Robert Mann is a professor of mass communication at Louisiana State University and the author of Daisy Petals and Mushroom Clouds: LBJ, Barry Goldwater and the Spot that Changed American Politics. Zack Stanton is the digital editor of Politico Magazine.

It’s rare for a political ad to go viral, and rarer yet for an ad 52 years old, but that’s just what happened in March with “Confessions of a Republican.” The theme of the spot from Lyndon Johnson's 1964 campaign was eerily contemporary: a young actor talking about how his lifelong identification with the GOP was just shaken by an extreme nominee who “scares me.” “When the head of the Ku Klux Klan, when all these weird groups, come out in favor of the candidate of my party — either they’re not Republicans, or I’m not,” he says.

“Confessions” was a linchpin of perhaps the most influential ad campaign in political history, a creative, theatrical attack by Democrats on the disruptive right-wing Republican candidacy of Barry Goldwater. Before 1964, political ads were staid, awkward scenes — short speeches read on-camera. But LBJ's ad campaign was the political equivalent of Sgt. Pepper’s, a masterwork that changed what people thought possible from the medium. Fears of nuclear radiation were related by showing a child eating ice cream. One spot showed Klansmen burning a cross as a drawling voice-over read a KKK endorsement of Goldwater. Another began evocatively with a nighttime landing of Air Force One — the return flight from Dallas after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination. Another is arguably the most famous ad in political history, “Daisy,” in which a young girl in a sunny meadow counting petals is menaced by the mushroom cloud of a nuclear bomb. “Vote for President Johnson on November 3rd. The stakes are too high for you to stay home,” intoned the announcer. The New York Times called it “probably the most controversial TV commercial of all time.”


The 2016 race has drawn any number of comparisons with 1964: a divisive Republican nominee who steamrolled his party’s anointed leaders; a Democratic candidate who is the living embodiment of the establishment; an anxious public agitated by threats abroad and unrest at home.

So how would the geniuses behind LBJ’s ads run a campaign against the disruptive, unpredictable Donald Trump? Politico Magazine called two members of LBJ’s ad team: Sid Myers, former art director at Doyle Dane Bernbach, the campaign’s advertising firm; and Lloyd Wright, the Democratic National Committee’s media coordinator during the 1964 race. In a conversation moderated by Robert Mann, author of Daisy Petals and Mushroom Clouds: LBJ, Barry Goldwater, and the Ad That Changed American Politics, these ad men told us why they ended up respecting Goldwater, how Hillary Clinton could use Trump’s comments about Mexicans against him, and whether 2016 will have its own “Daisy” ad. Their conversation is presented below in an edited form.

***

Robert Mann: What similarities do you see between 2016 and 1964, the election you both went through?

Lloyd Wright: Risk — the high risk involved. In ’64, the risk was Goldwater’s inadequate recognition of the nuclear threat. He called it ‘just another weapon,’ and we felt that was not quite adequate to describe the potential damage of a nuclear war. And this year, the risk is that Trump lacks knowledge and comprehension of just about every issue you can think of.

Sid Myers: Trump, like Goldwater, has taken the Republican Party hostage. He’s just taking it so far out of the mainstream — not that it was all that mainstream to begin with.

Lloyd: Another similarity is the potential for overconfidence that Trump will be stopped. Just like all of Trump’s opponents for the nomination didn't give him much of a chance, there appears to be shock that he made it all the way through — and that could lead the Democratic ticket to inadequately focus on getting out the vote.

Robert: What are the inherent advantages and disadvantages of running against a guy who has no experience, and has never held public office?

Lloyd: My opinion is that Trump is suffering from what I call “Attention-Seeking Deficit Disorder.” He doesn’t want to serve. He doesn’t want to be president; he wants the attention that accompanies the campaign. And now, I think he’s rather afraid that he might win. [Laughs] I don't think he knows what he’s going to do as president.

I never had that same view about Goldwater. While we felt strongly that he was not adequately concerned about nuclear proliferation, he had some solid views — views I respected, and which would have enabled him to be an effective president.

