In comments andrew patiently reminds us he has previously pointed to Andrew Cayton’s lament that historians “leave the world of emotion to novelists, poets, and filmmakers.”1 While this is perhaps true, it is not only historians who have made this shift to bloodlessness. This discussion began with an example from the 1960s. Here are a few more, which I use in lectures.
Lyndon Johnson:
“We must either love each other, or we must die.”
Robert Kennedy:
“What we need in the United States is not violence, and lawlessness, but is love, and wisdom, and compassion toward one another.”
… and, yes, even Richard Nixon; check out what’s on the screen as he pledges “an honorable end to the war in Vietnam.”
“Love.”
I don’t think we get this use of the l-word, as a social virtue and a human motive, in presidential rhetoric these days.
1Considering that historians leave the world of quantity to the economists and political scientists, one wonders more and more what we have left.
The Edge of the American West 
16 comments
May 23, 2010 at 8:23 am
kevin
So Professor Frink was right? The missing ingredient really was love?
Well, I’ll be damned.
May 23, 2010 at 8:27 am
Jonathan Rees
Eric:
Those videos are wonderful. I’ve used the “Daisy Ad” before but hadn’t thought of the other two, let alone thought of looking for them. Would you consider sharing some more selections from your YouTube favorites pages that haven’t been posted on this blog in recent memory?
May 23, 2010 at 8:39 am
Urk
“I don’t think we get this use of the l-word, as a social virtue and a human motive, in presidential rhetoric these days.”
Nor in popular rhetoric, which is probably the “A” from which the “B” above follows.
May 23, 2010 at 8:41 am
eric
Would you consider sharing some more selections from your YouTube favorites pages that haven’t been posted on this blog in recent memory?
I would! I just have to, you know, get around to it.
May 23, 2010 at 9:21 am
NickS
I recently watched a documentary about Shirley Chisholm’s run in the ’72 democratic primary. The thing that struck me most was the degree to which, on the campaign trail, she sounded like somebody who has committed themself to something without knowing how it’s going to end.
I hear that, as well, in Robert Kennedy’s remarks. He doesn’t sound like somebody who wants or expects the world (and politics) to be predictable. He speaks with the awareness that all he can do is react to the moment, and he cannot control what will happen next.
Politics isn’t like that now.
May 23, 2010 at 9:44 am
Ben Alpers
“People say, how can I help on this war against terror? How can I fight evil? You can do so by mentoring a child; by going into a shut-in’s house and say I love you.” George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2002
“See, we love, we love freedom. That’s what they didn’t understand. They hate things; we love things. They act out of hatred; we don’t seek revenge, we seek justice out of love.” George W. Bush, Oklahoma City, Aug. 29, 2002
May 23, 2010 at 9:52 am
Ben Alpers
For presidential campaign commercials, a great online source is The Living Room Candidate.
I used a ton of these spots in a course I recently taught on the history of conservatism.
May 23, 2010 at 9:57 am
Vance
By 2002, in other words, Love may still be invoked, but only in bizarre and unserious ways. In the first of those quotations from W, the problem is that his prescription, while wise, is not a way to defeat the enemy out there, but a way to free our lives from the fear of the enemy — that is, it was manifestly contrary to his purposes. (The second quotation is just plain false.)
May 23, 2010 at 10:14 am
andrew
Considering that historians leave the world of quantity to the economists and political scientists, one wonders more and more what we have left.
Quality?
May 23, 2010 at 10:57 am
kevin
Ben’s right — George W. Bush was all about the love:
“Too many good OB/GYN’s aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country!”
May 23, 2010 at 11:55 am
eric
I’m with Vance. You can do this, and you don’t just get Reggie Love, but it’s not the same use of the word.
May 23, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Ben Alpers
Just to be clear: I totally agree that Bush’s uses of “love” were both different from the one’s eric sites in his post….and rather bizarre. I did think it was interesting that he used it on occasion. And not just to indicate that he liked something a lot (which is what you get by googling “love” and “Whitehouse.gov.”) In Dubya’s case, I think “love” was connected to his odd (and politicized) religious commitments, and however contradictory and weird those two quotations above were, I can’t honestly say that Bush didn’t mean what he said (so I have a hard time simply dismissing them as “unserious”).
May 23, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Vance
I’ll grant you that he was sincere, thus in that sense not “unserious”. But beyond mere bizarreness, I was trying to point out the (different) detachment of those two quotes from reality — trust you’ll agree on that.
By the way, Ben, are you blocking my attempts to comment on your blog? Or am I having browser problems?
May 23, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Ben Alpers
We’re certainly not blocking you from commenting, Vance! I just checked and there are no comments awaiting moderation, so blogger isn’t blocking you either. So my guess is it’s a browser problem. I hope you figure it out, ’cause we’d love you (and more Edge of the American West regulars) to comment over there!
May 23, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Vance
Thanks, I’ll try it with Chrome. I warn you though — my comment will be awfully innocuous.
May 24, 2010 at 5:28 am
Anderson
“Love” used to have a Biblical connotation that audiences in the 1960s were more attuned to. “God is love,” “faith, hope, and love” (RSV), “love your neighbor as yourself,” etc.