Lentis/The US Presidential Election of 1992: Media, Politics, and Public Opinion

Presidential Packaging The political term "presidential packaging" refers to the "selling" of a presidential candidate to the public. The term originated during the first radio broadcasted presidential election. This technological innovation allowed candidates to directly influence constituents through media by means of record albums. Although this technological development was the first in a series that would aid political campaigning, the most significant change was the introduction of the television. Campaign teams recognized the increased demand for televisions in the early 1950's as a source to implement political advertisements and influence constituents. Richard Nixon utilized this advertisement form in his "Checkers Speech"[1] to reach the largest TV audience ever until that point in September 1952. This unprecedented audience of 60 million people watched the live speech broadcast unaware that the Republican Party paid soap opera directors $75,000 to formalize the prime-time advertisement. In the thirty minute broadcast, Nixon appealed to viewer ethos in attempts to improve his image following a secret campaign fund scandal; many political pundits believe that the advertisement time helped Nixon reach the Vice Presidential position in November of 1952. In the hope of creating a "New Nixon" image in 1968, Nixon's presidential campaign again utilized television advertisements to convey a new political message[2]. A series of ads depicted Nixon as a mature, presidential figure who had the ability to respond calmly and professionally to questions asked by "Average Joe" constituents rather than the media. This series of intentional and rehearsed interviews painted Nixon in a new, commanding and respected light. Rising approval ratings indicated the packaging attempts successfully swayed public opinion of Nixon and led to his eventual presidency in 1969. From this point forward, politicians have acknowledged television advertising and appearances as an important, if not critical part of campaign efforts.

Clinton Image before the 1992 Campaign Trail Prior to the presidential campaign of 1992, Bill Clinton was relatively unknown on the national scale. His only well publicized action was delivering the opening night address at the 1988 Democratic National Convention;[3] however, the disastrous speech nearly destroyed any chance of Clinton running for president in the following election. In the speech he droned on about programs and policies, and political analysts suspected that public opinion polls would reflect this inability to reach his audience. To recover from this faux pas, Clinton made an appearance on the "Tonight Show" and, by using humor and self deprecation, restored his image before a large public viewership[4]. This image transformation foreshadows the tactics used during his presidential campaign in 1992 to sway public opinion.

Infidelity In 1990, Larry Nichols, a former Arkansas state employee, sued Bill Clinton for wrongful termination. In this suit, he alleged that Clinton used a slush fund to finance affairs with five women. At the time, all five women denied the claim.[5] In January 1992, the controversy reemerged. Star magazine released an interview with Gennifer Flowers, one of the five women named in the Nichols suit. Flowers claimed Clinton had a 12 year affair with her and claimed she had recorded phone calls between herself and Clinton as proof. Nichols then announced that he was dropping the lawsuit, and that he had no evidence of the affairs. George Stephanopoulos, Clinton's deputy campaign manager, argued that this further discredited Flowers' claim.[6] To address the debacle, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton appeared on 60 Minutes after Super Bowl XXVI. During the interview, both husband and wife strongly refuted Flowers' claims, but Bill "acknowledged wrongdoing" within his marriage and "causing pain" to his wife.[7]

Unpatriotic During the early stages of his 1992 campaign, many Americans viewed Bill Clinton as unpatriotic. Whilst in college, Bill Clinton carefully avoided the Vietnam War draft and actively protested the war.

Draft "Dodging" Similar to many Americans seeking education at the time, Clinton initially received a draft deferment as an undergraduate student at Georgetown University. Upon graduation, he sought yet another deferment under the stipulation that he join the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas while he continued his education; however, instead of attending the University of Arkansas law program as planned, Clinton avoided his ROTC responsibilities by continuing his studies as a Rhodes Scholar in Oxford, England. The draft board assigned to Clinton learned of this on October 31, 1969 and reclassified him as eligible for service. This reassignment proved fruitless in the end, as on December 1, 1969 his number was drawn 311th out of 366, guaranteeing he would not be drafted after all.

Anti-War Protests After finishing two years at Oxford, Clinton then attended Yale Law School. While at Yale, he helped coordinate anti-war Senate candidate Joe Duffey's campaign in Connecticut, then spent an entire semester co-managing anti-war George McGovern's Texas campaign[3]. Author Taylor Branch said "He was much more on the political operative side than the protest side."[8] However, he became involved in protest operations after attending a reunion for volunteers of Eugene McCarthy's 1968 campaign in the summer of 1969. Clinton then spent the remainder of that summer as an office volunteer for the Washington, D.C. anti-war demonstrations that would happen in October and November of 1969. After returning to England for the fall semester, he helped plan and participated in several more protests, including one at the American embassy and a teach-in at the University of London.[9] Additionally, he took a trip to Moscow at the end of 1969. During the 1992 campaign, Bush's deputy campaign manager Mary Matalin asked "why Bill Clinton traveled to the heart of of enemy territory at the height of the war?"[8] The draft-dodging allegations coupled with Clinton's adamant disavowal of the Vietnam War left many constituents at odds during his election campaign with understanding the extent of his support for the United States Armed Forces and general patriotic, or rather unpatriotic, tendencies.

Marijuana Use Among the emerging controversies surrounding Bill Clinton on the campaign trail was his suspected marijuana usage as a young adult. Bill Clinton had admitted to trying marijuana but not inhaling the substance or every trying it again [10] Although public opinion would suggest that Americans were okay with attributing the substance use to youthfulness and immaturity, general opinions reflect discontent with Clinton's dishonesty regarding the situation. This outright denial coupled with vague language explained why many Americans viewed Clinton as a distrustful figure. He was viewed as a sneaky politician who consistently evaded the truth and that particular image worked against the efforts of his 1992 campaign.

Clinton Image on the 1992 Campaign Trail The Arsenio Hall Show On June 3, 1992, the day after winning the California primary, Bill Clinton appeared on The Arsenio Hall Show. This marked the first time a major-party presidential candidate appeared on late-night television. On the show, Clinton wore a loud, gold tie and Ray Ban Wayfarers while playing "Heartbreak Hotel" on his saxophone. This was designed to connect with young and minority voters; an attempt to show Clinton as mold-breaking and relatable to the general public.[11] After jamming on the saxophone, Hall interviewed Clinton on a slew of topics ranging from democracy and the recent LA riots to his reported marijuana use. Clinton later appeared on Larry King Live and MTV Town Hall. These events combined to increase his poll ratings, most greatly with young and African-American voters.

Bus Tours In an effort to connect with the common American people, the Clinton-Gore ticket embarked on two bus tours following the Democratic National Convention. The candidates wore plaid shirts instead of suits. Additionally, they emphasized their youth by featuring music from John Lennon and John Mellencamp.[12] Clinton and Gore both portrayed their marriages as typical middle-American couples and not, as Republicans have said, "too far out of the mainstream."[13]

First Tour The first tour started the day after the Democratic National Convention ended. The bus left from New York City and traveled 1,000 miles through eight states, finishing in St. Louis. Bus stops targeted small towns and featured speeches on specific policy points relevant to the people of that stop. Local and regional politicians attended these rallies, though they rarely shared stage space with the candidates. This tactic was part of an effort to brand the Clinton-Gore ticket as establishing a "new direction" for American politics, rather than "four more years of the same."[12]

Second Tour The second tour started on the road a month after the first tour concluded. It was a three day journey from St. Louis to Minneapolis. Touted as "made-for-television", this tour was highly popular with local media but received minimal national coverage. National reporters believed "[the candidates] said little new or newsworthy."[13] Rural news sources delighted with the opportunity to see the "personal side" of the candidates. Local stations sent about 250 reporters on the tour over the three-day period. In an effort to combat the high level of publicity the Clinton campaign garnered, the Bush campaign offered these same local stations free interviews with senior administration and campaign officials.

Bill and Al The Clinton campaign strategy constantly worked to evoke a specific ethos from the American public. From a media perspective, the platform for "Governor Bill Clinton" and "Congressman Al Gore" vanished and the 'Bill and Al’ ticket emerged instead. They campaign portrayed two average, hard working members of the American middle class as candidates for the presidential and vice presidential ticket. Numerous photos snapped of 'Bill and Al' wearing hard hats at construction sites or kissing babies at rallies flooded media outlets. It seemed as if overnight, Bill Clinton’s image as an untrustworthy womanizer was erased and replaced with a brand new image: Bill Clinton as the everyday American citizen. Clinton capitalized on this momentum and even referred to himself as "The Comeback Kid"[14], a title people can relate to and even root for once again.

Conclusive Media Evidence of Clinton's Image Transformation From the beginning to end of his 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton was able to completely transform his image. A series of Time magazine covers during 1992 illustrates this point perfectly. The January 1992 cover featured a picture of Clinton with the caption "Bill Clinton: Who is this guy?", a testament to the widespread disapproving opinions of Clinton at the time. Conversely, the December edition featured Bill Clinton as Time's Man of the Year. In just one year, Clinton and his team managed to not only win over the media cycles, but also champion the cause of Americans all over.

Looking Forward As the progression of technology and use of media continues, the integration of these advancements in society becomes even more prevalent. The social interface of these mass media technologies and the perception of the American public due to these new media outlets will expand as new technology is developed. This growth may meet especially impressive outcomes in times of heightened political discontent. As shown by the 2016 presidential election, media clippings emerged from years and even decades ago that diminished the character of candidates in both parties and significantly hindered both candidates' chances for winning the White House. These clippings went viral, circulating on countless social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, Buzzfeed etc.) and faux newspaper websites (DCGazette and ClickHole), further inciting the charged emotions of the viewership. As sites such as these gain traction and public attention, media stands to gain even more of an influence over election outcomes and constituency opinions.