Sid: For the purposes of campaigning, Trump’s statements of policy are almost like a voting record. Goldwater’s congressional experience and his statements of policy are what we attacked, and you would attack Trump’s statements just like we attacked Goldwater.

Lloyd: Goldwater’s record made it easy to campaign against him. His policies were so well-known that when you had an ad like the “Daisy Girl” spot, you didn't have even mention his name, because the public knew who it was referencing. And that was true of so many of the spots that we ran, which were done with such great creativity.



We’d just take his comments and we’d illustrate them. That was so enormously effective, but that was all based on awareness of what Goldwater had said or done. Goldwater held firm and consistent views. But Trump doesn't seem to have a firm view about anything.

Robert: Could that undermine part of his central appeal — the notion that he speaks his mind?

Sid: Trump doesn’t “speak his mind”; he speaks what his mind thinks will get him the most votes, wherever that may be.

Lloyd: He says what he thinks people want to hear, and he can change it — and does change it — often. And that leaves him vulnerable to illustrating, actually, his egomania and pandering. I view him almost as a con artist, and that’s how he cons people: if they are of an opinion that he says he believes, they don’t seem to question the substance of what he says.

Robert: Part of Goldwater’s demise was that he wouldn't backtrack; he would double-down on his crazier statements. And now that it’s time for the general election, Trump is trying to moderate his image and soften it a little bit. Goldwater made it easy for you in that he didn't try to change his position as much as Trump presumably will. So if you’re Hillary, how do you respond to that?

Lloyd: I’m thinking of our “Confessions of a Republican” spot, which was 4 minutes long. It basically took something Goldwater said once and then later said the exact opposite. Then we asked the question “Did he mean that when he said it, or did he mean it when he said, ‘I didn't mean it like that?’”



Sid: Trump is waffling on the abortion issue, on taxing the wealthy, on Planned Parenthood — he keeps going back and forth. Where does the real Trump stand, where is he?

Lloyd: Trump has had so many flip-flops that I don't think anyone knows what Trump actually believes or what he really thinks. It's all momentary and comes from seeking approval.

Robert: There’s a lot about Trump that hasn’t yet been used in negative ads. Many of Goldwater’s Republican opponents held their fire in the primaries because they either were afraid or didn’t take him seriously enough — which made it easier for you to beat him in the general. Is 2016 like 1964 in that respect?

Sid: I think that the Clinton campaign has a whole trove on Trump that they're holding back. You know, it is very tough for the Republicans to attack him — they don't want to destroy the whole structure of the Republican Party by damaging the guy so badly that there would be negative thoughts in voters’ heads about their problemed party.

Robert: I'm thinking of the spot that you produced that recycled all the attacks against Goldwater that had been made by other Republicans, like [William] Scranton and [Nelson] Rockefeller. Do you see the spot like that — reusing Republican leaders’ earlier attacks on Trump — being effective against Trump?

Lloyd: Oh, I do.

Sid: Oh yeah, yeah.

Lloyd: I think that’s one of the more effective spots that we did, and the creativity of that ad really impressed me. They actually recreated the residue of the Republican convention — all these signs and posters of the candidates, and then you simply have their quotes against Goldwater. It was very, very effective. And I think Trump has created an almost-overload of marvelous opportunities to replicate that kind of approach.

Sid: Yes, but they have to be done in a creative way where people will remember them. You can't just say it; you have to do it in a way that's memorable.

Robert: How do you feel about the level of creativity you're seeing in ads in this campaign?

Sid: I think the ads are kinda ordinary. They need to look at the problem from five degrees off-center, which makes the approach fresh and memorable. Instead, they're just enunciating, and not saying it in a very creative manner.

Robert: Is there any other advice you’d give Clinton about taking on Trump?

Sid: I’m not going to give away my secrets. [Laughter] If they want to know, they can hire me.

Lloyd: I think they’re headed in the right direction. They need to use voices — others’ voices — to express Hillary’s concerns and her point of view, rather than having the candidate do it. She’d be better off just campaigning and not spending a lot of time getting dragged into a debate with Trump.

