Campaign of the Century: Kennedy, Nixon, and the Election of 1960

by Irwin F. Gellman

Based on massive new research, a compelling and surprising account of the twentieth century’s closest election
 
“[Gellman] offers as detailed an exploration of the 1960 presidential race as can be found.”—Robert W. Merry, Wall Street Journal
 
“A brilliant work . . . the research is absolutely phenomenal. . . . This book should receive every accolade the publishing industry can give it, including the Pulitzer Prize.”—John Rothmann, KGO’s “The John Rothmann Show”
 
The 1960 presidential election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon is one of the most frequently described political events of the twentieth century, yet the accounts to date have been remarkably unbalanced. Far more attention is given to Kennedy’s side than to Nixon’s. The imbalance began with the first book on that election, Theodore White’s The Making of the President 1960 —in which (as he later admitted) White deliberately cast Kennedy as the hero and Nixon as the villain—and it has been perpetuated in almost every book since then.
 
Few historians have attempted an unbiased account of the election, and none have done the archival research that Irwin F. Gellman has done. Based on previously unused sources such as the FBI’s surveillance of JFK and the papers of Leon Jaworski, vice-presidential candidate Henry Cabot Lodge, and many others, this book presents the first even-handed history of both the primary campaigns and the general election. The result is a fresh, engaging chronicle that shatters long-held myths and reveals the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, Presidents, American History

504 pages, Hardcover

Published January 4, 2022

About the author

Irwin F. Gellman is the author of four previous books on American presidents. He is currently at work on a volume on Nixon and Kennedy. He lives in Parkesburg, PA.

Reviews

[CoachJim · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book begins with Irwin Gellman’s comment that history is written by the winners. In 1960 John Kennedy won the presidential election. The history was written by Theodore H. White in his Pulitzer Prize winning book The Making of the President 1960 . This has been the generally accepted version for nearly 50 years. In this book Gellman attempts to write the contrarian history to the White book presenting a pro-Nixon account of the election. I readily admit, like White, to a pro-Kennedy prejudice. In 1960 this was not the Nixon we would come to know in 1968, but this book fails to alter the accepted version of this election. He refers to a lot of anecdotal evidence, and seems to assume that there was election fraud, especially in Illinois and Texas. Since the 2020 presidential election we, and this historian, should know better than to argue any claims of a stolen election without evidence.

Gellman does list Edmund Kallina, Jr’s, Kennedy v. Nixon , a book I read and reviewed recently, as one book that makes an effort “to explain the election in a more meaningful context”. That would be the book I recommend reading for a history of the 1960 presidential election.

I am posting this review on the sixtieth anniversary of President Kennedy assassination. I wish I was using a better book to commemorate that date.

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

More like a 3.5 - solid but a bit repetitive in places, and while many previous accounts (particularly White's "The Making of the President 1960") have an unbalanced Kennedy good/Nixon bad bias, I think the JFK "knight in shining armor" myth has already been pretty extensively tarnished at this point - nothing particularly revelatory in this account that I had not read before.

[Gary Sosniecki · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was privileged as a child to hear Vice President Richard Nixon, the Republican candidate for president, speak at Chicago’s O’Hare Field on Oct, 29, 1960, just 10 days before the election. And I similarly was privileged to see President John F. Kennedy, who defeated Nixon in that election, emerge from Mass at St. Ann’s Catholic Church in West Palm Beach, Fla., on Christmas Day, 1962.

I’ve been fascinated by the two men ever since, which made Irwin Gellman’s “Campaign of the Century: Kennedy, Nixon, and the Election of 1960” even more fascinating to read.

The cover jacket bills “Campaign of the Century” as “the first even-handed history of both the primary campaigns and the general election.” And the book doesn’t disappoint.

Gellman’s premise is that Theodore White’s “The Making of the President 1960,” believed by many to be the definitive account of the election, intentionally and unfairly made Nixon “a convenient villain, and others readily embraced that proposition. But those who insist on seeing Nixon only as a dark and devious character intent on exploiting the worst impulses of the American people overlook the fact that he ran by far the more honorable, and honest, campaign.”

Regardless what readers think of the Nixon of the Watergate scandal more than a decade in the future — Watergate never is mentioned in the book — they will be surprised over and over again by the Nixon and Kennedy in Gellman’s thoroughly researched and heavily footnoted book.

For example, as freshmen congressmen in 1947, Kennedy and Nixon developed a cordial personal relationship. Kennedy’s father even contributed $1,000 to Nixon’s 1950 Senate campaign. In 1952, Kennedy sent Nixon a handwritten note congratulating him on being nominated for vice president. As vice president, Nixon’s office in the Old Senate Office Building was across the hall from Kennedy’s office, and they often visited each other.

Followers of Congress today would find it hard to believe that Nixon and liberal Democrat Humbert Humphrey also had a good personal relationship. “We have had our difficulties in politics but you have never permitted those differences to affect or influence your actions insofar as I am concerned,” Humphrey wrote the vice president in 1955. Nixon’s reply: “The test of democracy in action is our ability not to allow those differences to destroy friendly relations between members of the two parties.”

I wasn’t surprised to read that Kennedy’s Catholicism was in issue in the 1960 presidential race. Every account of the campaign discusses that. But I didn’t realize that Nixon wasn’t the candidate raising it, that he believed religion “should not be an issue in a campaign.” Gellman contends that “Kennedy’s Catholicism worked in his favor. The myth that he would have won in a landslide if not for the anti-Catholic vote still prevails, largely propagated by Kennedy supporters, but it is belied by the fact that it was his campaign, not Nixon’s, that kept the issue alive.”

I bookmarked many more pages, including the role race played in the campaign and how Nixon refused to contest the close election results despite the likelihood of fraud in Illinois and Texas. “The country can’t afford the agony of a constitutional crisis — and I damn well will not be a party to creating one just to become President or anything else,” he told a reporter.

If you’re as fascinated by the Nixon-Kennedy story as I am, you need to read “Campaign of the Century.”

[Lisa-Michele · Rating 4 out of 5]

Beware that Gellman is an unapologetic Nixon fan. He asserts that Ted White wrote "the first draft of history" with his pro-JFK book The Making of a President and no one has yet written the second draft. Um, I would say that Nixon himself wrote the second draft, rebounding from his loss to win the presidency in 1968 and then resigning in Watergate disgrace a few years later. But hey, I’m willing to hear Gellman out. He begins by contrasting Kennedy's immorality with Nixon's stand-up character. "Those who insist on seeing Nixon only as a dark and devious character intent on exploiting the worst impulses of the American people overlook the fact that he ran by far the more honorable, and honest, campaign."

Kennedy is taken apart for his sexual adventures, poor health, unscrupulous father, lazy Senate service, and unseemly wealth. Nixon is portrayed as faithful, healthy, hard-working, and poor. The ongoing character contrast was my least favorite part of the book. It was like studying a great oil painting upon which someone has thrown buckets of new paint. You can try to see what it looked like before the new paint (or the assassination, or Watergate) but you can’t really recreate the original scene. Yes, the press favored Kennedy. Yes, Nixon won his college debate tournament. But Nixon's early virtues are still drowned out by Nixon's later actions when he was president and that wasn’t the fault of the press or bad TV makeup.

I was genuinely curious about the campaign stories, the political strategy analysis, and the obscure incidents I never knew about. I didn’t realize how Goldwater and Rockefeller split the GOP down the middle in 1960, or how ruthless Eisenhower was, or how collegial political rivals could be in the olden days. I was shocked when Nixon graciously conceded the extremely close 1960 election although his GOP cronies urged him to demand a recount: “…even though we were to win it, the cost in world opinion and the effect on democracy in the broadest sense would be detrimental.” At that moment, he was putting country first. I especially liked the story about how JFK worked to get Eleanor Roosevelt’s support in 1960. A few years ago, I visited Val-Kill and saw the very chair where he sat persuading her to change her mind. Which she did. The guy had charm! In the end, I liked the political history and I have a list of political books to read next. As for 1960, I will leave it with the voters.

[Christopher Hardesty-Crouch · Rating 3 out of 5]

You know, I was really excited about this book. I was pretty underwhelmed.
The introduction casts this as a never-before-seen equal depiction of both Kennedy and Nixon, but I didn't really learn much about the campaign itself that I didn't already know. There was some interesting stuff surrounding the events preceding the campaign, though. On top of that, the book is unavoidably pro-Nixon, which is a stance that I frankly can't stomach when we know about Watergate.
The author spends an inordinate amount of time "setting the record straight" against other books covering the election, and seems to have a vendetta against a bunch of authors that are name-dropped like we're supposed to know who they are (legit two chapters worth)
Overall a fine read, and there was some good info, but it just got pretty repetitive and excessive by the end.

