AP Photo Postscript John Glenn, Hero and Political Cautionary Tale The American icon’s presidential run offered a lesson that political insiders still keep missing.

Jeff Greenfield is a five-time Emmy-winning network television analyst and author.

John Glenn was a man of many parts: a hero-aviator in World War II and Korea, with 149 combat missions; the hero-astronaut who became the first American to orbit the earth; a four-term US Senator who—after two abortive attempts at office—became the most popular political figure in Ohio. Ed Rendell, who chaired the ill-fated Gore campaign of 2000, insisted afterward that, had the campaign been willing to fund a statewide televised appeal from Glenn, Gore might well have won the state, and with it the White House. From my travels with him during Robert Kennedy’s 1968 campaign, I can add the fact that he was a boon companion with a subtle sense of humor.

From a political perspective, however, John Glenn’s real significance comes not from his many successes, but from his most memorable failure: his campaign for the Presidency in 1984. That campaign offered a lesson that most people in the political universe have failed to learn over and over again, most definitely including this last train wreck.


When Glenn entered the race in 1983, he was seen as a major contender for the nomination, and the Democrats’ most credible alternative to President Ronald Reagan. Movie-star handsome, with military credentials to insulate himself from his party’s perceived weakness on national security, he was a political heavyweight from a key battleground state. By November, the CBS/New York Times poll showed him only eight points behind former vice-president Walter Mondale.

In addition, Glenn was about to receive what almost everyone in the politisphere saw as a pearl of great price: the release of a movie, “The Right Stuff," which celebrated the pioneering bravery of Glenn and his fellow Mercrury astronauts. As New York Times reporter (and future editor) Howell Raines put it, “the newly released film…with its portrayal of Glenn as an astronaut hero, has given his campaign a publicity send-off unlike any in the annals of Presidential politics.”

And then they started actually voting. In the Iowa caucuses, Glenn finished fifth. In New Hampshire, he came in a distant third, with less than 12 per cent of the vote. He did no better than fourth in any of the “Super Tuesday” states that were supposed to be his strongest.

What happened? Part of the reason is that the icon with the American-hero story was less than inspiring as a speaker. This shortcoming was on display as far back as 1976, when he was being considered as a possible Carter running mate, and his keynote speech at the Democratic convention proved downright enervating. As Dave Barry described Glenn’s charisma: “he couldn’t electrify a fish tank if he threw a toaster into it.”

The more serious—and, as it proved, politically fatal—problem was that it just wasn't clear what John Glenn stood for. He and his campaign described him as a “centrist,” and over the years, he’d broken with key Democratic interest groups on a number of occasions: Jews didn't like his vote to sell aircraft to Saudi Arabia; labor didn't like his opposition to one of their pet pieces of legislation; liberals did not like the fact that he’d voted for Reagan’s first tax cut plan.

To pundits, those votes might have added up to centrism. What they did not add up to, however, was any coherent argument on behalf of his candidacy as an alternative to front-runner Walter Mondale. As it turned out, nearly half the party was looking for just such an alternative voice; and when Colorado Sen. Gary Hart, with his “New Ideas” pitch, came in second to Mondale in Iowa—albeit a far distant second—that segment of the party turned to him as the “not-Mondale.” Hart won a landside victory in New Hampshire, and a spate of other primaries before Mondale rallied the traditional bases of the party and—with the help of several Hart missteps—went on to win the nomination.

And that movie? It turned out to be not an asset, but a liability for Glenn, reminding people of what they already knew about him. It celebrated an achievement more than two decades old, and offered no reason at all to see him as a potential President.

There were important lessons from that failed campaign that resonate—or ought to resonate—today. A candidate without a compelling, thematically consistent message is at an enormous disadvantage. Attributes that political insiders see as powerful assets may turn out to be irrelevant to an electorate looking for something new.

John Glenn was a genuine hero; a man of physical bravery and of good heart. He exemplified the idea that politics could be a noble profession. But as a Presidential candidate, he provides a cautionary guide: When you try to measure the strength and weakness of candidates before voters have a chance to weigh in, you are likely to be eating a large measure of crow once the votes have been counted.

