Menu
Share
Share this story
Close X
 
Switch to Desktop Site

Sifting the meaning of election '80

About these ads

Portrait of an Election: The 1980 Presidential Campaign, by Elizabeth Drew. New York: Simon & Schuster. 459 pp. $14.95. The Hidden Election: Politics and Economics in the 1980 Presidential Campaign , edited by Thomas Ferguson and Joel Rogers. New York: Pantheon Books. 320 pp. $ 16.50.

Americans are forever political optimists. Although they say they don't have much faith in their elected leaders, they do feel down deep that things will get better. The domestic economic crisis will abate; international frictions will lessen; their personal lot will improve.

And it's almost as if journalists and academic commentators on current events feel it is their duty to jolt the public from its euphoria and naivete and remind them that all is not well in Camelot - and furthermore it never was and never will be.

Elizabeth Drew's recounting of the 1980 presidential campaign, although precise and painstakingly researched, would appear to come almost too late. With the Reagan administration heading for the homestretch of its first year, a spate of books by newsmen and others have already chronicled how Jimmy Carter lost and Ronald Reagan won.

Miss Drew - whose piercing essays in The New Yorker are well known - does add some new on-the-scene anecdotes. And she portrays the Republican standard-bearer and now White House occupant as a ''candidate of imagination who appeals to people's resentments''; analyzes the former president as one who ''lifts no spirits, kindles no imagination, does not get people thinking in new ways''; and reminds readers that they really didn't want - or trust - either candidate.

Even with all of the above, the Drew book just adds to already existing election analyses. Adding a bit of fresh frosting to what is pretty much stale cake is a series of heretofore unpublished strategy memorandums prepared for Reagan and Carter by their pollsters, Richard Wirthlin and Patrick Caddell. These confidential and brutally frank evaluations and position papers told the candidates just what their personal and political weaknesses were during the course of the campaign.

Next

Page:   1   |   2


Follow Stories Like This
Get the Monitor stories you care about delivered to your inbox.

Loading...