[Andrew Corsini · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gellman's book claims to offer both sides of the election and dispel the convienient historical narrative of Kennedy as the hero and Nixon as the villain and, yet, the book merely switches the two roles and portrays Nixon as misunderstood while Kennedy is deceitful. The author writes with their colours clearly tied to the mast so avoids any aspects that portray Nixon as he was in reality -- a deeply flawed, if sometimes, brilliant, politician who did indeed stop at nothing. There is a definite argument to make that Kennedy is lionized by academic historians. Gellman's book is something of an antidote to the more gushing portrayls of Kennedy, such as Robert Dallek's An Unfinished Life, and yet, while Dallek was quite harsh on Nixon, Gellman cannot match that author's brilliance.

[Jason Phelps · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you love very detailed, historical non-fiction and are really into politics, this is the book for you. I realized after reading this book that I am not one of them. I found the book interesting and recognize many themes that are similar to our current election/political climate (election fraud, divided nation, etc.)

[Jean Bonilla · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well, I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Yes, Gellman has a bias towards the right, but he manages to resist the lure of an easy set of assumptions on either side, in my view describing both candidates fairly. It’s interesting that Nixon and Kennedy were colleagues and friends initially, coming into the House together, having offices across from one another, and even working together. It was not until after the first Presidential debate that Nixon started speaking more aggressively. Gellman includes several jovial photos of the two of them in his array of pictures.

There were several big factors in the Kennedy victory. One of them was the advantage that the Democrats had in voter registration; many more Americans were registered as Democrats than as Republicans. Another was that Democrats who had defected in 1956 to vote for the immensely popular Dwight Eisenhower returned to the fold. Other issues included press bias; i.e., slanted reporting, out and out loathing of Nixon by individual reporters; and the Kennedy family fortune, an excellent organization, and the new medium of tv.

A big factor was voting irregularities. Gellman cites and includes in the text polling data and information from other biographies about Daley and Johnson that describe corruption and vote buying in their states’ numerous previous elections; he says ironically that one of the Johnson bios he reviewed goes into detail on two previous senatorial races, but is mysteriously silent on the 1960 election.

New York Herald Tribune reporter Earl Mazo added to the national outrage by writing four articles in early December 1960 in what originally was going to be a 12-part series on fraud allegations in Chicago and Texas. Shortly after the fourth article’s publication, Nixon asked Mazo to come to his office. The Vice President called the articles “interesting”but said, “No one steals the presidency of the United States.” At first, Mazo said he thought Nixon was joking, but he was In earnest and asked Mazo to discontinue the series. The Vice President reasoned: “The country can’t afford the agony of a constitutional crisis – and I damn well will not be a party to creating one just to become president or anything else.”

Nixon reportedly said that he had visited many developing nations that were beginning on a democratic path, but where elections meant “very little.” America was the great example for the merits of electoral politics. If in the United States an election were found to be fraudulent, “it would mean that every pipsqueak in everyone of these countries, if he lost an election, which simply bring a fraud charge and have a coup.” Considering this possibility, he decided that the United States couldn’t afford to have a vacuum in leadership for that period of time without knowing who is president, and “even though we were to win it, the cost in world opinion and the effect on democracy in the broadest sense would be detrimental.”

In his sole reference to Watergate later in the book, Gellman goes on to say the following:

“Privately, Nixon was convinced Kennedy had won the election through fraud, and he may well have been right. His belief that Democrats had unscrupulously robbed him of the nation’s highest office would later have disastrous consequences for his career. Publicly, for now, he graciously accepted his defeat for the sake of American democracy.”

On outreach to African-Americans, Gellman blames Nixon for silence. The VP believed that the Administration’s record on civil rights would speak for itself. Instead, the Kennedy campaign parlayed a phone call to Coretta Scott King when her husband was arrested in Georgia into a major JFK commitment on civil rights. True also that, while Nixon did not speak out on religious issues, he could have prevented his supporters from taking such a strident line; he could have limited their damage. It was Kennedy’s campaign that chose to directly address Catholics. In fact, their efforts to woo the Catholic vote did little more than reverse the departure of Catholic Democrats, who had defected in 1956 to contribute to Eisenhower’s landslide. It was not insignificant, but did not tip the final scales dramatically. Ike received almost half of the Catholic vote in 1956, but four years later, 62% of Catholic Democrats who had voted for Eisenhower returned to their party. Religion in general did not overcome party affiliation: Catholic Democrats went 94% for Kennedy and Catholic Republicans just 18%. Independent Catholic voters broke for Kennedy, 71 to 29%. But in the end, again, these were democratic voters returning to vote as Democrats.

