What Made Kennedy '60 Different?

Further expansion of Open Election Theory...

Much ink has been spilled in numerous publications and undoubtedly many parlor rooms recently on this question: is Barack Obama another John F. Kennedy? The comparisons range from their identical occupations prior to seeking the nation's highest elected office to their relative youth, not to mention charismatic qualities as well. Of course, the vast difference between the luxurious, upper-class background which seared Mr. Kennedy and the environment responsible for Barack Obama is one of many dissimilarities between the two candidates. Yet, in one important respect, none of those distinctions, from the forty-eight year discrepancy in campaign realities to political philosophy to even, yes, skin color matter as much as this seemingly-mundane fact: John Kennedy captured an American presidential election in 1960 and, accordingly, Barack Obama hopes to secure a similar prize in 2008.

One may well ask why this point has relevance, indeed, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton have all triumphed at the ballot box since that November 8 in the final year of the Eisenhower administration. True enough, yet, intriguingly, all of the aforementioned Democrats, winners in 1964, 1976, 1992, and 1996 respectively, either prevailed as incumbent president (twice) or as direct challenger to a Republican chief executive (also twice).

John F. Kennedy is the only Democratic candidate to win an "open" presidential election since 1884. Absent the truly unforeseen, Election 2008 will once again take on the form of the 2000, 1988, and 1968 races, all won, in some form of another, by the G. O. P. One could look even further back in the archives at 1952, 1928, 1920, 1908, and 1896, if time and interest permitted. Most assuredly, a small yet not insubstantial bit of Republican fortune in this type of a presidential campaign owes to non-transferable circumstance. For example, in 1952, 1920, and 1896, the Democratic Party, in large part due to its leader in the White House, enjoyed little favor with the electorate and thus lost to the always-formidable Republican outsider. Without expending too much effort, one could place 2000 and 1968 in their group (Democratic incumbent not on the ballot, electorate not sold on Republican outsider or Democratic heir apparent) and 1988, 1928, and 1908 (High popularity of non-running Republican incumbent filtered down to their favored successor) in theirs.

The point here, we should say, is not to attempt to ascertain why the electorate seems to favor Republicans in "open" presidential elections, but rather the nature of John F. Kennedy's victory and whether Barack Obama would prove the likeliest Democratic candidate to follow in "Jack's" footsteps and actually win a race without the necessary condition of a successful prosecution of a Republican incumbent. Based on the available evidence, a key part of Mr. Kennedy's victory directly owed to his opponent, Richard M. Nixon, as the latter began the modern era of vice-presidential incumbency parlayed into party standard-bearer in the next election cycle - something last seen in the office of Secretary of State in the early portion of the 19th Century. Mr. Nixon's presence lent an "incumbent feel" to the election, a phenomenon later repeated in 1968 and 2000, only with the parties switching their positions.

Unfortunately, Barack Obama, or any Democrat, will not run against Dick Cheney, even at the remote possibility of a hopelessly deadlocked Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the Vice President has given us his Shermanesque statement. In that vein, advantage, Mr. Kennedy. On the other hand, whereas the two-term Massachusetts senator had to tread very lightly when critiquing the "stagnancy" of a still-very politically potent President Eisenhower, Mr. Obama would feel no such reserve when it came to George W. Bush, by all accounts the least popular full-second-term president in the modern era. Absent Rutherford B. Hayes's extraordinarily narrow victory over Samuel J. Tilden in 1876, in the midst of the stench emanating from President Ulysses S. Grant's administration, unpopularity of the non-competing incumbent usually drags down the new candidate's effort to hold the Executive Branch. Advantage, Mr. Obama.

In fact, the more we look at the leading indicators for presidential results, the more we notice the staggering advantages enjoyed by Mr. Obama as opposed to Mr. Kennedy, e.g. the Republicans may even fail to coalesce around their eventual champion as succinctly as they did for Mr. Nixon after the Grand Old Party official broke camp, in, of all locales, Chicago, Illinois. Nevertheless, take heed to always canvass the scene for fool's gold, which has bedeviled more than a few Democrats in these races as previously noted. For all the factors supposedly in his favor, many now believe then-Vice President Al Gore allowed an easy victory to turn into a virtual coin flip with a certain Texas governor, merely because a sliver of notoriously fickle independent voters liked the former president's son better. One can reasonably guess just how well "coin flip" elections have gone for Democrats in the past.

Measuring "likeability" is almost impossible, empirically, yet it should strike us as significant that John F. Kennedy - by anecdotal accounts formed from the television debates and elsewhere - decisively won the primary school-type popularity contest in 1960, which no other Democrat had achieved before and none have replicated since that victory nearly a half century ago. Barack Obama, so it would appear, enjoys some of the highest "positives" and lowest "negatives" of any serious presidential contender in recent memory, to include legendary campaign performer Bill Clinton.

I thus conclude that likeability is of greater importance in a contest not preoccupied with scrutinizing the achievements and further aspirations of the incumbent president. Michael Dukakis and Hubert Humphrey each failed to win in part due to this critical factor. Mr. Obama has it in spades, and whilst Senator Hillary Clinton is popular (in most corners of our country), her political "ceiling" does not figure to rival the immense potential of the Illinois Democrat. Democratic candidates fare reasonably well when afforded the opportunity to castigate a perceived failed Republican administration, but in those other races, the lack of something as superficial as pure likeability seems to doom their otherwise bright prospects.

None would claim this is just or right, and in the light of 1968 and 2000, some would argue it had tragic consequences. Nonetheless, a cursory examination of the evidence has shown that it matters, which should lead more than a few 2008 Democrats to acknowledge and then move on from their fears, just as their 1960 predecessors did so - those of still-virulent racism and anti-Catholic bigotry respectively - and select the Democrat most likely to bring a smile to even a "leaning" Republican's face since JFK pulled off the near-impossible of winning an "open" contest all those autumns ago. And that, without much doubt, would bring a wide grin to the face of the long-suffering Democratic presidential voter, in the most important aspect of all.