With support from the University of Richmond

History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.

PBS Roundtable: Beschloss, Smith & Fitzpatrick on history behind the NH primary

JIM LEHRER: Now, a longer perspective on the events of this day, and to Jeffrey Brown for that.

JEFFREY BROWN: And for that, I'm joined by our panel of presidential historians, Michael Beschloss, Richard Norton Smith, scholar-in-residence at George Mason University, and Ellen Fitzpatrick, professor of history at the University of New Hampshire.

Well, Michael, last week on the program talking about Iowa you referred to the historical significance of the front-loading of this campaign. So put New Hampshire into that historical context.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS, Presidential Historian: Well, you know, New Hampshire, I guess like everything else, it just is not what it used to be. It used to be the first test of what people thought about presidents and also gave you a good idea where the public was.

Maybe the most vintage New Hampshire primary was 1968, Eugene McCarthy, the anti-war Vietnam war candidate, was running against an incumbent president, Lyndon Johnson, almost won, the first big sign that Vietnam was going to be a big issue in presidential politics that year.

In recent years now, you not only have the Iowa caucus first, but also a very small amount of time between those two events, now, of course, five days. And in recent years, I think it has not been by accident that in 2000 and 2004, on the Democratic side, New Hampshire confirmed the result of the Iowa caucuses.

JEFFREY BROWN: Ellen, how did New Hampshire become so key to this process? Where do you set it in history?

ELLEN FITZPATRICK, University of New Hampshire: Well, it goes really back to the early 20th century and the construction of the primary system itself, which was a reform of the progressive era.

The idea was to try to take the decision over who the party's nominee would be out of the smoke-filled rooms and away from the party bosses and to give it to the people.

And what has happened, New Hampshire put that process in place. The legislature approved it in 1913. And over the course of the 20th century, each time it modified the rules, it did so in ways to open access to more and more voters to participate in the process.

It drew on a strong tradition of local government and, in fact, was designed to coincide initially with the annual town meeting. And it has been said that the idea was the frugal New Hampshirites wanted to save money and only light the town hall twice -- excuse me, light it once, when they could have the primary and the town meeting on the same day. That's how it got to be in March initially.

EFFREY BROWN: So, Richard, what other examples from the past do you like to look to, especially to help us understand the current situation?

RICHARD NORTON SMITH, George Mason University: Well, New Hampshire has been both a springboard and a graveyard for presidential candidates, and sometimes for presidents.

Remember, two presidents, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson, after doing badly in New Hampshire, both let it be known that they would not be seeking re-election.

The other side of the coin, in 1976, Gerald Ford eked out a 1,000-vote victory at the last minute over Ronald Reagan. If he had lost in New Hampshire, arguably that campaign would have been over before it began.

And then, of course, you have candidates who come out of seemingly nowhere. In 1984, for example, when Walter Mondale won very handsomely in Iowa, but all the media coverage was about who would come in second, and would Gary Hart meet the mythical threshold to be a serious candidate in New Hampshire? Not only was he a serious candidate, but he actually defeated the establishment candidate, Walter Mondale.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, Michael, another thing that this state is famous for is independence, that "Live Free or Die" motto on the license plate.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Well, it was actually the first sovereign nation in 1776, after New Hampshire withdrew from the British empire, and that tradition is there. And you see a lot of these insurgents. You see a Gene McCarthy doing well, a George McGovern, a Gary Hart.

It's not by accident. I think part of it is the character of people in New Hampshire. The other thing is it is so easy for independents, for instance, to go in -- we're seeing it today -- and vote in a Democratic primary that you oftentimes have a result that is largely shaped by people who are not traditional Democrats.


Independents sway outcomes



JEFFREY BROWN: And, Ellen, this time around, of course, we're hearing so much about change, that mantra, change, change, change. How does that fit into the historical context of the independents of that state, the anti-establishment?

ELLEN FITZPATRICK: I think that's a very powerful tradition in New Hampshire, and the 1968 election comes to mind, as well, in that this was an opportunity to have a national conversation, and to begin it in New Hampshire, about the war in Vietnam and whether it would continue as it was going or whether an insurgent group in the Democratic Party could actually unseat a sitting president.

And the New Hampshire voters, many Republicans wrote in Eugene McCarthy in that primary, really responded to that. And instead of accepting what was assumed would be a victory by Lyndon Johnson really had the occasion to debate the war and responded powerfully to the huge upsurge in young people who came to New Hampshire to campaign. We're seeing some of that today.

JEFFREY BROWN: And, Richard, that independent streak sometimes means that those who do well in New Hampshire don't necessarily do well in other states.

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: Well, that's true, but it's also where the independents go. I mean, we all know that in 2000, for example, the Al Gore people thought there was a real chance that they were going to lose the New Hampshire primary to Bill Bradley.

Their polls were suggesting that if independents broke the way they thought they would, for example, that Bradley, who had a very much this kind of insurgent appeal, would win.

In fact, at the last minute, the independents voted overwhelmingly for John McCain, and it really was the end of the Bradley candidacy and it was the making of John McCain. And we're seeing if history repeats itself tonight.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Although you can always over-interpret this. You know, 1968 Gene McCarthy did really well. Everyone said, "New Hampshire is against the Vietnam war." Later investigations showed that a lot of people who voted for Gene McCarthy actually thought that they were voting for Joe.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right. Ellen, you want to jump in?

ELLEN FITZPATRICK: Well, I don't know if that's entirely fair.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: It's true. What can I do? You're University of New Hampshire. I think you're part of the loyalties, Ellen.

ELLEN FITZPATRICK: I don't know. It is true, though, that you have in New Hampshire extremely independent voters, not just by the fact that there's a large number of independents, but even within the parties they have been unpredictable. And it gives a kind of power to the whole conversation.

Remember, too, that of the last 14 presidential elections the person elected in 12 cases did win the New Hampshire primary.

JEFFREY BROWN: OK, we'll leave it there. Ellen, Richard and Michael, thanks very much.

Read entire article at NewsHour