Sid: Instead of having Hillary just stand in front of the camera as a talking head, they should do what we did — really, just illustrate what Goldwater said.

When he said the United States would be better off if we sawed off the Eastern Seaboard and let it float out to sea, we just illustrated that and showed how ridiculous that was. We had a hand come out of the water and saw off the Eastern Seaboard, which just crunches off and flows out. The image was so ridiculous that it just showed how ridiculous his thinking was.



Lloyd: The “Eastern Seaboard” ad is a perfect example of that. Who would even think about visualizing Goldwater’s comment about sawing off the Eastern Seaboard? I think that same technique would work today.

Sid: If you visually showed 11 million Mexicans being deported from this country in trucks, I think that would be unbelievable. Just show how ridiculous Trump’s statement is. Rather than just say it, show it visually. It's much more impactful.

Lloyd: I think Trump’s whole message — “Make America Great Again!” — is laden with racial undertones: "How could America be great with a black president?" Racism is still very prevalent, in my view.

“I’m going to build a great wall! I’m the greatest wall builder there is!” If you build a wall, you’d almost have to tear down the Statue of Liberty and ship it back to France. That image could be a powerful ad, because it is so diametrically opposed to the principles and qualities that have consistently been identified with the United States of America.

Sid: Right. That’s the key. Because you can say something, but if you visualize it, you can show how ludicrous it is.

Lloyd: Exactly.

Sid: Like loading up thousands of buses with 11 million Mexicans, and having a line of trucks from El Paso to Dallas going across the border. I mean, it’s so ludicrous.

Robert: I want to ask about technique. Back in 1964, a lot of your work allowed time for the message to sink in. The viewer wasn’t barraged with 50 images in a minute; they were given time to marinate. Do you think that kind of approach would work today, or has media changed so much that that kind of approach would seem outdated?

Sid: No, I think it would be refreshing to go back to a simpler way of doing it.

Lloyd: I think it would, yeah.

Sid: Now, with computer-generated images, your eyes and senses are assaulted. I think going back to a simpler way would be refreshing.

Robert: Do you think it would have been different to run against Goldwater if Twitter had been around back in 1964?

Sid: It would’ve been much easier than it was then! [Laughter]

Lloyd: I think Goldwater would’ve had more sense than to use Twitter back then if it had existed. Trump, with this need for attention, he can’t resist. It’s a theory I had a long time ago: means will seek the ends to pursue. He thinks “I’ve got the means, I’m going to do it!”

Sid: Actually, it was pretty easy to run against him. The DNC gave us this big blue book of all of Goldwater’s comments, all of his voting record. We did 23 commercials from April through October, and we could’ve done 100 more if we had the time.

Robert: What would Goldwater think about Trump?

Lloyd and Sid: [In unison] I don’t think he would like him. [Laughter]

Sid: I mean, Goldwater for all he was, he was a decent guy — he was a nice man, he wasn’t a con artist. He had terrible ideas, but he was a decent guy.

Lloyd: Yeah, I think Goldwater would’ve found Trump’s lack of commitment and his lust for attention far beyond his acceptance.

Robert: Both of you came to respect Goldwater, right?

Lloyd: I did.

Sid: Yeah, yeah.

Lloyd: I admired his conduct in many ways. Of course, I disagreed with him very strongly on major issues.

Sid: Absolutely. He was authentic. He wasn’t a con artist. Don’t forget that Trump is a real-estate salesman — he’ll tell you anything that he wants in order to close the deal.

Robert: In talking to both of you when I was conducting research for my book, it seemed that you had a sense that if Goldwater were elected, the office would have sobered him up and moderated him to a degree. Do you think that’s the case with Trump?

Sid: No. Trump has not gone through the process of negotiation on policy and having people tell him, “no, you can’t do that.” He’s the boss, and he’s not used to taking “no” for an answer.

Lloyd: I don’t think the office would moderate Trump in any way. He’s so full of himself, I don’t think he has any idea that he even needs to be moderated.

