What do you think?
American Presidential Elections
The Real Making of the President: Kennedy, Nixon, and the 1960 Election
When John Kennedy won the presidency in 1960, he also won the right to put his own spin on the victory—whether as an underdog's heroic triumph or a liberal crusader's overcoming special interests. Now W. J. Rorabaugh cuts through the mythology of this famous election to explain the nuts-and-bolts operations of the campaign and offer a corrective to Theodore White's flawed classic, The Making of the President .
War hero, champion of labor, and Pulitzer Prize-winning author, JFK was long on charisma. Despite a less than liberal record, he assumed the image of liberal hero—thanks to White and other journalists who were shamelessly manipulated by the Kennedy campaign. Rorabaugh instead paints JFK as the ideological twin of Nixon and his equal as a bare-knuckled politician, showing that Kennedy's hard-won, razor-thin victory was attributable less to charisma than to an enormous amount of money, an effective campaign organization, and television image-making.
The 1960 election, Rorabaugh argues, reflects the transition from the dominance of old-style boss and convention politics to the growing significance of primaries, race, and especially TV—without which Kennedy would have been neither nominated nor elected. He recounts how JFK cultivated delegates to the 1960 Democratic convention; quietly wooed the still-important party bosses; and used a large personal organization, polls, and TV advertising to win primaries. JFK's master stroke, however, was choosing as a running mate Lyndon Johnson, whose campaigning in the South carried enough southern states to win the election.
On the other side, Rorabaugh draws on Nixon's often-ignored files to take a close look at his dysfunctional campaign, which reflected the oddities of a dark and brooding candidate trapped into defending the Eisenhower administration. Yet the widely detested Nixon won almost as many votes as the charismatic Kennedy, even though Democrats outnumbered Republicans by three to two. This leads Rorabaugh to reexamine the darker side of the the Republicans' charges of vote fraud in Illinois and Texas, the use of money to prod or intimidate, manipulation of the media, and the bulldozing of opponents.
White and others helped shape persisting impressions of both candidates, influencing the way Nixon conducted subsequent campaigns and the Democrats nurtured the Kennedy legacy. The Real Making of the President gives us a more sobering look at all of that, fundamentally reshaping our understanding of one of the nation's most memorable elections.
War hero, champion of labor, and Pulitzer Prize-winning author, JFK was long on charisma. Despite a less than liberal record, he assumed the image of liberal hero—thanks to White and other journalists who were shamelessly manipulated by the Kennedy campaign. Rorabaugh instead paints JFK as the ideological twin of Nixon and his equal as a bare-knuckled politician, showing that Kennedy's hard-won, razor-thin victory was attributable less to charisma than to an enormous amount of money, an effective campaign organization, and television image-making.
The 1960 election, Rorabaugh argues, reflects the transition from the dominance of old-style boss and convention politics to the growing significance of primaries, race, and especially TV—without which Kennedy would have been neither nominated nor elected. He recounts how JFK cultivated delegates to the 1960 Democratic convention; quietly wooed the still-important party bosses; and used a large personal organization, polls, and TV advertising to win primaries. JFK's master stroke, however, was choosing as a running mate Lyndon Johnson, whose campaigning in the South carried enough southern states to win the election.
On the other side, Rorabaugh draws on Nixon's often-ignored files to take a close look at his dysfunctional campaign, which reflected the oddities of a dark and brooding candidate trapped into defending the Eisenhower administration. Yet the widely detested Nixon won almost as many votes as the charismatic Kennedy, even though Democrats outnumbered Republicans by three to two. This leads Rorabaugh to reexamine the darker side of the the Republicans' charges of vote fraud in Illinois and Texas, the use of money to prod or intimidate, manipulation of the media, and the bulldozing of opponents.
White and others helped shape persisting impressions of both candidates, influencing the way Nixon conducted subsequent campaigns and the Democrats nurtured the Kennedy legacy. The Real Making of the President gives us a more sobering look at all of that, fundamentally reshaping our understanding of one of the nation's most memorable elections.
260 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 2009
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
September 25, 2018
It is a sad truth that President John F. Kennedy campaigned as a Cold Warrior but shortly after his tragic death in 1963, was converted by journalistic hagiography into a Liberal's Liberal. In fact, this is probably the most glaring error in the celebrated -- perhaps overcelebrated -- campaign wrap-up The Making of the President 1960, because author Theodore White simply got too close to that ineluctable Kennedy charm.
THE REAL MAKING OF THE PRESIDENT looks at the 1960 election with an eye to revision and generally succeeds. I found it singularly uncharming in its style, but perhaps that's part of the point and it simply eluded me.
THE REAL MAKING OF THE PRESIDENT looks at the 1960 election with an eye to revision and generally succeeds. I found it singularly uncharming in its style, but perhaps that's part of the point and it simply eluded me.
