Ronald Reagan won the 1980 election
because he expressed confidence, poise, and brought hope and direction to a
nation desperately in need of it. Carter lost because of the turmoil he faced
during his first term as president and his lack of assurance in his ability to
handle it or bring change and because he attacked Reagan too vehemently.
Ronald
Reagan promised change and instilled confidence in the American people and this
largely secured him the 1980 election. Reagan’s campaign sought and promised to
fix all of the many issues facing the nation in the late 1970s such as
stagflation and increased tensions abroad and he suggested fixes that were
vague, contradictory, and impractical in reality. These plans included cutting
government spending while simultaneously increasing military expenditures,
increasing the size of the military with the goal of world peace, or claiming
that decreased spending would bring back prosperity with no explanation of why.
These plans were all united in one aspect however, they offered a sense of hope
to the nation and suggested that Reagan had a plan to return prosperity and
stability to a nation in dire need. This strategy was directly adopted from the
advice of Cicero to “bring hope to people and a feeling of goodwill toward you”
and do to so through “vague generalities”. Reagan came to be known as the
“great deflector” as he skillfully avoided answering difficult questions and
describing details of his plans that were difficult or unclear and although
this appears negative in doing so he avoided exposing many negatives and put on
the façade that he had answers and methods to fix the nation. Reagan also
utilized the campaign strategy of obtaining celebrity endorsements when he had
Reverend Jerry Falwell support him and try to create the “moral majority”. The
reverend tried to appeal to citizens who viewed Reagan as more moral and
searched for a greater sense of religious morality in backlash to the
turbulence of the 1960s and 70s. This sense of direction and poise that Reagan
and his campaign embodied excited the American people and got them excited
about the possibility of success and stability that the nation lacked under
Carter in his first term.
Incumbent
candidate Jimmy Carter lost the election of 1980 because of his weak first term
and his inability to express confidence or suggest that great change would
occur in his second. Carter lacked strength in his campaigning when he refused
to debate Reagan and made several speaking errors that suggested a lack of
control and direction over the nation. His refusal to debate Reagan made him
appear weak and fearful and caused Reagan to claim that Carter was desperately
trying to stay in office and didn’t have any real ideas or incentives for the
nation. Carter countered criticism when he suggested that the whole nation was
suffering from a lack of confidence, which came off as a deflection of
responsibility from the government and from himself. He also made mistakes with
good intentions for example when he attempted to relate himself to voters by
discussing enlisting the help of his daughter on a nuclear arms issue he
appeared to be unable to handle the issue himself or seek suitable counsel.
Carter’s previous term, whether his fault or not, was one in which the American
economy was in shambles and foreign enemies attacked from every corner and
Carters platform suggested little change and promised little revitalization
which resulted in only 9% of voters claiming that they felt personally
interested and excited about him. Carter also seemed weak and incompetent when
he tried to run a smear campaign against Reagan but instead came off as too
harsh and mean hearted. This anger towards Reagan became apparent when the two
did debate and Carter appeared as if he was going to “slug” his competitor.
This inability to maintain a persona of composure and power lost Carter many
voters. Altogether a range of factors such as his lack of composure and
misspeaking contributed to his losing of the election but most fundamentally he
fell short because he offered little change from his previous and largely
unsuccessful term and did not excite the people with innovation.
This
election highlights a fundamental truth in most elections, which is that the
people want the appearance of power and the promise of prosperity, they do not
want the truth and they do not want to have to take the responsibility. When
Carter suggested that the problems of the nation stemmed from the mindsets of
the voters he isolated himself from the people as they expected a leader who would
take responsibility and initiative in fixing the problems of the nation. This
is exactly what Reagan offered, whether concretely backed up or not, he
promised change and a return to the excellence and morality that many citizens
felt had been lost in the tumultuous recent times.
*This photo shows the confidence Reagan embodied and the hope he instilled in citizens to return to the powerful and stable America they had once known.
Bibliography
"Republican
Party Platform." Address, Republican National Convention, Detroit,
Michigan, July 15,
1980.
"Democratic
Party Platform." Address, Democratic National Convention, New York, New
York, August 11, 1980.
Shogan, Colleen,
Dr. Presidential Campaigns and the Congressional Agenda:
Reagan, Clinton, and
Beyond. Report. Washington DC: George Mason
University.
The University
of Virginia Miller Center. "Ronald Wilson Reagan: Campaigns and
Elections." American President: A Reference Resource. http://millercenter.org/president/reagan/essays/biography/3.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWill, I like how you showed such similarities between Cicero's brother's campaign and Reagan's campaign. By Reagan keeping his agenda vague, Jimmy Carter was unable to successfully attack him so he used smear campaigning as an attack strategy. This is similar to Abraham Lincoln's 1860 campaign because Lincoln also stuck to vague generalities, which helped him in the end because Stephen A. Douglas, his contender, was also unable to attack him on specifics so he also resorted to smear campaigning. However, do you think there have ever been times where a candidate sticking to vague generalities ended up hurting that candidate?
ReplyDeleteGreat job, Will! After reading what you wrote regarding Reagan's skilled evasions when questioned about the specificities of his numerous policies, I instantly thought of Romney's current campaign. Having the unique opportunity to study Reagan's Campaign while also being able to observe Romney's, who do you think is more skilled at evasion? You wrote that Reagan was so good at it, it could hardly even be attributed as a negative. Would you say the same holds true for Romney.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the state of the presidential race was very similar between that of Reagan and Carter and that of Hoover and FDR (1932). In both, the incumbent presidential hopefuls, Carter and Hoover, saw a lot of turmoil during their respective terms. Thus, the nation needed a change, and Reagan and FDR both promised change and the restoration of American supremacy, inspiring the country and making their victories rather predictable.
I would say that Reagan was more skilled at Evasion than Romney because he, like you mentioned, was able to arise more excitement and hope for change. Reagan skillfully blended specificity when discussing the results of his plans, such as an end to violence and more economic stability, while being vague about how he planned to do so. Romney is less skilled at this blending so his vagueness without a specific goal seems like his policies lack direction and don't arise the same excitement that Reagan or FDR did because the people do not know what his plan is OR what it would exactly achieve.
ReplyDelete