Photo via Getty Images/Hulton Archive

Voices & Opinion

POV: Distrusting Election Results? We’ve Been Here Before

Kennedy-Nixon in 1960 prompted similar questions about “stolen” election

As we stagger toward our rendezvous with destiny on November 5, anxiety levels among Americans from all political stripes are reaching dizzying, SpaceX kind of heights. For if, as Abraham Lincoln once famously put it, a house divided against itself cannot stand, what are our chances as a nation moving forward with the increasing likelihood that half of the electorate will not accept the final legitimate results of the upcoming presidential election? Can you say civil breakdown, anyone? According to many political observers and national security experts, such fears are not hyperbolic or easily dismissable.

“Many of the same sources of instability and grievances that precipitated the January 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol (along with other challenges to the outcome of the last election) remain present today,” wrote research fellow Jacob Ware in a contingency planning memorandum for the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations not so long ago. “And, while the risk of far-right election-related violence is greater, the possibility of far-left extremist violence cannot be dismissed. Such violence threatens individual lives and the domestic stability of the country.” Too alarmist? Maybe an example from the annals of not-too-distant American presidential election history can throw some much-needed light on the subject.

Back in 1960, there were many serious questions raised about the narrow electoral victory Democratic nominee John F. Kennedy had eked out over his Republican opponent—then–Vice President Richard M. Nixon. Rumors abounded about serious irregularities existing in the final vote counts in Illinois and Texas—two states with long-standing notoriously corrupt Democratic political machines that were believed responsible for putting Kennedy over the top in the Electoral College. Adding grist to this “stolen election” narrative, longtime Chicago mayor and presidential kingmaker, Richard Daley, reportedly called Kennedy in Hyannis Port on election night and cryptically informed him that with “a little help from our friends, you will take Illinois.”

No less than Dwight Eisenhower, Nixon’s boss in the White House, encouraged his longtime political understudy to request a formal investigation. He “had to decide whether to contest the results,” Nixon’s press secretary, Herb Klein, later confirmed. “We talked about it, and Nixon decided that it would disrupt the country too much were he to contest, and that it would take a long time, and leave the country in turmoil.” A healthy dose of political self-interest also came into play. “And,” Nixon wrote in his memoirs nearly two decades later, “what if I demanded a recount and it turned out that despite the voter fraud Kennedy still won? Charges of ‘sore loser’ would follow me through history and remove any possibility of a further political career.” After carefully weighing these factors, Nixon opted to throw in the towel and send Kennedy a telegram of concession. 

There were no riots in the streets. No calls to tear down the federal government. No spear-carrying “QAnon Shaman” desecrating the halls of Congress with a mob of like-minded insurrectionists looking like they came from the pages of Lord of the Flies. Most important of all, no blood spilled. Only a respectable adherence to the peaceful transfer of power and the rule of law. Which is not to say, however, that bitter private feelings did not exist. “I had been through some pretty rough campaigns in the past,” Nixon reflected in his memoir, “but compared to the others, going into the 1960 campaign was like moving from the minor to the major leagues, I had an efficient, totally dedicated, well-financed, and highly motivated organization. But we were faced by an organization…that was led by the most ruthless group of political operators ever mobilized for a presidential campaign.”

Ruthless or not, the man long derided as “Tricky Dick” did the right thing. We can only hope a certain ex-president who has a well-established track record of spreading lies and disinformation will do the same in the coming weeks if the results don’t go his way.

Our future as the world’s leading democracy may depend on it.

 Thomas Whalen, a College of General Studies associate professor of social sciences, can be reached at tjw64@bu.edu.

“POV” is an opinion page that provides timely commentaries from students, faculty, and staff on a variety of issues: on-campus, local, state, national, or international. Anyone interested in submitting a piece, which should be about 700 words long, should contact today@bu.edu. BU Today reserves the right to reject or edit submissions. The views expressed are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent the views of Boston University.