First Chapter of Truth Matters:

Election of 1980:  Something for Nothing

Voters looking at the 1980 presidential ballot saw several choices.  The three best known were incumbent President Jimmy Carter; Ronald Reagan, the two-term former governor or California; and ten-term Representative from Illinois John Anderson.

Inflation in November 1980 ran high, as did unemployment.  Many people had lost their jobs and had to wait in line for gasoline.

Angry voters blamed Carter for these problems.  Many of them took out their frustrations by supporting his leading opponent, Republican Reagan.  Polls showed that few voters had much enthusiasm for either one of them.

Reagan had won the Republican nomination for President with relative ease. He had run for President previously, in 1968 and 1976, narrowly losing the Republican nomination to President Ford the latter year.  By 1980, he had built a large following, in part because of the previous campaigns and a syndicated national column.  He had high name recognition and lots of money, allowing him to dispose of such well-known opponents as George Bush (former director of the CIA), former Texas Governor John Conally and former White House Chief of Staff Alexander Haig.

Anderson had been one of the Republican opponents of Reagan for the nomination.  He participated in nine primaries in February and March of that year, placing a close second in two of them, Vermont and Massachusetts.  He felt the impact of the “Reaganauts,” a nickname for the Reagan supporters, especially in Illinois, Anderson’s home state.  Reagan took 48% of the vote in the Illinois primary and most of the delegates the state would send to the GOP Convention that summer.

Anderson now recalls, “I was only one of twenty-four representatives from Illinois.  I had a strong base in my hometown of Rockford, but many voters in rest of the state were not familiar with me.”  Still, he received 37% of the vote and a share of the delegates.

However, Anderson never could win a primary and, after a poor showing in Wisconsin in late March 1980, he realized that he would not be the Republican candidate.  After taking some time off to discuss his options with family and close friends, he declared an independent candidacy on April 24, 1980.  He set up organizations throughout the nation and succeeded in getting on the ballot in all fifty states and the District of Columbia.

As a result of the Illinois primary and other primary victories, Reagan won the Republican nomination by near-acclamation in Detroit in July 1980.  He chose Bush to be his running-mate and continued to receive a high level of contributions for the general election in November.

Carter limped through the Democratic primaries, challenged by Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachussetts.  Though Carter won most of the primaries, his party appeared to nominate him begrudgingly.  Kennedy would not join hands with Carter in a unity gesture when the two appeared on the same stage after Carter’s nomination.  Carter named his Vice-President, Walter Mondale, to be his running mate once again.

Carter and Reagan had two big advantages that Anderson did not have: money and media time.  While Reagan raised over $75 million and Carter over $65 million, Anderson received only $13.5 million in contributions.  Both Reagan and Carter appeared frequently on national news, whereas Anderson aimed at making local news with his daily press conferences.

The two main party candidates used much of their money for 30 second “spots.”  Carter’s ads frequently mentioned the President’s role in the Camp David Accords that he mediated between Egypt and Israel.  The ads reminded the voters that Carter was a “man of peace.”

Reagan’s ads used the theme “The Time is Now for Ronald Reagan” and criticized Carter for broken promises and weaknesses in conducting foreign policy.  He did not need to go in much detail as the Iran hostage crisis merited media attention on a daily basis along with their number of days in captivity.  Accordingly, the ads made mention of Reagan’s two terms as the governor of California, the nation’s largest state.

For his part, Anderson had sharp words about both of the leading candidates.  As he had done in the primaries, he criticized Reagan’s economic proposals.  “How do we cut taxes, raise defense spending and balance the budget?  We do it with smoke and mirrors.”  This last line became the inspiration for the title of Jack Germond and Jules Witcomb’s subsequent chronicles of the 1980 election, Smoke and Mirrors.

Anderson viewed Carter as discredited in both foreign and domestic affairs.  Overseas, not only had Iran seized our hostages, but the Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan.  Both events symbolized Carter’s ineptitude.  The attempt by Carter to rescue the hostages on April 25, 1980 only furthered the appearance of Carter’s helplessness.

Carter’s critics pointed to a new economic term, the “misery index.”  This concept measured inflation, unemployment and the prime interest rate.  Most consumers want all three factors to be low.  In 1980, all three of these factors were higher than average.  Thus, people had a new label for frustration with Carter.

Furthermore, Carter could not get a comprehensive energy bill passed even though his party controlled Congress.  Congress found his plan to be too complicated.  During this time an energy crisis forced the government to ration the use of gasoline. With the President unable to work with Congress, he again looked weak and unable to solve problems at home.

In September, the League of Women Voters announced plans to sponsor a debate.  The League extended invitations to Carter, Reagan and Anderson, citing polls that all three had at least fifteen percent of the vote.  The invitation to Anderson marked the first time a third-party presidential candidate received an invitation to a debate with major party presidential candidates.

President Carter told the League he would not debate if Anderson were included.  Anderson and Reagan accepted the invitation.  On September 21, 1980, Anderson debated Reagan on two of the three national television stations: ABC instead ran a movie, Midnight Cowboy.

During the debate, Anderson distinguished his policies from Reagan’s.  He criticized Reagan’s plan as offering “something for nothing” and discussed raising taxes and reducing the budget deficit.  He stressed the need for conservation of oil, warning that over-dependence on the Middle East for oil would cause the United States to send troops to that region of the world.  He discussed the importance of the separation of church and state and his opposition to prayer in public school.

The two differed in style.  Anderson referred to Reagan as “Governor Reagan” while Reagan called Anderson “John.”  Anderson viewed the casual address as a “put-down” and now says, “I should have rebelled against Reagan by calling him ‘Ron’ or ‘Ronnie.’”

In the end, most reporters said Anderson performed better than Reagan did.  However, it did not improve his standing.  “It didn’t give us a big enough boost in the polls since it was only one debate and Carter did not appear.”

The League planned a second debate.  Carter continued to demand that Anderson not be included.  By the middle of October, polls showed Anderson’s position declining below fifteen percent to around ten percent as many Anderson supporters either switched their preference to other candidates or lost interest.  Even though no law mandated rules on inclusion of candidates, the League used the fifteen- percent standard as its official reason to invite only Reagan and Carter.  “In reality, they caved in to Carter’s demands.”

Polls between Carter and Reagan indicated a close race just before the two debated on October 28, exactly one week before Election Day.  Throughout the debate, Reagan repeatedly chided the President for alleged broken promises to the voters, saying, “There you go again.”  Voters apparently picked up on this refrain as a warning of continued hard economic times in the event of a Carter re-election: The polls after the debate showed a distinct increase in support for Reagan.

On November 4, 1980, Ronald Reagan won a landslide victory for President of the United States.  The Republican won 51% of the vote, as compared to 41% for Carter and 7% for Anderson.  More importantly, the Electoral College gave Reagan 489 votes and Carter only 49.

How did Reagan win the election?

Reagan did not offer a specific plan nor did he ask much from the voters in return for their vote.  Furthermore, he said nothing positive to say about an opponent.  His strategy for the election became the standard for candidates who chose winning the election above being honest with voters.  Previous presidential candidates had made vague statements about policy, had refused to ask for sacrifices and had attacked opponents rather than ideas, but none with the electoral success that Reagan enjoyed.

Reagan’s Vagueness

On every issue, Reagan made statements that pleased some voters without offending anyone.  He avoided giving details and kept his statements as simple as possible.

·        Reagan’s ideas on getting our hostages back from Iran: He wanted “subtle diplomacy – the kind of diplomacy where you don’t tell anyone what you plan to do.” (Debate with Carter 10/28/80)

·        On Afghanistan and other parts of the world where communists were in power or where they threatened to take power: He spoke of “freedom fighters” and the need to be “tough on communism.”  He also promised “swift retaliation” against terrorists.

·        On the separation of church and state: He said he thought that creationism should be taught along with evolution.

When he criticized Carter for failing to bring home our hostages, he attracted support from voters who viewed the hostage crisis in Iran as an important issue.  By failing to mention what he would do as President, he avoided offending voters who might oppose a specific plan of action.

Further, he gave nothing to anyone with which they might disagree.  Since no one knew what his “subtle diplomacy” involved, no one could criticize it or express the opinion that his plan would not work.  In short, the vagueness gave him support (read: votes) without any risk on his part.

This idea of a “subtle diplomacy” mimicked another successful presidential candidate twelve years before ¾ Richard Nixon in 1968.  During that campaign, candidates Vice President Hubert Humphrey and Nixon debated the United States policy of intervention in Vietnam.  Like Reagan and Carter agreed that we must bring back our hostages, Humphrey and Nixon agreed that we needed to end the war on terms favorable to the United States.

In a close race, Nixon needed a way to find votes and made a vague statement to distinguish himself from Humphrey.  He said that he had a “secret plan” to end the war in Vietnam.  If the voters would just trust him and elect him, he would find a way to end the war and bring “peace with honor.”

Like Reagan, Nixon never gave any indication as to how he would cause the war to end.  He never provided details of any plan.  He took a position that offended no one, not even those who supported continuation of the war.  After all, Nixon gave no timeline for when his plan would work.  As it turned out, Nixon did not end the war in his first term, but instead withdrew U.S. troops after a truce with North Vietnam at the start of his second term in January 1973.

