[icon color=»Accent-Color» size=»regular» image=»steadysets-icon-chat»] Contexto
La campaña a la Presidencia de los Estados Unidos de 1968 estuvo enmarcada en un contexto socialmente convulsionado. El número de norteamericanos en Vietnam había pasado de 16.000, en 1963, a más de 500.000 en 1968. Los norteamericanos observaban, desde la sala de sus casas, las imágenes televisivas de una barbarie que no parecía tener fin. El pacifismo se tomaba las calles y los adeptos a sus postulados crecían sostenidamente. El Presidente Johnson había visto deteriorarse su liderazgo con las noticias de la guerra y las bolsas que trasportaban los cadáveres de los jóvenes norteamericanos. El Presidente no buscó la reelección. Unos días después, en Memphis, Tennessee, fue asesinado Martin Luther King y se generaron disturbios en cientos de ciudades norteamericanas. Unos meses después caería asesinado Robert Kennedy, luego de ganar las primarias demócratas en California. El candidato demócrata seria elegido en una convención desordenada y tumultuosa que termino yéndose, sin mucha convicción, por el nombre del Vicepresidente Hubert Humphrey. Los republicanos, por su parte, nominaron a Richard Nixon quien apeló en su discurso a esa “Mayoría Silenciosa” que trabaja, cuida sus hogares y cumple la ley, solo que es invisible para unos medios que solo evidencian los que gritan, apedrean o desordenan. Su propuesta pretendía devolver el orden perdido y no se cansaba de prometer la estabilidad que habían vivido con Eisenhower. Como cosa curiosa un independiente, George Wallace de Alabama, se lanzó tratando de capitalizar el descontento de muchos ciudadanos con los partidos tradicionales. El slogan de campaña era “Humphrey-Muskie, dos en los que puede confiar”. La estrategia era mostrar que el demócrata era confiable cosa que no trasmitía Nixon. La idea era mostrar un Nixon raro con características enigmáticas y poco fiables. Curiosamente trataron de revivir el éxito del famoso «Daisy Girl», pero ya no sorprendieron dichas iniciativas. Los anuncios positivos trataron de rentabilizar su personalidad confiable, defensor de los derechos civiles, comprometido con la educación y la seguridad social. La idea era que al final primara el hombre conocido y confiable sobre el desconocido e incierto. El spot que vemos tiene el siguiente guión en ingles: MARSHALL: I’m E.G. Marshall, and I’d like to tell you what I’ve been thinking about. On November 5th, when each of us goes into that voting booth, we’re going to be alone in there with one thing to do, and that’s to vote for the best person we are capable of voting for. When I see this man, I think of feelings of my own which I don’t like, but I have anyway. They’re called prejudices. He has some; we have some. I think we have to recognize the fact that we have these feelings, and that we have the right to conceal them or to express them if we want to. This is our freedom of speech and thought, our freedom from fear. This man, running for the Presidency, is the living proof of this freedom. But his winning the Presidency would be the living death of it. He is devoted now to his single strongest prejudice. He will take that prejudice and make it into national law. Then he will make other laws from other prejudices. We have heard him tell it as it is. What follows his election is no secret. Law and order: He will make the law, and we will take the orders. It’s not a comfortable thought, having to live under the law of a man’s personal prejudice, when no one knows which way the prejudice will turn next. This man has had experience as a Congressman, a Senator, a Vice President for eight years. He has in those years served what he felt to be the interests of the American people. A question I ask is: Which American people’s interests has he served? The interests of men and women who work for a living in a factory, on a farm, in an office, a store, a tv studio? No, I don’t think so. He has a record of being against minimum wages, against aid to education, against public housing, against consumer protection, against Medicare. He’s been against many things that mean a lot to me. Now, I’ve heard there’s a new Nixon. But when I ask myself, what is new about Nixon, I find this answer: His technique is new. In the past, he discussed and debated issues, and he lost an election. Now, he will not discuss, and not debate, and in that way, hopes to win an election. I can’t trust a man like that to be my President. He talks of himself as the new leader of the people but he can’t tell us where he’s going to lead us! Out of the war? How? Out of violence? Again, how? We have only his personal assurance that he’ll get war and violence to disappear. This is no hero. There is no new Nixon, there’s only the same old Nixon. In 1964 he campaigned for Barry Goldwater. In 1968, he is campaigning for Spiro Agnew. There is only one man of the three who trusts me, and who trusts you. He has trust in our ability to distinguish right from wrong. He has trust in our determination to keep what we have worked hard for – our homes, our jobs, our safety, our right to say what it is we like and what it is we don’t like. Over and over again, he has proven that it is the strength of our finest instincts – not our worst – that keeps us functioning as the strongest nation in the world. Now, he is asking us to trust him, to trust his belief that equal justice for every individual is our greatest protection and our greatest strength. He is asking us to trust his belief that the way to bring peace to warring nations and warring groups of people within a nation is to recognize the causes of these wars and work to get rid of them. This is a time when a good man can become a great man. I belive in Hubert Humphrey, and I trust him. And God willing, he will be our next President. NARRADOR: The preceding politic announcement was paid for by Citizens for Humphrey-Muskie..