We must love each other

by Cliopatria

The recent Osama ad by the Republicans brings to mind the far more skillful Daisy ad from 1964.

But I’m here today to point attention not to the icons of fear but to the words spoken by Lyndon Johnson in the Daisy ad while the bomb explodes.

These are the stakes: To make a world in which all of God's children can live, or to go into the darkness. We must either love each other, or we must die.

“We must either love each other. . . . . “ Whether you see these words as heartfelt or cynical, in 1964 they could resonate with Americans.

Could any politician running for president now speak of loving our enemies. Would he or she not be laughed at to scorn by a howling majority?

And if I am right, what has gained, or lost, by that change?

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Oscar Chamberlain - 10/25/2006

Possibly. Maybe it is as simple as that and not a sign of fundamental change. Something in me resists that conclusion, but is that instinct or something else? I am not certain.

Kurt Niehaus - 10/25/2006

Could it be that the difference has more to do with the level of conflict? From '54 to '64 the war against Russia was pretty cold. From '96 to '06, The "war on Terror" has between 5k and 10k American Casualties.

Russ Reeves - 10/25/2006

I never realized LBJ was such a dangerous Theocrat, invoking God's name in a blatant attempt to impose morality.

Oscar Chamberlain - 10/24/2006

Yes, but LBJ's appeal suggests that fear alone is not enough. The Daisy ad contrasted fear with a glimpose of hope. Where is that glimpse in the newer ad.

Moreover, my original point is that national politicians today could not make that statement and remain viable. Johnson could.

Ralph E. Luker - 10/24/2006

Wouldn't you have to admit that both commercials appeal to fear -- rather than love, whatever the words may say -- fear of nuclear annihilation, on the one hand, and fear of terrorism, on the other.

Oscar Chamberlain - 10/24/2006

Ralph

A nuke is going off in the background. In the context of the times, that is a reference to the Soviets. They had been public enemy number 1 for well over a decade. That is what makes LBJ's so startling to me.

Ralph E. Luker - 10/24/2006

Well, I can't say that "they" did. Did Johnson appeal to our common humanity with the Viet Cong? What common humanity segregated African Americans? Or killed them when they objected?

Oscar Chamberlain - 10/24/2006

Perhaps Ralph, but did they aspire to it more then?

Ralph E. Luker - 10/24/2006

_Maybe_ the ad assumed that, Oscar, but there's little evidence that people -- American or otherwise -- are more inclined to love each other because of their common humanity in 1964 than in 2006 or 1864.

Oscar Chamberlain - 10/24/2006

That could be the source from the speechwriter's perspective, but I don't think LBJ was playing upon popular familiarity with Auden. Instead the ad assumes that many Americans believed then in a common humanity that included their enemies as well as themselves.

Alan Allport - 10/24/2006

Johnson's speechwriters were, of course, recycling a line from the much-mined Auden poem September 1, 1939. The poet later disassociated himself from what had become one of his most famous phrases ("Well that's a damned lie! We must die anyway.")

Ed Schmitt - 10/24/2006

Interesting observations Oscar. Of course what Johnson said could easily be dismissed as empty rhetoric on the basis of other things he did to his enemies, but as soundbite rhetoric it is compellingly different. Nevertheless, I just watched that ad over the weekend as part of a collection of TV political ads that recently became available on a site called earthstation1.com (I get no royalties here, they've just got a lot of great material and I think I may have singled-handedly kept them afloat). I always thought the daisy ad would have been more skillful, however, if the voice counting down from 10 didn't sound so much like Johnson's.