Since research for this book was completed, another presidential election has transpired. Few would rank 1996 as a landmark in the history of American presidential contests. Nonetheless, readers may wonder how the speeches and platforms of this contest fit into the larger arguments of the book. Did the rhetorical battle between Bob Dole, the Republican nominee, and the incumbent Democrat, Bill Clinton, constitute a departure from established ideological traditions, or more of the same?

My argument will highlight the persistence of an ideological status quo harking back to the 1920s (for the Republicans) and the 1950s (for the Democrats). Dole will be viewed as an exemplar of Republican Neoliberalism, and Clinton of Democratic Universalism, discussed respectively in chapters 4 and 7. Of course, both candidates also adhered to certain partisan convictions that predate these twentieth-century transformations. In this limited sense, Dole and Clinton will be viewed as avatars of more distant ideological legacies stretching back to the nineteenth century.

The Republican Campaign

On the Republican side, the argument for continuity seems inexorable. Even journalistic accounts emphasized the Republican nominee's long career in Congress and his personal ties to the past. Indeed, Dole's age (he turned seventy-three during the campaign) provided a constant source of amusement for late-night comics through the course of an otherwise unamusing and unremarkable contest. Dole was acutely conscious of his weakness on the age/virility issue, choosing for his running mate a former football quarterback from the baby-boomer generation, Jack Kemp.