I particularly like that Gellman includes extensive notes and research to support his conclusions. He draws on a host of materials, including contemporary memos and letters to prove that the two men were friends and even collaborators. The book ends on page 324, but goes on until page 473 with a list of notes, references, abbreviations, and a bibliography. Gellman acknowledges that the Nixon library is difficult to use. Materials there are in alphabetical order, not cross-listed by topic. It also is in California and there are no grants or aides to assist researchers. But he questions why scholars have not drawn more on other helpful references or on items in the Henry Cabot Lodge library, close to the JFK one.

I do confess to a little bias myself, as I grew up in a Nixon household. My father was born in Nixon’s congressional district. I also vigorously defended him in 1972 against the criticisms of my university classmates. At UCSC, I must have been one of two Republicans on campus. Clearly his actions in concealing his chicanery in the Watergate affair later affected my own views and those of many others. Watergate fundamentally changed America in a way that still resonates today. Gellman makes only a single reference to it, noted above.

Bottom line: “The 1960 presidential election was not good vs. evil. It was a battle between two ambitious, experienced politicians who desperately wanted to win the White House.”

“The time has come,” Gellman concludes, “to remove partisan blinders and to understand Nixon and Kennedy, two complex, driven, powerfully ambitious men, on the basis of what they actually said and did.” I agree!

[Scott Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

(Audiobook) The 1960 campaign is one that is still debated and discussed constantly. Yet, there is a large amount of mythology around the campaign. This work looks to get to the truth. It will paint Nixon in a better light, and puts Kennedy in a somewhat worse place. There is a lot of details that can turn others off, but the reality is engaging enough. There were instances of real fraud and cheating, but there was also a sense that the nation was greater than the individual ego.

Worth a read/listen, especially if you are a historian and/or into political science. Should redefine how we can and should relook at the 1969 election.

[John Kennedy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a meticulously researched book that convincing shows why the Kennedy mystique that has endured for more than half a century really needs to be questioned. Much of the aura stems from Theodore White's book "The Making of the President 1960," which unfairly derided JFK's opponent Richard Nixon. Gellman explains the fairly clean campaign Nixon ran compared to the far more corrupt and ruthless Kennedy operatives deployed.
"Campaign of the Century" bursts other long-held myths, including Kennedy being a friend of civil rights. He regularly aligned himself with Southern segregationist lawmakers. JFK repeatedly lied about the state of his fragile health during the campaign and the media turned a blind eye to his extramarital sexual escapades.
Unlike what has been reported as gospel for decades, President Eisenhower enthusiastically endorsed Nixon for president and didn't demean his vice president. While Kennedy apologists claim the televised debates provided JFK's knockout punch, in reality the TV exposure merely gave the lesser-known senator from Massachusetts more exposure.
Kennedy barely won the election, despite existing overwhelming majorities in the U.S. House and Senate, despite an advantage in registered Democratic votes, and despite neglected charges of vote stealing in Illinois and Texas — states that would have given the presidency to Nixon. The 1960 election marked the first time in the 20th century that a candidate won a majority of states and lost the presidency. There was no seismic shift of Black voters to the Democratic column compared to 1956. Kennedy won the election with a slim 113,000-vote margin out of 68.8 million ballots cast.
To his credit, Nixon didn't ask for a recount in Texas and Illinois because he wanted to avoid a constitutional crisis.

[Brendan D · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall, the book posits and frames Nixon as a super likeable politician who didn’t do as bad as you may have originally thought in 1960. Paints Kennedy & his cronies pretty poorly and tries to dismantle some of the legend around him. I found the Kennedy bashing (as a Kennedy fan) to be a little suspicious and overdone at times, but that could be my bias showing. Overall some cool insights to this election, but never found myself turning any of the 320 pages like crazy. 6.4/10

some things I learned/observed…

-heavy with names and players throughout the campaign. Par for the course for a history book but sometimes tough to keep track
-looks to knock down Kennedy a few pegs, certainly favors Nixon in content and in the language used
-religious “issue” was actually kept alive by Democrats
-Kennedy’s extramarital affairs were relatively well known by press but “everyone had secrets”
-somehow Dems ran LBJ to appease southern whites but won much of the urban and black vote
-debates have become a huge phenomenon since they happened. No one can seem to succinctly agree on their severity
-JFK’s health was lied about and never truly pressed by Republicans. Nixon had battles of his own specifically during the campaign with an infection that kept him down for 10+ days
-pretty clear voter fraud in Chicago & potentially TX. Nixon didn’t seem to love the image of demanding a recount
-Nixon actually ran well ahead of Republicans in ‘60
-Rockefeller is all about himself and was destined to flame out

