Tag: celebrity politics
EXCERPT: ‘Liking Ike: Eisenhower, Advertising, and The Rise of Celebrity Politics’

EXCERPT: ‘Liking Ike: Eisenhower, Advertising, and The Rise of Celebrity Politics’

A reality star is now a major party presidential candidate, but it turns out, celebrity politics are not a new thing.

In Liking Ike, author David Haven Blake explores the crucial and often overlooked role that celebrities and advertising agencies had in Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency. Even by today’s standards, many Americans will be surprised to learn that celebrities of the time were a constant presence in political strategies, and particularly in Eisenhower’s campaigns.

Using original interviews and archival material, Blake explains how Madison Avenue executives used celebrities as tools in politics as the age of Television began.  

You may read an excerpt below, and you can purchase the book here.

__

In March of 2010, Frank Gehry unveiled his new plans for the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial across from the National Mall in Washington, DC. A bipartisan public commission had selected Gehry, one of the world’s most acclaimed architects, to memorialize the man who led the Allied Forces during World War II and then became the thirty-fourth president of the United States. From the outset, the commission sought a design that would both honor Eisenhower and “inspire generations with his devotion to public service, leadership, integrity, [and] life-long work ethic.” It was equally important, the commission stated, that the design reflect Eisenhower’s “total devotion to the values and processes of democracy,” the implication being that, of all his accomplishments, perhaps the greatest was his respect for the grassroots participation that makes up a democratic society.

Some memorials are made to commemorate, others to tell a story. Gehry’s proposal ignited controversy when the Eisenhower family publicly objected to the “romantic Horatio Alger notion” at the heart of his design. Although he would revise his plans multiple times, Gehry held fast to a narrative depiction of Ike’s life. In contrast to Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson, who heroically tower over the visitors to their memorials, Eisenhower appears in the most recent design as a young man sitting on a stone ledge with an image of the Kansas prairie behind him. From this informal perch, he looks upon two massive stone blocks, each one the backdrop for a sculpted scene from his adult life. In one, he is a general talking to troops before D-Day; in the other, he stands symbolically between representatives of the military and civilian needs of the country. From the beginning, the project design called for a digital component (called the E-Memorial) that would feature multiple images and video of Eisenhower and his times: cadets doing mathematics on a West Point blackboard, soldiers walking through the French countryside, the president waving to the crowds from a Cadillac El Dorado after his 1953 inauguration ceremony. With the aid of wireless electronics, these images would trace how this modest young man rose from the heartland to have an enormous impact on the twentieth century.

Among the ancillary images included in the E-memorial, a worthy addition would be an image of Eisenhower surrounded by celebrities. The designers could depict Eisenhower and a group of stars singing around a piano during the 1952 presidential campaign or Eisenhower’s filmed appearance on the Colgate Comedy Hour to kick off 1955’s Armed Forces Week. Then there is Eisenhower in white tie, grinning with Bob Hope, Jane Powell, and Pearl Bailey, or Eisenhower laughing with Arnold Palmer on the grounds of Augusta National Golf Club. In no way, of course, should these images rival the attention given to Eisenhower’s great achievements: the victory over European fascism, the peace in Korea, the booming postwar economy. However Eisenhower and his stars deserve their own commemorative treatment. Though the commission or his family might not agree, the images are as much a part of Eisenhower’s presidency as they are of the scrapbooks of these departed celebrities. As this book explains, they go hand-in-hand with Eisenhower’s commitment to the values and processes of democracy. They, too, should be engraved in our cultural memory.

To many, Dwight Eisenhower would be a surprising, even shocking, addition to the pantheon of celebrity-infused presidents and political campaigns. A humble plainsman, a soldier-citizen, a steadfast and grandfatherly head of state, he seems worlds away from such Hollywood-tinged presidents as John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. When we see Ike’s grainy black-and-white image reviewing American troops in London, when we recall his warnings about the military-industrial complex, we are inclined to see a model of integrity and foresight rather than theatrical charm. And yet, no matter how durable his accomplishments, no matter how penetrating his vision, Eisenhower gave celebrities a curious role in promoting him as a political candidate. Guided by television pioneers and Madison Avenue advertising executives whom insiders dubbed “Mad Men,” he cultivated scores of famous supporters as a way of building the kind of broad-based support that had eluded Republicans for twenty years.