February 19, 2016
In 1961 the journalist Theodore White published his book The Making of the President 1960. As an entertaining first-hand account of the close 1960 presidential election between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon, it spawned a new genre of campaign histories written by the journalists who covered them, a sort of "history 1.5." With the notable exception of Richard Ben Cramer's What It Takes: The Way to the White House, however, none have ever risen to the level of White's seminal work.
Yet while White's book has long stood as the standard account of the election, it is not without its flaws. Foremost among them, as William Rorabaugh points out, is its bias: White's description of the handsome young Kennedy triumphing over the less-appealing Nixon reflected the greater amount of time that White spent with the Kennedy campaign and the greater access he was granted to it. White's account also suffers to a degree from a lack of hindsight, as political trends barely visible to White and his contemporaries stand out much more clearly with the perspective of time. This desire to revise and supersede White's book is at the heart of Rorabaugh's study, which benefits from archival and published material to offer a revised interpretation of the contest.
The book begins with an overview of presidential politics in the 1950s. This was a decade dominated by the genial figure of Dwight Eisenhower, who won easily the two elections in 1952 and 1956 and who presided over a generally prosperous nation. As his vice president, Nixon was well-positioned to inherit the Republican nomination in 1960, yet he still faced the ultimately-unrealized prospect of a challenge from the rising star of Nelson Rockefeller, who had been recently elected governor of New York. By contrast, nearly a half-dozen Democrats vied for their party's nomination, with Kennedy winning it through a combination of organization, effort, corruption, and personal appeal.
Kennedy's nomination posed a dilemma to Nixon in terms of his strategy, as he faced the question of whether to focus his appeal on African Americans in the North or white Southerners. Had the Democrats nominated one of the other contenders, such as Lyndon Johnson or Stuart Symington, Nixon would have been well positioned to appeal to the potentially decisive body of African American voters in Northern cities. Kennedy's nomination pointed the way to the latter option, yet his selection of Johnson as his vice president (a decision that, along with Rockefeller's refusal of the Republican vice-presidential nomination, Rorabaugh sees as the decisive factor in the eventual result) raised doubts as to the effectiveness of that approach. Ultimately Nixon couldn't decide which avenue to pursue, which opened up both groups to Democrats' appeals and resulted in a solid majority in the electoral college.
By challenging preconceived notions about the 1960 election, Rorabaugh's book provokes the reader into a stimulating reexamination of the contest. Yet the book suffers from a couple of notable shortcomings. For all of his claims to reinterpretation, Rorabaugh's bibliography is curiously dated, with a number of important works (most surprisingly Robert Dallek's invaluable biography of JFK, An Unfinished Life) unaccountably absent. This constrains his interpretation of the factors in the election to the short-term developments of the 1950s, leaving out any consideration of the influence of longer-term trends such as the shift of the South away from the Democrats in presidential politics (which, as Kari Frederickson demonstrated in The Dixiecrat Revolt and the End of the Solid South, predated the decade). Because of this, while achieving its author's goal of improving on White's classic, the book falls short in its analysis of this memorable presidential election.
Yet while White's book has long stood as the standard account of the election, it is not without its flaws. Foremost among them, as William Rorabaugh points out, is its bias: White's description of the handsome young Kennedy triumphing over the less-appealing Nixon reflected the greater amount of time that White spent with the Kennedy campaign and the greater access he was granted to it. White's account also suffers to a degree from a lack of hindsight, as political trends barely visible to White and his contemporaries stand out much more clearly with the perspective of time. This desire to revise and supersede White's book is at the heart of Rorabaugh's study, which benefits from archival and published material to offer a revised interpretation of the contest.
The book begins with an overview of presidential politics in the 1950s. This was a decade dominated by the genial figure of Dwight Eisenhower, who won easily the two elections in 1952 and 1956 and who presided over a generally prosperous nation. As his vice president, Nixon was well-positioned to inherit the Republican nomination in 1960, yet he still faced the ultimately-unrealized prospect of a challenge from the rising star of Nelson Rockefeller, who had been recently elected governor of New York. By contrast, nearly a half-dozen Democrats vied for their party's nomination, with Kennedy winning it through a combination of organization, effort, corruption, and personal appeal.
Kennedy's nomination posed a dilemma to Nixon in terms of his strategy, as he faced the question of whether to focus his appeal on African Americans in the North or white Southerners. Had the Democrats nominated one of the other contenders, such as Lyndon Johnson or Stuart Symington, Nixon would have been well positioned to appeal to the potentially decisive body of African American voters in Northern cities. Kennedy's nomination pointed the way to the latter option, yet his selection of Johnson as his vice president (a decision that, along with Rockefeller's refusal of the Republican vice-presidential nomination, Rorabaugh sees as the decisive factor in the eventual result) raised doubts as to the effectiveness of that approach. Ultimately Nixon couldn't decide which avenue to pursue, which opened up both groups to Democrats' appeals and resulted in a solid majority in the electoral college.
By challenging preconceived notions about the 1960 election, Rorabaugh's book provokes the reader into a stimulating reexamination of the contest. Yet the book suffers from a couple of notable shortcomings. For all of his claims to reinterpretation, Rorabaugh's bibliography is curiously dated, with a number of important works (most surprisingly Robert Dallek's invaluable biography of JFK, An Unfinished Life) unaccountably absent. This constrains his interpretation of the factors in the election to the short-term developments of the 1950s, leaving out any consideration of the influence of longer-term trends such as the shift of the South away from the Democrats in presidential politics (which, as Kari Frederickson demonstrated in The Dixiecrat Revolt and the End of the Solid South, predated the decade). Because of this, while achieving its author's goal of improving on White's classic, the book falls short in its analysis of this memorable presidential election.
September 30, 2024
The 1960 presidential election is best remembered for John F. Kennedy's triumph and the first televised debates yet it remains the closest presidential election in American history. The fact that Richard Nixon almost won is largely forgotten nowadays due largely to the bigger than life legacy of JFK.
In this book Rorabaugh sets out to give a clear narrative of the 1960 campaign that is more clear than the more Kennedy-centric prose that has come down over the years. First off Rorabaugh examines the candidacies of John Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Stuart Symington, Adlai Stevenson and Lyndon Johnson for the Democratic nomination. Then the Republican nomination which Richard Nixon had secured early on but faced the possibility of challenges from Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater representing the liberal and conservative wings of the party.
Another factor in the election was a movement among some Southern whites to secure an uncommitted slate of electors to protest the civil rights stance of both parties. While this movement gained strength in Mississippi and Alabama it was unable to gain any more ground due to the personal intervention of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Russell and Russell Long.
In the end Kennedy ran the superior campaign in terms of organization and money yet narrowly beat out Nixon whose campaign organization can best be described as dysfunctional. It's hard to say what in the end put Kennedy over the top yet the closeness of the victory also would hamstring Kennedy as he tried to govern going forward.
A great addition to the literature on this well known and consequential election.
In this book Rorabaugh sets out to give a clear narrative of the 1960 campaign that is more clear than the more Kennedy-centric prose that has come down over the years. First off Rorabaugh examines the candidacies of John Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Stuart Symington, Adlai Stevenson and Lyndon Johnson for the Democratic nomination. Then the Republican nomination which Richard Nixon had secured early on but faced the possibility of challenges from Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater representing the liberal and conservative wings of the party.
Another factor in the election was a movement among some Southern whites to secure an uncommitted slate of electors to protest the civil rights stance of both parties. While this movement gained strength in Mississippi and Alabama it was unable to gain any more ground due to the personal intervention of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Russell and Russell Long.
In the end Kennedy ran the superior campaign in terms of organization and money yet narrowly beat out Nixon whose campaign organization can best be described as dysfunctional. It's hard to say what in the end put Kennedy over the top yet the closeness of the victory also would hamstring Kennedy as he tried to govern going forward.
A great addition to the literature on this well known and consequential election.
June 22, 2010
A book on the 1960 election with an interesting and different perspective, somewhat sympathetic to Nixon and somewhat disdainful of Kennedy. The author, a University of Washington history professor makes a good point that much of the history
has been written by the post Camelot and post assaination perspective which may have played up the glamor of Kennedy.
However, you have to take his perspective with his grain of salt. He makes no pains to hide his admiration of Eisenhower, but he makes a fleeting reference to Eisenhower's "courage" in the Little Rock school crisis and how he gained credibility with African Americans. No where does the author acknowledge Eisenhower's strong disagreement with Brown vs Board of Education, his sympathy with segregation in the south, and his reluctance to help the young African American school children. As a result, Eisenhower comes off, unfairly, as a civil rights hero with a resulting effect on his treatment of Nixon and Kennedy on civil rights
If you have read a lot of history on this period and about these men I would recommend it for an interesting perspective; however this would not be a good choice if you were going to read just one or two books on this era--other books have more depth, and to be honest, more objectivity
has been written by the post Camelot and post assaination perspective which may have played up the glamor of Kennedy.
However, you have to take his perspective with his grain of salt. He makes no pains to hide his admiration of Eisenhower, but he makes a fleeting reference to Eisenhower's "courage" in the Little Rock school crisis and how he gained credibility with African Americans. No where does the author acknowledge Eisenhower's strong disagreement with Brown vs Board of Education, his sympathy with segregation in the south, and his reluctance to help the young African American school children. As a result, Eisenhower comes off, unfairly, as a civil rights hero with a resulting effect on his treatment of Nixon and Kennedy on civil rights
If you have read a lot of history on this period and about these men I would recommend it for an interesting perspective; however this would not be a good choice if you were going to read just one or two books on this era--other books have more depth, and to be honest, more objectivity
July 2, 2023
Readable and informative summary of the 1960 election that goes a long way towards dispelling the myths of Kennedy and his team as conducting a perfectly virtuous campaign.
September 15, 2011
Concise and very good summary of the 1960 election. A nice corrective to the usual claptrap about Camelot.
I've read several books in this UP of Kansas Press series, and they're all very good.
I've read several books in this UP of Kansas Press series, and they're all very good.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews