See How They Ran: The Changing Role of the Presidential Candidate

A strategic history of every presidential campaign shows that Americans' frustration with today's expensive campaign vulgarity is an expression of a centuries-long struggle to make peace with the idea of leadership in a democracy.

McGill University history professor Troy offers an original, fascinating and admirably focused account of American presidential campaigns from George Washington to George Bush. The author sees the evolution of campaigns as an attempt to balance the contradictions of republican and democratic principles inherent in our government since the nation was founded: "The president was to be both king and prime minister, a national figurehead and the people's representative." Up to and including the candidacy of Andrew Jackson--whose election is said to have signaled the triumph of popular democracy--candidates "stood" for rather than "ran" for office. In 1880 James Garfield's single brief trip from his native Ohio to New York introduced "stumping," which figured prominently in William Jennings Bryant's 1896 campaign. In Troy's view, Theodore Roosevelt was first to manipulate the press; Franklin Roosevelt used the radio to greatest advantage; and Dwight Eisenhower's aides made TV a potent weapon. Troy does not adopt the common view that the presidential election process has degenerated; instead he sees merely a shift in emphasis.
Copyright 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Cerebral campaign-by-campaign account of how candidates have sought the presidency. Troy (History/McGill) asks whether presidential politics were ever dignified and substantive and concludes that America never did have a golden age when the nation's best sought high office without resorting to some kind of political tactics. From the early days of the Republic, when political parties dominated the choice of candidates (viewing each as a ``risk to be minimized''), those who won the presidency were often figureheads able to keep silent about their plans for office. Candidates deferred to the party platform, wrote statements accepting the nomination, then retired to their farms or estates. Whig warhorse Henry Clay lost to Democrat James K. Polk in 1844, Troy argues, because Clay wrote letters responding to constituents who demanded his views. Controversy can be fatal- -Stephen Douglas stumped the country delivering speeches (while claiming he was really en route to visit his mother); Lincoln shrewdly kept as silent as possible. By the 20th century, passive campaigning (with candidates ever seeking the right mix between patrician leadership and populist accessibility) no longer won elections and new tricks appeared: speaking from one's own front porch to camped supporters and journalists, delivering speeches to live audiences while slanting the material to capture the much larger newspaper readership. Eventually, the modern campaign took form, requiring even the intellectual Adlai Stevenson to don cowboy outfits and stalk lingerie counters begging for votes. Of interest for its historical perspective on today's media- based politicking, but Troy's formula of studying each campaign in order without fully explaining the issues of the day leads at times to a bloodless narrative too limited in scope. -- Copyright ©1991, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.

Troy's scholarship successfully demonstrates that Americans have a long tradition of frustration with presidential campaigns. He shatters the mythic notion that campaigns in the "good old days" were dignified contests waged by scrupulously worthy candidates. Thoroughly authoritative, his study is not meant to supplant Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Fred Israel's comprehensive standard, Histo ry of American Presidential Elections, 1789-1968 ( LJ 9/15/71); rather it relates in colorful and personal detail the conduct of presidential candidates since 1840 in their struggle to meet the sometimes whimsical, often conflicting expectations of the electorate. A unique acquisition for collections emphasizing politics and government and essential reading for followers of political contests.
- Susan E. Parker, Harvard Law Sch. Lib.
Copyright 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc.