Discussion:
Sock it to *me*? (Did Paul Keyes elect Richard Nixon?)
(too old to reply)
David Tenner
2009-02-18 05:41:29 UTC
Permalink
"Nixon's Winning Strategy: Forty Years After Sock It to Me?"
by Ron Simon

"Originally broadcast on September 16, 1968, Richard Nixon's infamous four
word question, Sock it to me?, still resonates forty years later,
especially during a election year. Last Sunday on the Emmy Awards, his
iconic cameo kicked off the tribute to Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In. Beyond
the sheer absurdity of a presidential candidate, particularly the dour
puritanical Nixon, doing a vaudevillian turn, the back story of this
blackout continues to raise questions about the intersection of politics
and entertainment.

"Both candidates for the 1968 presidency, Democratic Hubert Humphrey and
the Republican Nixon were invited to tape segments for the nation's number
one show, Laugh-In, a raucous freewheeling satire of contemporary mores.
Humphrey, dubbed the 'happy warrior' of his generation, never warmed up to
video and turned down the request; his métier was orating in a large hall.
From the Checkers speech to the 1960 presidential debate, Nixon used and
was abused by television. Before his first retirement in 1963, he upgraded
his lowbrow public image by playing piano on The Jack Paar Program. Five
years later, he went for the laughs.

"Nixon was chummy with former Paar producer and then head writer of Laugh-
In, Paul Keyes, whose conservative politics were certainly antithetical to
countercultural tone of his show. The former vice president was given
editorial control over his comic bits. He rejected several catchphrases,
including 'What's a bippy?' and 'Goodnight Dick.' It took six takes to
achieve his idiosyncratic line reading of the show's signature line, Sock
it to me? [Watch Video]

"The election was only less than two months away, and this Nixon proved he
could laugh at his you-won't-have-me-to-kick-around persona. He was
campaigning as the New Nixon, and this five-second spot helped to
substantiate this claim to many voters. He won the election by little more
than a half of million votes. Host Dick Martin later stated that Laugh-In
was accused of helping Nixon to achieve his narrow margin of victory, less
than one percentage point.

"The effect of this comic routine on the voting public can't be measured.
But we now know that Nixon's friendship with Paul Keyes had an effect on
the comedy of Laugh-In. A young writer on the staff, Lorne Michaels,
revealed that his anti-Nixon jokes were softened by veteran scribes.
Although not outlined in a memo, Laugh-In's creative team was certainly
cognizant of Keyes's coziness with power. In fact, we now have this
incredible tape of Nixon calling Keyes in 1971, documenting how the Oval
Office and downtown Burbank casually communicated...

"Be forewarned in this election year that a price might be paid when
politicians try to humanize themselves on comedy programs. When a Hillary
or Barack or John appear on Saturday Night Live (ironically produced by
that fledging writer on Laugh-In), relationships might be brewing to
neuter humor in the future."

http://www.paleycenter.org/nixon-s-winning-strategy-forty-years-after-sock-it-to-me/

IMO for Nixon to say "Sock it to me" as a question (with emphasis on the
*me*) was an inspired idea. Nixon was being hip by parodying his own lack
of hipness, acting befuddled. It's as though he were saying: "You expect
*me* of all people to deliver this ridiculous hip catch-phrase?""
Humphrey was given an opportunity to appear on the show, saying "I'll sock
it to you, Dick" but he declined to do so, and even if he did, I don't
think it would have been as funny. Given that one of Nixon's problems was
likeability, and that his appearance did make him more likeable, and given
the closeness of the 1968 election, I don't think it's frivolous to
suggest that Nixon's four words may have made a difference.

Nixon was apparently reluctant to appear on Laugh-In; it was only the
appeal of his friend Keyes that got him to do so. Suppose Keyes had been
a friend of Humphrey's instead?...

--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Rich Rostrom
2009-02-18 07:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Tenner
IMO for Nixon to say "Sock it to me" as a question (with emphasis on the
*me*) was an inspired idea. Nixon was being hip by parodying his own lack
of hipness, acting befuddled. It's as though he were saying: "You expect
*me* of all people to deliver this ridiculous hip catch-phrase?""
Humphrey was given an opportunity to appear on the show, saying "I'll sock
it to you, Dick" but he declined to do so, and even if he did, I don't
think it would have been as funny. Given that one of Nixon's problems was
likeability, and that his appearance did make him more likeable, and given
the closeness of the 1968 election, I don't think it's frivolous to
suggest that Nixon's four words may have made a difference.
An interesting point. An election _can_ turn on a relatively
trivial matter _if_ it touches the way the general public
perceives a candidate or issue. The "hasty plate of soup"
that doomed Winfield Scott, for instance. Or Dewey as
"the little man on the wedding cake". Of course it's more
likely in a close election.

I would make one other point. Nixon's appearance on a
sketch comedy show set a precedent which has become
almost irresistable - nearly all Presidential candidates now
appear once on Saturday Night Live.
Old Toby
2009-02-18 17:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
An interesting point. An election _can_ turn on a relatively
trivial matter _if_ it touches the way the general public
perceives a candidate or issue. The "hasty plate of soup"
that doomed Winfield Scott, for instance. Or Dewey as
"the little man on the wedding cake". Of course it's more
likely in a close election.
I have to cast doubt on the "little man on the wedding cake"
story. OTL Truman won a fairly resounding victory in the
Electoral College: 303 Truman/189 Dewey/39 Thurmond. Assuming
no further gains for Thurmond, Dewey would need to win 38 electors
to send it to the House, 58 to gain an electoral majority, and a
whooping 77 to actually win outright.