When Reagan said he would strike against terrorists, he said nothing about what terrorists sometimes do to people they take hostage – namely, kill or injure them.  He not only failed to take a clear position, he showed a lack of understanding of the problem of terrorism.  The use of terrorism to harm United States citizens was a relatively new situation, although not completely new.

Just five years before, a group of Cambodians captured the U.S. merchant ship the Mayaguez and held the 40 sailors on the ship hostage.  President Ford, confronted with the news, made the decision to use force to try to rescue the hostages.  A battle ensued in which eighteen of the U.S. soldiers were reported missing.  Another twenty-three air force personnel died when a plane sent to the Mayaguez crashed.

How could Reagan have been certain that the use of force against terrorism would always be the best policy?  He could not be certain of that.  He simply used phrases that struck a chord with the voters who were concerned that United States appeared weak under Carter.  Indeed, when United States citizens were held hostage in Lebanon during the Reagan Administration, Reagan did not resort to striking them.  Instead, he gave weapons to the same Iranian government that had taken our hostages in 1979.

When he said he wanted creationism taught, he pleased the voters who believe that public schools should teach ideas with religious foundation.  He never explained how children could reasonably learn two ideas, evolution and creationism, that conflict directly with one another.  Nor did he explain how this idea would pass the constitutional standards of the freedom to practice one’s religion and the freedom from official government religion.

His idea, if implemented, would likely have been struck down by the same Supreme Court that had already ruled against prayer in public school as unconstitutional.  He may or may not have known about that precedent.  Like his policies on bringing home the hostages and terrorism, the ideas he gave voters did not correspond with plans to govern.

Reagan’s Lack of a Call for Sacrifice

Reagan never told the voters who would pay for his ideas or who might be inconvenienced or even hurt by them.  Such an admission would have cost him votes.

·        On the economy: He called his economic plan “Reaganomics,” cutting taxes on the rich in the hopes that they will use the money to create jobs for the poor.

·        On the environment: He proposed gutting some environmental regulations in order to help business.  When pressed for details, he made the ridiculous observation that “trees cause more pollution than smog.”  He dismissed the growing United States dependence on the Middle East for oil by incorrectly stating that Alaska had more oil than Saudi Arabia.

·        On the budget: He said he would balance the budget by 1983 with his other policies of lowering taxes and raising defense spending.

When he suggested gutting regulations, he pleased businesses, many of whom must follow strict rules on such matters as the dumping of chemicals and the manufacture of automobiles under a high-regulation environmental policy.  But Reagan never discussed who might have to make a sacrifice under such policies: people who live close to toxic dumps and people who live in big cities with high automobile traffic.

When he said he would cut taxes on the rich, he also promised a balanced budget but failed to state how he would make up for the shortfall in revenue which occurs with tax cuts.  His own running mate (Bush) had at one time called his economic plan “Voodoo Economics.”  One of his top advisors, David Stockman, who later became Reagan’s budget director, confided to Anderson (his former boss) that Reagan’s economic plan would not work.  But Reagan refused to give details; if he had discussed specific spending cuts, he might have lost the vote of the people affected by the cuts.

Simple arithmetic should have made it clear that he would not be able to keep this pledge.  By lowering taxes, he would generate less revenue for the government.  Raising spending pushes an economy towards (or deeper into) deficit.  A balanced budget would have required less spending on other government programs.

But even Reagan’s friend and political ally, columnist George Will, pointed out that four-fifths of the budget is not debatable.  Where was Reagan going to cut spending?

Reagan never answered that question.

Reagan’s Attacks on Opponents Rather than Ideas

He instead put Carter on the defensive, repeatedly blaming him for the economic recession.  Reagan asked the question of the voters in his debate against Carter, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

Reagan jeered Carter at every opportunity, even when Reagan’s position on an issue was similar to Carter’s position.  For example, Reagan called for an increase in defense spending and for a decrease in taxes.  In reality, Carter had already begun a weapons buildup after the Afghanistan invasion.  Furthermore, Carter had cut taxes during his time in office.

Reagan’s ability to persuade voters shows the elevation of form over substance in the minds of the voters.  If voters really cared about the facts AND wanted a candidate who would raise defense spending and cut taxes, Carter would have been re-elected without much of a problem.

Reagan kept his campaign theme simple ¾ he said he would lower taxes, a popular idea, especially during an economic recession.  He said he would increase military spending, another popular idea given the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the taking of United States hostages by Iran.  He also promised to balance the budget.

In other words, Reagan phrased the key issue in a simple way.  It was a strategy later winning candidates would use successfully.

Return to Book Page