifejacket in his teeth.Lived on a 100 yard wide island for six days before being rescued by allied natives in dugout canoes.Joseph Kennedy always had high political hopes for his very competitive sons. Joe, jr., the oldest, was the one mainly groomed for office but he died during an air mission over Europe in WW2. The Kennedy name had gained prominence, however, and the family had lots of money.Supported MLK after a stupid arrest and a trumped up sentence. Nixon didn’t.
- From a comic book that was made before JFK’s assassination and then pulled. Was published after LBJ supported it in spite of JFK’s death.
- Really, Nixon had been in D.C. as long as Kennedy. JFK was a Rep from ‘47-’53 and senator from ‘53-. Nixon had been a rep from ‘47-’50, CA senator from ‘51-’53 and VP from ‘53-. Nixon had, however, been in the executive branch and was seen as more experienced (though he was still only VP and Eisenhower didn’t seem to think all that much of him).In a mostly Protestant country, this was significant. Some people accused JFK of being some kind of papal pawn at the extreme. More reasonably, some were just worried whether he could separate his Catholicism and dedication to the Church from his responsibilities as president and which would win in a potential conflict.JFK gave a pivotal speech before Protestant clergy in Houston on 9/12/60 that resolved a lot of concerns.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.…Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe — a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.…But let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.”
- …Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe — a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.…But let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.”
- JFK came off better in the televised debates.There were four debates.For the first debate, Nixon had been sick and campaigned until a few hours beforehand. And he refused makeup. So he looked tired, sick, and worn out in general and especially compared to the well-rested and makeup clad Kennedy. Those who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon won. Those who watched it on TV gave the edge to JFK.Nixon did much better appearance-wise in the last three debates but 20 million fewer people watched each of those than had watched the first one. First impressions matter.This is when JFK starts pulling ahead of Nixon.
- There were a number of accusations of voter fraud in the election, especially in IL and TX where the Daley and Johnson political machines were pretty powerful.JFK won IL by only 9,000 votes. TX by 45,000. If both states were won by Nixon, he would have won the election.Whether there was voter fraud… well, there was, including a little on the Republican side. Whether it would have swung the election… well, probably not. There’s a chance Nixon would’ve won IL, but TX was probably a little too far out of reach and IL alone wouldn’t have won the election.Either way, Nixon, to his credit especially since he suspected fraud, gave a speech in which he announced he would accept the defeat and not challenge it.
- In many ways, the Kennedy years have been mythologized. Part of that is that they were tragically cut short… JFK was killed just 2.5 years into his presidency and so didn’t have a chance to be sullied or to overstay his welcome like many administrations do.He had an attractive wife, Jackie, and two young kids. He becomes a celebrity president.
- He also assembles a number of experts from various fields and revives the idea of the expert-driven government.
- JFK’s younger brother and closest advisor. Is appointed Attorney General. Only 35 at the time. Nepotism? Sure. Qualified? Probably not. But he did a decent job at filling out the office.
- It’s often quoted (including in your textbook) as warning against the coming military-industrial complex and how it was dangerous. Anti-military folks often bring it up as wanting to get rid of it or some such.Out of context.If you actually read the entire speech, what you realize is that Ike thought the military-industrial complex was inevitable and necessary. It couldn’t be stopped due to the post-WW2 new world order and America’s place in it.A powerful standing military was necessary to counter the threats of communism, to maintain peace, and to preserve freedom. The complex would be needed to sustain it.What Ike warned against was letting the complex become too powerful or to control the citizenry. It must remain subservient to the citizenry and its proper will. “This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”Ike also said other stuff in the address that many liberals who love the military-industrial complex part tend to leave out.He warned against the Federal government becoming too powerful and influential and letting political goals overwhelm science and universities or, worse, that public policy is directed by the scientific elite.“In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society. “
- The estimated number of Soviet ICBMs at the time was vastly overestimated.