What The Election of 1952 Tells Us About Social Media's Failure

What The Election of 1952 Tells Us About Social Media's Failure to Grow Political Influence of the Average American

In 1952, the United States elected in a landslide the first Republican President in 20 years. How he arrived at that role is more fascinating than what he did when he got there.

POLITICS VS. PUBLIC SERVICE

In 1952, long before computers and social media, and for some, long before television - there was a social campaign underway. It was the Draft Eisenhower campaign, and it was the first successful political draft of the 20th Century.

Eisenhower stated many, many times that he didn't want to run for President. He was content as a general and hero of WWII. Even President Truman, convinced that Eisenhower would run as a Democrat, tried to press him to run, all the while he replied with a resounding "no".

So people who believed he would be a great President tried a different approach - they would get the people to demand it.

This was a different era - politics was still seen as a "public service", that Eisenhower himself said he would not feel comfortable turning down if the American People determined he would be the best man for the job.

So how would they be able to convince a man, in a era with no social media or quick communication, that the people wanted him?

I LIKE IKE

The TV show Mad Men outlines some pretty impressive old school marketing tactics. They likely didn't mention that the very type of marketing they described was used to help elect a President.

"I Like Ike" (named after Eisenhower's nickname, Ike), was a grassroots movement that became a symbol of the efforts to drive Eisenhower to run - developed by a marketing businessman who later became Secretary of Commerce under Nixon. It was launched in 1951 by a few Republican Governors and Senators, but was fueled by a citizenry who was passionately in favor of America's last wartime hero who purchased the merchandise like candy.

Still, Eisenhower rejected calls to run. Instead, the Democrats and Republicans were still moving forward with their candidates as expected.

Then, in January of 1952, Eisenhower's name was added to the New Hampshire Republican Primary - without his permission and with no marketing or fanfare.

24 Newspapers soon endorsed Eisenhower, including the New York Times, despite having not announced a bid to run. Millions of Americans purchased I Like Ike paraphernalia (sounds like Make America Great Again hats of 2016), driving forward the notion that "Ike" was the people's candidate.

"SERENADE TO IKE"

Even with all of this, Eisenhower didn't believe the hype. He thought the media was exaggerating. After all, you couldn't track likes and metrics in 1952. How did he know it wasn't just the elites pressuring him?

The I Like Ike movement held a massive rally in Madison Square Garden - at the time a capacity of 16,000 - and 25,000 Americans showed up to show their support, refusing to leave even when the Fire Marshall asked them to leave. Famous businesswoman and aviator Jacqueline Cochran flew to Paris a few days later to show Eisenhower Serenade to Ike, a tribute film she had made - ending with a toast "To the President of the United States.

Then, in March, having not campaigned or spent any money, Eisenhower beat his Republican Primary opponent Robert A. Taft 50% to 38% in the New Hampshire primary (his opponent had spent precious time and money there). A few days later, he received 106,000 write in votes (some as Isenhowr or just "Ike") in Minnesota, only 20,000 behind the on-ballot candidate in the State.

Eisenhower was now convinced - the people did want him. The movement was real. The rest, as they say, is history.

SOCIAL MEDIA'S POTENTIAL

Social Media is often praised as a way to connect people. A way to deliver ideas more rapidly. Some argue so far as to say that Social Media has reshaped the political climate, and led to major changes in how politicians campaign, how entertainers entertain, and how people interact.

People will cite the ability of "sharing" memes and statuses throughout the internet, which can garner hundreds of thousands of likes and build a narrative, as evidence that people have more of a voice now than they ever had before.

But how much of that voice is actually reaching its target? How much have Americans really seen their ability to change their fates expand tangibly through Social Media?

In 1952, long before social media, millions proved that Americans as a unified voice could change the Country. 106,000 people woke up in Minnesota and wrote in a candidate who wasn't even on the ballot.

Why was that? Was it because there weren't hundreds of comments on Social Media telling people that their vote was "wasted"? Was it because people were more aware of civics, or just more willing to be involved? Was it because people had to communicate more in person, and thus ideas could still permeate in a very different way?

Even with social media and ubiquitous TV sets, third party candidates, let alone "drafted candidates", have immense trouble raising awareness.

People will argue that Ike had the establishment behind him, so of COURSE it was easy for the idea of him running could permeate - today, the establishment holds back independent ideas. But therein lies the problem - the promise of social media was supposed to be independent information.

How is social media useful, if it can't even evolve our ability to communicate and affect change beyond what we could 60 years ago?

WHAT WENT WRONG?

In 1952, the American People, sparked by an idea, fueled an 8-year Presidency. Today, ideas are generated on social media every single day, but are unable to gain traction. Those that do, are polarized and dismissed.

There are hollow echoes of similar activity today - President-Elect Trump's rallies and usage of social media to directly reach the people, being two of them - but they are often misunderstood and manipulated by those who want to rebrand the messages for their own purposes.

The issue lies in the very nature of social media. The Average American citizen isn't aware - but on things like Facebook and Twitter, THEY are the product. They want users to feel comfortable so that they keep coming back. People don't typically come back if they are challenged - they come back if they see things they agree with.

This is why, today, even though we have the tools as American citizens to do what we did in 1952, without the backing of the establishment - we won't. We can't agree on doing it, let alone how to do it.

Perhaps if civics hadn't been all but abandoned prior to social media's rise, we would see a much different situation. Then again, perhaps even with civic awareness, social media itself is the cause, not the symptom, of the current political disconnect. Would America of 1952 have been more or less likely to nominate Ike if social media had existed back then? Or would everyone have talked each other out of it?

We can never answer that question, but hopefully, with the internet entering it's mature phase and people becoming more aware of fake news, we will start to see a shift back towards awareness - in spite of our own desires to remain in the bliss of our own echo chambers.
------------------------------