Trump, Harris pale in comparison to Rockefeller and Kennedy
For interview requests, click here
In this dismal U.S. presidential year, thoughts wander back to earlier times when the fare on offer seemed more auspicious.
Going into 1968, I was rooting for Nelson Rockefeller – aka Rockefeller – on the Republican side and Bobby Kennedy for the Democrats. As both men were north-eastern liberals, and thus attuned to my then-worldview, I’d have been happy to take either as the ultimate winner.
Rockefeller had been governor of New York since 1958, building a track record of big spending activism. Bobby, meanwhile, had been his brother’s hardnosed campaign manager in 1960 and subsequently his attorney-general. Then, after JFK’s 1963 assassination, he became the heir apparent to his dead brother’s political operation.
But there was a problem. JFK’s vice-president, Lyndon Johnson, had succeeded to the presidency and was thus in the way. To put it mildly, the two men didn’t get along.
 Bobby Kennedy, left, and Nelson Rockefeller |
| Recommended |
| Why the Harris-Trump presidential debate was a draw
|
| What Canada can learn from America’s struggles
|
| How RFK Jr. could change the outcome of the 2024 presidential election
|
So Bobby struck out on his own, successfully running for the U.S. Senate in 1964 and morphing into something seemingly different from the ruthless operator of prior years. Growing his hair longer and taking issue with Johnson’s Vietnam policy, he acquired the aura of a rock star. And thus began the long-running narrative of “bad Bobby” evolving into “good Bobby.”
Neither of my favourites made it to the general election. Running a half-assed campaign, Rockefeller was brushed aside by his old nemesis, Richard Nixon. And Bobby was murdered by a Palestinian immigrant with Jordanian citizenship, who’d been angered by his support for Israel.
Looking back, though, it’s interesting to explore both men from a few common perspectives:
The influence of money
Unlike some other contemporaries – Nixon being a prime example – neither Rockefeller nor Bobby ever had to worry about money. Thanks to their respective family fortunes, money was always there. This gave both men a substantial advantage. They could hire cutting-edge pollsters, staff up with researchers on any politically relevant topic, and put a robust field operation on the ground. For instance, 1960’s critical West Virginia primary showed how Kennedy money could talk with a very loud voice.
He who hesitates can pay a price
Despite their financial wherewithal, both men could be indecisive. Rockefeller was notorious in this regard. Although he desperately wanted to be president, he tended to equivocate when it came to grasping the nettle. He did it in 1960 and again in 1968. Biographer Richard Norton Smith ascribes this tendency to Rockefeller wanting things “on his own terms.” An older work colleague of mine was less complimentary; Rockefeller, he thought, wanted things handed to him on a plate because he was, after all, a Rockefeller.
Bobby, too, had a 1968 hesitancy problem. After carving out a position as Johnson’s main critic and building anticipation of a primary challenge, he initially bottled it. Then, after Senator Eugene McCarthy seriously wounded Johnson in the New Hampshire primary, Bobby jumped in. It was a move that smacked of rank opportunism rather than courage, and when McCarthy declined to exit in Bobby’s favour, the resulting contest between them became messy and bitter.
Could either man have been elected president in 1968?
In retrospect. Rockefeller’s nomination prospects were pretty dim. The moneyed north-eastern establishment he exemplified had essentially lost its grip on the Republican Party after Thomas Dewey’s second presidential defeat in 1948. Yes, it was still influential, but power was drifting away. And Rockefeller’s public hostility to Barry Goldwater’s 1964 general election candidacy rendered him persona non grata to large segments of the party.
Bobby Kennedy’s situation was iffier. After Johnson withdrew and McCarthy was finally bested in the California primary, it’s sometimes assumed that – had he not been shot – Bobby was on a glide path to the nomination. I’m not so sure. The Democrats’ nominating process was very different back then. As there were far fewer primaries, control ultimately resided with the party machinery, the traditional bosses and the labour unions. And they were generally lining up in support of Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, who’d stood aside from the primary process. Although not in any way politically sympathetic, Ronald Reagan had an interesting perspective. Asked years later if Bobby could’ve been elected, he put it this way: “Who knows, but I’ll tell you one thing. He’d have made one helluva president.”
Of course, it’s easy to view the past through rose-coloured glasses, seeing things that weren’t there while simultaneously eliding the skulduggery and ineptness. Still, I think the calibre of 1968’s presidential field was a notch above what’s been on offer this year.
Troy Media columnist Pat Murphy casts a history buff’s eye at the goings-on in our world. Never cynical – well, perhaps a little bit.
Explore more on U.S. politics, Donald Trump, Kamala Harris
The opinions expressed by our columnists and contributors are theirs alone and do not inherently or expressly reflect the views of our publication.
Troy Media
Troy Media is an editorial content provider to media outlets and its own hosted community news outlets across Canada.