I remember Muhammad Ali used to say “I am the greatest.” But Muhammad Ali understood that he was only saying that as part of a promotional campaign. Trump actually believes he is the greatest, and will not abide any questioning about how great he is.

Robert: From very early on, all the evidence suggested that Goldwater was not all that viable. He was probably a dead duck; you just needed to cement an image in voters’ minds. Is that the situation with Trump — that all the parts are there, and Hillary just needs to cement that image of Trump?

Lloyd: I think so, and that’s where creativity comes in.

Sid: There’s plenty of opportunity there, it just needs to be done in an effective and original way.

Robert: Aside from using Johnson’s voice a couple times, you never showed Johnson in the ads. Why did you make that choice, and is there something Hillary can learn from that approach?

Sid: I think they just wanted President Johnson to be above the fray. They just wanted him to be presidential, and not get down in the muck of the presidential race. Keep him in the White House, and let other people speak for him.

Robert: Does Hillary need to wade into it, or would that approach work for her?

Lloyd: Bill [Moyers, LBJ’s special assistant] and I did not believe Johnson was a very effective communicator on television. He was enormously effective in a one-on-one discussion with anybody, but he was not comfortable in front of a TV camera.

We were concerned throughout the campaign that the ads be done in a way that would enable him to enter the office with high respect. We had to deal both with the personalities of the two candidates, and also with the public perception of the state of the nation following the Kennedy assassination. We felt it better to just address the issues and keep Johnson in a presidential posture.

For Hillary, it has the potential of reinforcing the negative image of her. The misogyny that exists in the country is still quite real.

Robert: One thing that is different about this year is that in ’64, Johnson had a clear shot to the nomination. He was able to go into the general election with the Democratic Party more united than it is today. How does Hillary Clinton try to win over Bernie Sanders’ supporters? How might Trump appeal to those supporters?

Lloyd: My current view is that while Bernie Sanders says he's going to stay in all the way to the convention, I think most of his supporters will ultimately switch to Clinton.

Sid: I think Bernie’s going to come around. He has to — to borrow a line from our campaign, “the stakes are too high.” This election is going to set the course of the nation for a generation. It’s extremely, extremely important, and we have to get these people out to vote. Democrats can't get complacent because look what happened — nobody thought Trump would go anywhere.

Lloyd: My suggestion for Hillary and her crew is to run scared. They need to do everything they can to get out the vote. There may be room for some education about what Republicans are doing and have done to try and limit the vote, which runs contrary to the genius of this nation.

Campaigns present an enormous opportunity to educate the public about issues that the winner of the campaign will prioritize. So we did that. When I first saw the ad about poverty, I had concerns about whether the public would stay with it. They did. … And it was all part of setting up support for a Great Society initiative that Johnson called the “War on Poverty.”



The campaign used that spot in a way to enable more legislation to be passed if we won. You can use the campaign to establish a climate that can result in significant legislative initiatives.

Robert: Is there a “Daisy Girl” spot out there waiting to be made? Is there something out there that’s so explosive — and I use that word in the figurative sense — to have that same impact?

Sid: If they hire me, I’ll let you know. [Laughter]

Lloyd: There’s so many of ideas that I’ve actually found myself running to the typewriter and writing a spot!

Sid: I think there’s something out there that can be an iconic ad in this campaign. I’m sure that some point before November, Trump will rear his ugly head and say something really ridiculous.

Robert: Sid, I gather that you wouldn’t run the other way if the Clinton campaign or an anti-Trump PAC came to you and said “come work for us.” You wouldn’t mind getting back in the scrum on this?

Sid: I’ve got a bag full of ideas already. [Laughter]

Lloyd: If they ask, I hope Sid responds to ‘em. I’m too feeble nowadays.

Sid: I’ve got a group all set up! I’ve got all the senior creative people — a whole group ready for that.

Robert: You would really like to do that?

Sid: Oh, yeah! Are you kidding me? It’s like an old fire horse hearing the bell go off.

Lloyd: I tell you what, I’d have more confidence in success for Hillary if Sid joined their effort.