[Paul Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

We all know how “good” Kennedy won the presidency over “evil” Nixon in 1960 by being the more telegenic candidate in the first-ever televised debate. This fresh look at the campaign reveals a much more complex and fascinating story. Ike was widely admired by voters of all stripes but didn’t think it was “presidential" to openly support his VP. Nixon had much more experience than Kennedy, who was known as a do-nothing Senator. Kennedy began his campaign without the support of party stalwarts who still resented his father's actions as the anti-Semitic pro-Hitler, Ambassador to the UK. But he had significant advantages: over 60% of registered voters were Democratic, and his father’s wealth gave him an almost unlimited campaign budget. The Press hated Nixon (from the Alger Hiss case) so overlooked Kennedy’s marital infidelities. I could go on and on. Each candidate had strengths and weaknesses, but Kennedy was by far the better politician. Ultimately, we’re left with an extremely close race and a great story, well-told in a very balanced account. Highly recommended!

[Jefferson Coombs · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is billed as an unbiased look at the 1960 presidential election. It fails to be that. Nixon is portrayed as a victim of the evil Kennedy and Democratic coalition. He is the hero with pure patriotic motivations. I can't remember one positive thing about Kennedy in the entire book. It is therefore not an unbiased look, it is a different look than prior books which portrayed Kennedy as the hero and Nixon as the villain. I give it 3 stars because it is important to look at both sides of the issue. This book should be read in conjunction with a book that portrays the other side.

[Adrian Brown · Rating 2 out of 5]

So dry. The "true" story of the election, as opposed to the fictionalized version in a popular novel published just after the election. Laid out with lots of evidence and it sure sounds like someone was pushing the author to get the page count down because it whips right along but still manages to be very academic and dry. I learned things I didn't know and had the myths of the election debunked but I'm pretty sure I didn't enjoy it much.

[CT Rentschler · Rating 4 out of 5]

8.5 out of 10.

I read this back in 2023.

This book shines a nice light on how bias can really skew perceptions of a public figure. While the book itself is biased it does bring to light a lot of the problems with the most famous book on this election "The Making of the President."

It is pretty hilarious how people will literally overlook massive personal flaws of an individual just because the guy is personable and falls in line with your own beliefs.

[Carlos Azcárraga · Rating 3 out of 5]

For me the book offers a well researched and well written look at the 1960 election, especially in demystifying the image of Kennedy and exposing flaws within the Democratic Party. However, while attempting to present a more balanced account, Gellman overcorrects, portraying Nixon in an overly sympathetic, almost heroic light. This whitewashing of Nixon undermines the book’s idea of presenting both sides under the same light and ends up replacing one myth with another weakening the book as a whole.

[Jeff Takacs · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5

As someone who believes that the 1960 presidential election played more of a pivotal role in shaping American politics in the 20th century and even still today, I have A LOT of mixed emotions about this book. For more, please inquire within.

[Tore · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting, and convincing. Several Kennedy myths debunked.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gellman has pulled back the curtain on the Nixon-Kennedy contest and perhaps exposed one of the longest-running cases of fake news in American politics. Exposure of election shenanigans ought never again be called into question without considering some of the material Gellman has unearthed about Illinois and Texas.

Feb '23 - One further takeaway on this listen. The statement is made that Democrats didn't "steal" the 1960 election (although they may well have), but rather the Republicans "lost" it by not fighting both the legal and the election battles that came up. Nixon and others saw(or maybe just believed really hard) that not settling the outcome would tarnish the US reputation for running a well-functioning democracy. I wonder whether we may not really need to go through a "valley of death" (figuratively) in some national contest to convince us there are perhaps worse thing than not having a president for a few months.

[Clarence Goodman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tell me something new. Oy.