What do you think?
Rate this book
Daisy Petals and Mushroom Clouds: LBJ, Barry Goldwater, and the Ad That Changed American Politics
The grainy black-and-white television ad shows a young girl in a flower-filled meadow, holding a daisy and plucking its petals, which she counts one by one. As the camera slowly zooms in on her eye, a man's solemn countdown replaces hers. At zero the little girl's eye is engulfed by an atomic mushroom cloud. As the inferno roils in the background, President Lyndon B. Johnson's voice intones, "These are the stakes -- to make a world in which all of God's children can live, or to go into the dark. We must either love each other, or we must die."
In this thought-provoking and highly readable book, Robert Mann provides a concise, engaging study of the "Daisy Girl" ad, widely acknowledged as the most important and memorable political ad in American history. Commissioned by Johnson's campaign and aired only once during Johnson's 1964 presidential contest against Barry Goldwater, it remains an iconic piece of electoral propaganda, intertwining cold war fears of nuclear annihilation with the increasingly savvy world of media and advertising. Mann presents a nuanced view of how Johnson's campaign successfully cast Barry Goldwater as a radical too dangerous to control the nation's nuclear arsenal, a depiction that sparked immediate controversy across the United States.
Repeatedly analyzed in countless books and articles, the spot purportedly destroyed Goldwater's presidential campaign. Although that degree of impact on the Goldwater campaign is debatable, what is certain is that the ad ushered in a new era of political advertising using emotional appeals as a routine aspect of campaign strategy.
In this thought-provoking and highly readable book, Robert Mann provides a concise, engaging study of the "Daisy Girl" ad, widely acknowledged as the most important and memorable political ad in American history. Commissioned by Johnson's campaign and aired only once during Johnson's 1964 presidential contest against Barry Goldwater, it remains an iconic piece of electoral propaganda, intertwining cold war fears of nuclear annihilation with the increasingly savvy world of media and advertising. Mann presents a nuanced view of how Johnson's campaign successfully cast Barry Goldwater as a radical too dangerous to control the nation's nuclear arsenal, a depiction that sparked immediate controversy across the United States.
Repeatedly analyzed in countless books and articles, the spot purportedly destroyed Goldwater's presidential campaign. Although that degree of impact on the Goldwater campaign is debatable, what is certain is that the ad ushered in a new era of political advertising using emotional appeals as a routine aspect of campaign strategy.
- GenresHistoryNonfiction
216 pages, Hardcover
First published October 26, 2011
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
July 4, 2018
Pretty good - and short - look at television use during the 1964 US presidential campaign. While a lot of coverage is given to the infamous Daisy ad, other ads are covered as well.
One of the most interesting subjects that has information there but isn't addressed in great detail is how people's recollections change. People remember the ad being more specific than it was, or airing, more, though it really only aired once, while getting a fair amount of news coverage after that. Beyond that, there were disagreements later about who came up with the ad and the fairness of the ad, all of which didn't seem to be issues earlier.
(That reminded me of seeing an interview with Tommy Ramone, where he takes credit for writing most of every song he is asked about. Other band members would probably disagree, and they might all have points.)
The later feeling that the ad was a dirty trick and unfair seems unfair in itself. That may be partly that people remember the ad as being more specific than it was, but it was clear that it was a Goldwater reference. However, it was clear because of his own words, frequently quoted and reinforced.
I am happy to accept that some of Goldwater's dangerous statements were based on ignorance and the reality of what the new technology could do, but he was an influential senator and presidential candidate; is it too much to ask that he become informed before spouting off?
That last question seems to have obvious parallels to today, and that is kind of the interesting thing. In 1964. most people were against war mongering and even the health risks of above ground testing, and to some extent even the racism overt enough to not officially support racism but to go against anything that would combat racism.
Knowing what comes after 1964, with more coded language to disguise the racism, fear-mongering through crime, the war on drugs combining them both, and Reagan learning how to use all that and sound optimistic, yeah, the seeds were sown. It took some fine-tuning, but there is a lot of Goldwater in Trump, just worse, and it matters because the voters are worse.
One of the most interesting subjects that has information there but isn't addressed in great detail is how people's recollections change. People remember the ad being more specific than it was, or airing, more, though it really only aired once, while getting a fair amount of news coverage after that. Beyond that, there were disagreements later about who came up with the ad and the fairness of the ad, all of which didn't seem to be issues earlier.
(That reminded me of seeing an interview with Tommy Ramone, where he takes credit for writing most of every song he is asked about. Other band members would probably disagree, and they might all have points.)
The later feeling that the ad was a dirty trick and unfair seems unfair in itself. That may be partly that people remember the ad as being more specific than it was, but it was clear that it was a Goldwater reference. However, it was clear because of his own words, frequently quoted and reinforced.
I am happy to accept that some of Goldwater's dangerous statements were based on ignorance and the reality of what the new technology could do, but he was an influential senator and presidential candidate; is it too much to ask that he become informed before spouting off?
That last question seems to have obvious parallels to today, and that is kind of the interesting thing. In 1964. most people were against war mongering and even the health risks of above ground testing, and to some extent even the racism overt enough to not officially support racism but to go against anything that would combat racism.
Knowing what comes after 1964, with more coded language to disguise the racism, fear-mongering through crime, the war on drugs combining them both, and Reagan learning how to use all that and sound optimistic, yeah, the seeds were sown. It took some fine-tuning, but there is a lot of Goldwater in Trump, just worse, and it matters because the voters are worse.
December 30, 2015
Wish I'd gotten this one from the library rather than purchased, but if you're interested in American politics and how political advertising got to where it is today it's worth your time. The discussion of how a presidential candidate with political beliefs and style distinctly from the far wings of a major party ran his campaign offers a lot of insight in this particular moment in the election cycle.
January 2, 2012
Surprisingly interesting. Got a little data heavy in the end, but I loved the cast of characters. Would like to read more about advertising.
January 3, 2025
I was excited to read this book as I teach a political campaigns class and have met Bob Mann. You get some really great history and behind the scenes information about the Johnson administration and the Johnson and Goldwater campaigns. You learn a lot about DDB's creative planning which is very useful for people who study advertising. Mann also provides good historical context on the Cold War. I would give it 5 stars but he relies on quotes from Theodore White's Making of the President 1964 and Kathleen Hall Jamieson's Packaging the Presidency quite a bit, so if you want a sense of completeness you'll want to read those as well.
December 8, 2011
Robert Mann LOVES John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and HATES Barry Goldwater. If you can deal with that desparity you'll enjoy this book a lot more than I did; I found it distracting.
September 9, 2014
Fascinating.
July 14, 2011
Really good! If you're a poli comm person or a history buff, you'll love it.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews