The Last Campaign: How Harry Truman Won the 1948 Election

Rating:
Summary: I love this stuff.
Review: But I'm a historical, political junkie. As it happens this book is very relevant today. Senator Trent Lott has been having problems with his segregationist toasts at Senator Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party & there hasn't been so much interest in the 1948 election since.... 1948.
1948 was a watershed election on several levels. It was the last elections of an old era of politics & at the same time, the first of a new. There were four major canidates. President Truman got down & dirty. His vitriolic, uncompromising partisanship would be unacceptable today. At the other end of the spectrum, milk-sop Governor Dewey, the big favorite, was too cool, emotionless & refused to fight. That stand pat attitude wouldn't fly today. Then Governor Thurmond was a southern Democrat, at best a segregationist & proud of it. He ran a credible campaign in the south & capture the electoral college in three states. Henry Wallace did not get any electoral votes. He was a former vice president & could have caused a constitutional crisis in several states where he was popular. Seen as the peace at any price canidate he was controlled by the communist & considered by some as Stalin's stooge. He forced president Truman to campaign a little further to the left than he wanted. That's four different major canidates. It will not happen again. It was the last campaign in which major canidates traveled by train in extensive whistle-stop fashion. Radio & newspapers were the media. Television was first used at the conventions but was primitive & did not impact on the election. As in todays campaigns a major concern was money, campaign financing & contributors. Governor Thurmond was always strapped for cash & got a little help from oil companies anxious to drill for oil in the gulf. Wallace actually charged admission to his campaign appearances. Then there were polls, polls & polls. However, polling was not the exact science it is today. Thus polling organizations missed some key demographics. They predicted for Dewey & we know what happened. One of my favorite photos of all time is DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN. Mr. Karabell pulls the whole election together in an informative & entertaining manner. Definitely five stars.

Rating:
Summary: provocative and fun
Review: Forget FDR. Forget JFK. Forget Reagan. When it comes to naming the President that Presidents themselves most often seek to emulate, Harry Truman takes the prize. At one point or another, all first-term Presidents will go through an intense period of scrutiny where their ability to win a second term is called into question. Without fail, they'll play the Truman card, promise to bring `em hell, and rally from behind to win when no one thinks they can make it.

Zachary Karabell has written a book assessing the validity of the Truman '48 mythology. Though he is the first to admit that no one will ever know for sure exactly why Truman was able to overcome a double-digit deficit and win decisively, the things he hints at probably come pretty close to the truth: undecided voters breaking massively for an unloved incumbent in a time of peace and prosperity; Thomas Dewey's refusal to attack or engage Truman's attacks; the fact that Dewey really had no message, leaving an open field for Truman's grating anti-Wall Street boilerplate to sweep the farm belt; and pollsters' refusing to recognize that the race had in fact tightened - all of these things took their toll on Dewey's inevitability and contributed to the greatest electoral shocker of the last century. Similar factors were probably at play in creating the squeaker of an election we had last year, where George Bush's last-minute lead evaporated by Election Day.

There is no doubt that Karabell really is an engaging writer. But it is also true that he is better at asking questions than answering them. Karabell has a strong sense of the basic questions he needs to answer in the beginning of the book: Why was Truman was so unpopular, even among Democrats? Who was Tom Dewey, and what was his appeal? Unfortunately, the answers he gives seem superficial at best. Karabell explains Dewey simply by saying he was a bland politician whose views were not well known. The Dewey-as-cipher theory sounds a little bit like a cop-out, especially when I have read more detailed portraits of Dewey in chapter-length accounts of the 1948 election. Karabell praises Dewey for taking a principled stand against outlawing the Communist party, but doesn't explore why Dewey believed that and doesn't really probe the philosophical differences between Dewey and his main Republican competitors. And Karabell's extensive re-telling of the Thurmond and Wallace third party campaigns does sometimes come at the expense of covering the two major candidates, especially Dewey, the man most people really did think would be the next President.

Rating:
Summary: A review of one election and a preview of another
Review: Having just read this entertaining and thought provoking history of the 1948 election, I often was amazed at the parallels to the ongoing 2000 campaign. The author's thesis is that 1948 was the last time that a presidential campaign offered a number of voices along the american political spectrum. That thesis, accurate for the past 50 years, seems to be breaking down in this election cycle. 1948 presented Wallace - Truman - Dewey - Thurmond. 2000 has Nadar - Gore - Bush - Buchanan. This Book may provide a blueprint for a Gore surprise in November. On its own merits, the book has a number of interesting points to make, and shines light on the demagogic tactics Truman used to win the election. Not just for historians or political junkies

Rating:
Summary: A great book about a great campaign.
Review: Looking at the 1948 election one always wonders how Harry Truman did it. Not only did the polls show him way behind, not only did the Republicans as usual have more money, but Truman's party was split three ways. Zachary Karabell not only makes Truman's victory make sense, but he does so in a very readable way.

First of all, the Wallace and Thrumond movements probably helped Truman much more than they hurt him. Wallace was so far left that Truman was able to move himself far enough to the left to take back most of Wallace's voters while still looking like a moderate to most voters in comparison to Wallace. Thurmond and his Dixiecrats actually suprised Truman and his staff. They had assumed Truman could push for civil rights and that the south would grumble and complain but in the end would have no choice but to support Truman. Still, the black votes Truman picked up ended up being far more important to Truman than the few votes Thurmond actually took from him. Black voters were still not a block that could be counted on for Democrats in 1948. In the long run however, those people in the south who voted for Thurmond in 1948 found that voting against the Democratic candidate was fairly easy and the "solid south" would in a few decades be solidly Republican.

Truman and his staff decided the polished Harry wasn't working so it was decided to let Truman be Truman. Being a Missouri farmer there was a lot of populism in Truman and it came out in 1948. People then and Karabell now accuse Truman of promoting class conflict. In 1948 and today that is always the charge against anyone who dares to attack the greedy few who run Wall Street and for the most part, the country. I am always proud when one of our leaders tries to point out to the average American what is really being done to them and find myself at odds with Karabell on this point but it does not hurt the overall book and the reader should make up his on mind about Truman's populism.

Dewey carried scars from the 1944 campaign into 1948. In '44 he had attacked Roosevelt, probably too much and was convinced that was what cost him the election. So, in 1948 he refused to attack Truman at all. No matter what Truman said about him Dewey said nothing. Dewey in fact was probably the first candidate of the television era. He said nothing that might offend anyone. By the end of the campaign there were warning signs of a Truman come back but Dewey and his people refused to notice. One of Dewey's top backers, E. F. Hutton tried to warn Dewey that if he didn't start to respond to Truman's attacks he was going to get beat. This book is well worth five stars for this one line. "E.F. Hutton spoke, but no one listened."

Buy this book. When someone complains that today's milk toast campaigns are too dirty hand them this work and tell them to read it. We need more campaigns like 1948 where there is a clear choice for the voter. Our system is drowning in Dewey like candidates who refuse to offend anyone. No wonder people don't vote. Before you hand Karabell's book to someone else be sure to read it yourself. Love Truman or hate him, this book will help you understand him.

Rating:
Summary: A Shallow Book on a Fascinating Topic
Review: The idea of this book is the always-fascinating presidential campaign of 1948; unfortunately, the author is not the one who should have written it. His journalistic writing style is one of the best things about the book, despite some lapses (is "one of the only" now accepted usage, instead of "one of the few"?), and an occasional joke, such as the one about EF Hutton's advice to Dewey (contrary to later TV ads, Dewey failed to listen!). The author seems unfamiliar with the historical literature, and his generalizations do not hold up under scrutiny. In addition, someone should have checked the facts for the author; it appears that neither authors nor publishers any longer care about such things. Among the many errors, Strom Thurmond was first elected to the Senate in 1954, not 1952. The errors are so frequent that the reader loses confidence in the author's competency.

The main thing wrong with the book, however, is that the two theses are unsupported by any evidence and would be more convincing if they were turned around entirely. First, the author thinks Dewey, who spoke only platitudes, is the precursor of successful presidential candidates in the television age. On the contrary, the ultimate loser, Michael Dukakis, who was too "above the fray" to respond to Bush and Lee Atwater's attacks on him for such things as Willie Horton, is the only Dewey-like candidate who comes to mind. Successful candidates, such as Bill Clinton, have been much closer to the mold of Harry Truman, who was folksy, and attacked. Second, the author states that Truman's highly-partisan attacks on Dewey infuriated the Republicans to the extent that they trashed his presidency with partisanship to get even. Where's the proof, Mr. Karabell? The Republicans were highly anti-FDR before his death and extremely anti-Truman in the "good for nothing" Eightieth Congress. They had been out of power in the White House since 1932, and they lost the Congress in 1948. It was a highly partisan era of Cold War conformity, the Korean War, and McCarthyism. For a much better book on the same period, check out John Culver's recent biography of Henry Wallace, or even The Life and Times of Thomas E. Dewey, or Samuel Lubbell's classic history of the 1948 campaign.

Rating:
Summary: An entertaining Book for political Junkies
Review: The Presidential campaign of 1948 is one of the most memorable in American history.Zachary Karabell is a competent writer who gives a lively and compelling account of this memorable election.He strips away much of the mythology surrounding this election.He clearly shows us why Truman won and why it should not be so surprising that He did.Truman waged a campaign that can only be characterized as in the gutter.Dewey like Michael Dukakis forty years later suffered because of His failure to

respond to Truman's attacks.Mr. Karabell's work falls short on a number of areas mainly in His portrayal of Henry Wallace as sort of a lovable eccentric.In reality Wallace was a leading apologist for Stalin and His party was little more than a Communist front. The author's comparison of Strom Thurmond to George Wallace is on the mark but He makes a major factual error in saying that Wallace''cut His teeth''on the Dixiecrat campaign in reality the future Alabama Governor supported Truman. Karabell's central point that 1948 was the last pre-tv campaign and that we had much more representative politics then is probably accurate and that though Dewey lost He was the prototype of candidates of the television age is also right on.I agree with a previous reviewer that Karabell missed a great opportunity by not giving more attention to election night and the reactions of the candidates.While this book has many deficiencies it is still a good read especially for all of us political Junkies.

Rating:
Summary: Great prose, spotty analysis
Review: This book is readable and informative, but the author's analysis veers from solid to irrational. On the good side, Karabell vividly captures American politics circa 1948, analyzing how matters soon changed with television. He examines the strengths and weaknesses of Truman, Dewey, and third-party candidates Henry Wallace and Strom Thurmond. The author also correctly notes how Democratic support for civil rights in 1948 started the South's long slide to the Republicans. Unfortunately, Karabell is off base in claiming that a "dirty" Truman campaign led the Republicans to future slanders and McCarthyism. In reality, GOP slanders against Truman (and FDR) were already plentiful - Dewey's 1948 billboards promised to drive communists from government. Mudslinging by both parties has a long history, and dates to when Federalist John Adams and rival Thomas Jefferson were each accused of being British agents. Karabell also barely mentions the campaign's most important factor - incumbents rarely lose in times of peace and prosperity. "The Last Campaign" is is a fun read, but it's analysis is somewhat spotty.

Rating:
Summary: A good synopsis, but Karabell's colors are showing
Review: This book provides a lot of information about one of the 20th century's most fascinating elections, and it does so in a concise, accessible style. Trouble is, it never goes into much depth, and the conclusions Karabell draws about the aftermath of the election are essentially an echo of the standard Republican Party lines we've all been hearing about more recent campaigns. Karabell does try to be objective, and in places he does a good job of it. This is the first book I can recall reading that acknowledges Strom Thurmond's efforts to avoid letting his Dixiecrat campaign become too extreme, while never denying the racist he was and is. He also offers a somewhat balanced account of the question of Henry Wallace's degree of sympathy toward communists, although he can't completely resist the temptation to tag Wallace as an apologist for the pawns of Moscow, if not one himself. It would have been nice to see more focus on Wallace's stances on issues other than communism, though; there was much more to him than that. Karabell doesn't appear to have it out for Truman throughout the book; refreshingly, he acknowledges that the "liberal media" was anything but so in 1948 and that its unsparingly negative portrayal of Truman contributed to the element of surprise when he won in November. But Karabell's characterization of Truman's campaign tactics is straight out of the George W. Bush playbook: Truman's attacks on the Republican 80th Congress amounted to "class warfare," we are told, with no analysis at all of whether or not Republican policies of the day were in fact detrimental to the well being of the working class and middle class, and his "unfair" tactics led to the politically unfriendly atmosphere of his second term. Karabell implies repeatedly that such polarization was unprecedented; perhaps he wasn't aware that a decade beforehand, conservatives couldn't even bring themselves to refer to Franklin Roosevelt by his real name; or that the Red Scare of 1919-1920 had wiped out meaningful left-right debate for a decade. Speaking of redbaiting, Karabell even argues at one point that Truman's campaign style was indirectly responsible for the rise of Joe McCarthy, who apparently felt justified in destroying hundreds of lives because Truman had run against the Taft-Hartley Act and the like. (It is true that Truman's own anticommunism helped pave McCarthy's way, but that's something else entirely.) Overall, this book does a decent job as far as the basic facts are concerned, but Karabell's analysis is as wrong for 1948 as it is for 2000. It would probably warrant another star if he'd left off the final chapter.

Rating:
Summary: A Very Good, but still flawed campaign history...
Review: Truman's 1948 "Give'em Hell, Harry" campaign is legendary and the stuff of legions of books. Most political science students and history buffs generally regard it as the best presidential campaign in our history for a variety of reasons:

> Truman's come-back from certain defeat was unprecedented.

> Never, either before or since 1948, has the science of political polling and the views of opinion makers been so far off the mark, nor so scrutinized as a consequence.

> The ideological positions were varied. In addition to the liberal positions of Truman and the conservative platform of Dewey you had the more extreme states-rights, anti civil rights, posturing of the Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond, and the left of left views of Progressive Henry A Wallace.

All these points are ably developed on in THE LAST CAMPAIGN and there are also sufficient biographical sketches of the four political players. The book offers a different spin though by casting these events as a "last campaign" in terms of it being a watershed political environment. "For the last time in this century, an entire spectrum of ideologies was represented in the presidential election." While this may be true in terms of there being four different ideological positions, the author contradicts this view somewhat by showing that not only did positions shift - with Truman moving further left - but also, the extreme views on offer were in fact more rhetoric than reality.

As to why this makes this the "last campaign", the explanation offered by the author is that television quickly intruded into, and then took over the operations of political campaigns, and has rendered all campaigns since as stage managed performances that are exquisitely boring.

The book is well written and it brings the men of the moment and the times alive. The argument offered is interesting and well developed. The only problem is that it's just not that big a premise to build a book on. TV can certainly be blamed for a lot that is wrong with our culture today, but nostalgia for a simpler America is an insufficient foundation on which to make a case for the importance of THE LAST CAMPAIGN. Enjoy the book for what it is: a riveting read about the intricacies of a political campaign the likes of which we are unlikely to ever see again.