So why did the Chicago Tribune think Dewey would win? Apparently,
they looked at the early returns and saw Dewey winning big in the
North East and Thurmond breaking up the Solid South. They assumed
that, post-Roosevelt, the West was going to swing back to its
traditional Republican loyalties (as it would do not long after).
Instead, Truman swept the west. Dewey won only seven states
west of the Appalachians: MI, IN, ND, SD, NE, KS, and OR.

Did the farmers and ranchers of the West really swing to Truman
because Alice Roosevelt's high-society quip? Or was it more because
Truman was "one of us" and Dewey was, well, the sort of person
Alice Roosevelt quipped about?

Old Toby
Least Known Dog on the Net
David Tenner
2009-02-18 19:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Toby
Post by Rich Rostrom
An interesting point. An election _can_ turn on a relatively
trivial matter _if_ it touches the way the general public
perceives a candidate or issue. The "hasty plate of soup"
that doomed Winfield Scott, for instance. Or Dewey as
"the little man on the wedding cake". Of course it's more
likely in a close election.
I have to cast doubt on the "little man on the wedding cake"
story. OTL Truman won a fairly resounding victory in the
Electoral College: 303 Truman/189 Dewey/39 Thurmond. Assuming
no further gains for Thurmond, Dewey would need to win 38 electors
to send it to the House, 58 to gain an electoral majority, and a
whooping 77 to actually win outright.
But Dewey actually came very close to winning those "whopping 77" electoral
votes: Illinois (28) California (25) and Ohio (25) all went for Truman by
very small margins.
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1948.txt

In fact, in Illinois, just getting Henry Wallace on the ballot
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/04b7f660046b9ba0 might
be enough to swing the state to Dewey.
Post by Old Toby
So why did the Chicago Tribune think Dewey would win? Apparently,
they looked at the early returns and saw Dewey winning big in the
North East and Thurmond breaking up the Solid South. They assumed
that, post-Roosevelt, the West was going to swing back to its
traditional Republican loyalties (as it would do not long after).
Instead, Truman swept the west. Dewey won only seven states
west of the Appalachians: MI, IN, ND, SD, NE, KS, and OR.
Did the farmers and ranchers of the West really swing to Truman
because Alice Roosevelt's high-society quip? Or was it more because
Truman was "one of us" and Dewey was, well, the sort of person
Alice Roosevelt quipped about?
I think that a vague distrust of Dewey and a feeling that Truman was more
"our kind of person" did play a role: "'I kept reading about that Dewey
fellow,' said Charles Crenshaw of New Lebanon, Ohio, 'and the more I read the
more he reminded me of one of those slick ads trying to get money out of my
pocket. Now Harry Truman, running around and yipping and falling all over his
feet--I had the feeling he could understand the kind of fixes I get into.'"
Eric Goldman, *The Crucial Decade--and After; America, 1945-1960,* p. 89.

However, to explain the GOP's surprisingly poor performance in farm states,
you also have to look at the actual economic conditions. To quote an old
post of mine:

"In particular, farmers, normally a Republican-leaning group, were angry with
Congress. As the historian Allen Matusow has pointed out, an obscure
provision in the Commodity Credit Act passed by the 80th Congress at the end
of its first session made it impossible for the federal government to build
grain storage bins near farms. The fall of 1948 brought a record-breaking
harvest and drastic declines in farm prices. With no bins available, farmers
could not deposit their grain and collect support payments. Truman took
advantage of this, and warned farmers that next Republicans would cut other
programs farmers had come to depend on such as price supports and funding for
rural electrification."

At the same time, farm discontent alone did not cause the GOP loss; indeed in
the three states I mentioned (Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio) Truman won the
urban vote while Dewey won in the rural areas. But Dewey might have won *by
larger margins* in the rural areas (and thus carried the states in question)
if not for the decline in farm prices and the lack of storage bins. In any
event, Dewey himself was convinced that it was the defection of farmers who
had voted for him in 1944 that cost him the 1948 election.
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
The Horny Goat
2009-02-22 05:44:31 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:24:10 -0800 (PST), Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
An interesting point. An election _can_ turn on a relatively
trivial matter _if_ it touches the way the general public
perceives a candidate or issue. The "hasty plate of soup"
that doomed Winfield Scott, for instance. Or Dewey as
"the little man on the wedding cake". Of course it's more
likely in a close election.
I would make one other point. Nixon's appearance on a
sketch comedy show set a precedent which has become
almost irresistable - nearly all Presidential candidates now
appear once on Saturday Night Live.
I was 12 years old in 1968 when Nixon did Laugh-In and me and my
friends all thought it was great having Nixon. We knew he was a
politician but were too young to remember him from 1960 or as
vice-president and we were nuts about the show and I remember that
episode.

I >still< do not know why he wouldn't do "Say goodnight Dick" as that
was such a signature line on the show!

Loading...