Eisenhower’s presidential campaigns were so saturated with stardom that they would astonish many Americans today. Broadway stars performed at jam-packed Madison Square Garden rallies designed to drum up enthusiasm for his candidacy. Roy Disney created an animated television commercial, and Irving Berlin composed a campaign theme song, turning the phrase “I Like Ike” into the most memorable political slogan in American history. Popular figures from the world of sports appeared at fundraising dinners and in television commercials touting Eisenhower’s record. Working with Madison Avenue executives, actors and actresses gave press conferences extolling the benefits of an Eisenhower presidency. Critics complained that all the advertisements and endorsements risked turning Eisenhower into a commodity, as if he were a carton of Lucky Strike cigarettes being plugged by comedian Jack Benny. Far from objecting, Ike’s advisers invited such comparisons. As they described it, their job was to merchandise the man who was at once their client, their product, and their candidate. Television advertising, they explained, simply extended the reach of democracy.

During the same period, Eisenhower himself was developing into a congenial, media-savvy performer. Initially flustered by the tedium and distractions of being on camera, he grew to understand the demands of the presidency in the television age. He worked with Robert Montgomery, the former president of the Screen Actors Guild and the popular host of an eponymous hour-long drama series on NBC, to help improve his televised interviews and speeches. As producers, directors, and cameramen were figuring out how to maneuver their heavy equipment through the White House windows and hallways, Montgomery was teaching the president how to read from a teleprompter and appear more open and engaging. From his office in the West Wing, he developed camera angles and poses that would help Eisenhower seem youthful, invigorated, and authoritative on TV. Although he had been famous for well over a decade and had hired advisers to improve his communication skills, it was television that transformed Ike into a media celebrity. The Academy of Television Arts and Sciences awarded the president an honorary Emmy for his innovative use of the medium to communicate with the American people.

Liking Ike tells the story of how Eisenhower’s celebrity politics was developed on Madison Avenue, practiced in the White House, debated in the press, protested by his opponents, and then remade by subsequent generations of politicians and stars. It analyzes the ways that this most respected of leaders, a hero throughout much of the world, was drawn into the conflux of television, advertising, and political glamour that emerged in the 1950s. Not willing to stand purely on his credentials, Eisenhower agreed to the same set of promotional strategies that advertisers used to sell products like laundry detergent and shaving cream. Although they may seem obvious to us now, the systematic efforts to decorate a candidate with stardust were then perceived as being radically new, and the glitz surrounding Eisenhower’s campaigns aroused consternation and concern. To some at the time, the image-making seemed more appropriate for a movie star or talk show host than the Supreme Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). “Get rid of the vaudeville, pretty-girl” embroidery, one editorialist advised, “and conduct the campaign on a level commensurate with the General’s intelligence and position.” But to leading Republicans and the advertising executives they hired, television made the power of celebrity endorsements appealing, and they were confident that this softer, glamorized version of politics would attract votes. The result was a vision of American politics in which publicity would become a principal site of democracy and voters would soon identify themselves as both an electorate and an audience. The rise of Eisenhower’s “star strategy” made for an odd historical juxtaposition. At the same time that Congress was investigating the influence of Communists in Hollywood and the film and broadcasting industries were blacklisting alleged subversives, advertising executives were seeking ways to bring conservative performers into the political spotlight. The irony did not trouble the advertising agencies that worked on Ike’s campaigns, for as they saw it, their task was not to politicize entertainment but to make politics more entertaining.

 

Reprinted from “Liking Ike: Eisenhower, Advertising, and The Rise of Celebrity Politics” by David Haven Blake with permission from Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2016.

If you enjoyed this excerpt, purchase the full book here.

Want more updates on great books? Sign up for our daily email newsletter here. 

Obama Keystone Threat Sets Up Veto Battles On Republican Agenda

Obama Keystone Threat Sets Up Veto Battles On Republican Agenda

By Angela Greiling Keane, Bloomberg News (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama has vetoed fewer bills than any U.S. president since James Garfield held the office for six months in 1881. With Republicans now in control of Congress, that’ll probably change.

A White House threat yesterday to veto legislation that would allow the Keystone XL pipeline to be built through the U.S. sets up a showdown with Republican leaders, who have laid out an agenda that may also include attempts to dismantle Obama’s health-care law and roll back environmental regulations and financial rules. Those measures are central to the legacy of the president, who has vetoed just two bills in six years.

“They’re going to send him some stuff they know ultimately he’ll veto,” said Miguel Rodriguez, a former director of the White House office of legislative affairs and now a partner at Bryan Cave LLP. “The message he’s going to send is, ‘Listen, I want to work together, but some things are just too far.'”

That could spark a risky confrontation for both the president and Republican lawmakers. Obama, who has accused Republicans of obstructing his programs since they took control of the U.S. House in 2011, could shoulder public blame for blocking bills that Congress passes. Republicans, who need to show voters they can govern, will face pressure to compromise with him, angering their base.

Obama, in an interview with National Public Radio released on Dec. 29, vowed to protect health and environmental legislation and rules.

“I haven’t used the veto pen very often since I’ve been in office,” he said. “Now I suspect there are going to be some times where I’ve got to pull that pen out. I’m going to defend gains that we’ve made in health care. I’m going to defend gains that we’ve made on environment and clean air and clean water.”

First up will be Keystone. The House plans to vote on Jan. 9 on a measure to allow the pipeline to be built. While there’s enough support in both chambers to approve the project, overriding a presidential veto requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers. That will be especially hard to get in the Senate, where Republicans control 54 of the 100 seats.

Obama has hardened his tone, saying Keystone would create Canadian rather than American jobs as it crosses the U.S. to move oil from Canada’s tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said yesterday that if Congress passes a bill, “the president wouldn’t sign it.”

If Obama begins vetoing bills early in the new congressional session, then “it’s likely to degenerate into a political tug of war,” said Jon Kyl, who was the number two Senate Republican before leaving the chamber in 2013. “Then it’s just a matter of which one is better at explaining which one is the reason for the gridlock.”

The Republicans will challenge the president to veto legislation because they’ll want to show the party’s base “that they are pursuing their goals by confronting Obama with things he does not like,” said John Woolley, a political science professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The message they’ll deliver, he said, is: “‘Who’s the obstructionist now? Who’s not doing the work of the people?'”

The party may also seek to attach legislation to must-pass bills, such as spending measures, that Obama will be hard- pressed to reject.

Obama has issued so few vetoes because the Senate has been in Democratic hands since he became president in 2009, so the chamber hasn’t sent him measures they knew he’d reject. That’s changing now with the Republicans gaining control of the Senate in the November midterm elections for the first time since 2006.

Still, Senate rules often require 60 votes to advance major legislation, meaning Republicans will need to compromise with Democrats to hit that threshold.

The two bills Obama has vetoed came early in his administration — one of a 2009 spending bill and another of 2010 legislation he said would harm the recovery of the housing market and consumer protection for mortgage borrowers.

His two immediate predecessors, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, both stepped up their vetoes when the opposition party gained control of Congress during their presidencies. Bush, a Republican, issued 12 vetoes, all but 11 of them in the two years after Democrats took power in Congress in 2006. All of Democrat Clinton’s 37 vetoes came after Republicans won Congress in 1994. Garfield, who was assassinated in 1881, issued no vetoes.

Four of Bush’s vetoes were overturned by Congress, as were two of Clinton’s.

Presidents are given ten days, excluding Sundays, to sign or veto a bill. If a bill is unsigned after that time and Congress is in session, it becomes law. If those ten days pass and Congress adjourns, it’s considered a pocket veto.

Once a president vetoes a bill, Congress can override it during that same session with two-thirds of the votes in both the House and Senate.

Vote counting to ensure a veto can survive an override is important, said Ed Pagano, who was Obama’s Senate liaison and deputy assistant for legislative affairs.

“The president will not want to veto something that will be overridden,” said Pagano, who’s now a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. “That’s always a calculation.”

Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said Democrats need to be careful about trying to stand in the way of legislation, or they may alienate voters.

“Pick your battles wisely,” he said of the Democrats to reporters yesterday at the Capitol. “Try to rebrand your party because it was about you, not us. We didn’t win. You lost.”
___
Bloomberg reporter Kathleen Hunter in Washington contributed to this report.

AFP Photo/Don Emmert

Baseball, Tim Pawlenty, And Celebrity Politics

Aug. 18 (Bloomberg) — You might have missed the news that several courthouse guards are being investigated for accepting autographed baseballs from Roger Clemens, one of the greatest pitchers of the modern era, after his mistrial on charges of lying under oath about steroid use.

This might seem like a minor offense, but it isn’t. Suppose the guards were accused of receiving $200 in cash — one estimate of the resale value of the autographed baseballs. Suppose further that the person handing out the bills happened to be an accused drug dealer, whose case had similarly ended in a mistrial. Presumably we would be outraged, and the story, rather than crawling across the bottom of the screen on the sports channels, would be leading the evening news.

But here is the trouble: Had the offer of a gratuity come from the drug dealer, one assumes the guards would have rejected it out of hand.

Why the difference? Because Clemens is a celebrity, and in the presence of celebrity, people seem to believe it is perfectly normal to act ridiculous — if by ridiculous we mean abandoning whatever notions of duty, morality and common sense that ought to guide our judgment. Celebrities, too, have a societal license to act ridiculous in their own presence, and often do — and, oddly, they often increase the value of their celebrity as a result.

Much has been written over the years about why we follow the doings of celebrities at all, and why we often become goofy in their presence. Some theorists point to data suggesting that celebrity worship fulfills a need formerly satisfied by religious affection. Others, armed with brain scans, contend that celebrities touch our romantic selves, so that our irrationality around them is much like our irrationality around our loved ones. Whatever the reasons, the effect of celebrity is undeniable.

Most of the time, our silliness is harmless. Standing alongside the barrier outside a night club or an awards show, shrieking and swooning as the famous go by, might be a peculiar way to expend energy, but it does no particular social damage. In 1966, when Willie Mays hit the 535th home run of his career – – making him, at the time, the greatest right-handed home run hitter ever — umpire Chris Pelekoudas stepped up to shake his hand as he crossed home plate. Pelekoudas reported himself to the league office for this act of partiality, and was told not to worry about it.

But our love of celebrity can also cause terrible harm — especially when the celebrity culture overflows its banks and pollutes the roiling waters of our politics. In a democracy, politics at its best is a serious business, calling upon all the best traits of our character — reflection, steadfastness, courage, tolerance, compassion, determination. When we instead conduct politics according to the rules of celebrity, we bring into democracy all that is worst in our culture.

Politics of Celebrity

Last week former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty dropped out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination after finishing third in the Iowa straw poll, a contest that few voters can accurately describe. (Neither can many journalists, evidently: You do not have to hunt far to find dueling stories on whether, for example, anyone who shows up at the door can vote.)

I am not a registered Republican, and I have no particular brief for Pawlenty. But there is something troubling in the media descriptions of the ex-governor’s failings — that he seemed boring on television, for example, or that he never connected with voters. (Not, of course, that there have been any votes cast in the 2012 race yet.)

These criticisms are unrelated to the quality of his ideas, or his capacity to think through tough issues and reach wise decisions. They are, rather, the sorts of comments that a Hollywood producer might make in explaining why a particular actor just isn’t right for his upcoming film.

One sees a version of this battle being fought even today over the legacy of Ronald Reagan. What made him so successful and popular a president? To liberals, it was the power of his communication skills, his ability to connect with voters; to conservatives, it was the power of the ideas he was communicating. I do not pretend to know the answer in Reagan’s case, but I do think it is better for democracy if, in this case, the conservative side is right.

The theory of self-governance rests critically on the notion that we as citizens will take the time to inform ourselves about the issues before making our choices. Unfortunately, as the novelist John le Carre once noted, we tend to reward making a good point badly, and punish making a bad point well. It is style, not substance, that draws our attention.

Triumph of Glibness

The culture of celebrity politics too often rewards the mouthy, the glib and the outrageous, and hurts those who are thoughtful. What becomes important is not being able to present and defend good ideas, but having something succinct to say all the time. If a political candidate answers a question by saying, “That’s a tough one, I’ll have to consult with my advisers and think it over,” we should be delighted; instead, we will probably dismiss him as not ready to lead. Abraham Lincoln possessed a reedy speaking voice and a distracting accent associated at the time with the uneducated; in today’s politics, he would be a miserable failure.

So much of the energy of the partisan is nowadays committed to attacking, to sloganeering, to emoting. We all complain about the raucous absurdity of much of the cable world, but enough people tune in to keep the profits coming. Perhaps what appeals to the viewer is not the battle of great ideas but the conflict itself. Research cited by Daniel L. Wann and his collaborators in their book “Sports Fans: The Psychology and Social Impact of Spectators” suggests that at least among men, a contest becomes more interesting if they know that the teams are bitter enemies.

Yet here one is reminded of the wisdom of Bertrand Russell, who warned that if we never spend time alone with our thoughts, we never have thoughts of our own; we only have other people’s thoughts in our heads. Writing back in the 1930s, Russell argued that we should work less hard, because the vapidity, as he saw it, of popular entertainment was a function of our perpetual exhaustion: We are too tired to think, and so choose to be amused instead.

But if we take democracy seriously, we cannot let politics become amusement. Self-governance is hard work, and a self- governing people should require of its public debate more than telegenic candidates mouthing snappy answers.

(Stephen L. Carter, a novelist, professor of law at Yale and the author of “The Violence of Peace: America’s Wars in the Age of Obama,” is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Copyright 2011 Bloomberg