Posted on 05/15/2011 9:03:53 AM PDT by Kaslin
As the GOP presidential dance card continues to fill up, with former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich’s hat now in the ring, many stalwarts have serious concerns about the actual electoral prospects for 2012. With no clear front-runner, and most of the would-be nominees saddled either with high-profile baggage or low profile, well, profiles—there exists a Republican vacuum.
And that vacuum sucks.
The past being prologue, one good question is: Will the presidential election of 2012 be a Republican 1964 or 1980. Will the campaign bear resemblance to the quixotic Barry Goldwater “glorious disaster,” or the triumphant Ronald Reagan man on horseback? Only time will tell, but a look at those past races might be wise right now.
The persistent mantra of moderate Republicans—in various shades of pastel—has been the gospel of the big tent. This usually means insistence that conservatives should be good soldiers in support of the GOP, even if that means the occasional holding of the nose. In fact, the record has shown that conservative Republicans have managed to support candidates who didn’t always completely reflect their values. This has been part of an unwritten but widely accepted socio-political contract with moderates, that if the tables were ever turned they would be able to count on the same big-tent graciousness to be there for them.
Sometimes though, the more moderate (and therefore presumably more tolerant and pragmatic) have not always seemed to be able to pull that trigger, if not lever.
In the aftermath of primary after primary during the 2010 mid-term elections conservatives captured an impressive number of nominations. However, many moderates—who could have never been in office without a good measure of conservative support—seemed to speak in a sort of political falsetto en route to last November.
Largely remembered as the year of the electoral massacre of Goldwater by Lyndon Johnson, there is an interesting subplot to the story that played out in 1964. The moderates of the day sat on their hands. Sixteen years later, they had more sense and the electoral math bears out that this wisdom helped make history.
In the immediate wake of the Kennedy assassination in November of 1963 there was some initial speculation that the 1964 election might favor another Richard Nixon candidacy, but the former Vice President observed how quickly and effectively President Lyndon Johnson positioned himself in his new office and correctly perceived him to be virtually unbeatable. It’s true that Nixon flirted here and there with a run for the nomination in 1964, but he ultimately resigned himself to the inevitability of Goldwater.
And this is where Richard Nixon demonstrated the kind of political savvy and skill that should be remembered by all Republicans in advance of 2012.
It was clear that the other big Republican guns in 1964 (all moderate Governors), Nelson Rockefeller of New York, Bill Scranton of Pennsylvania, and George Romney of Michigan, had little interest in supporting Barry Goldwater. Nixon, however, knew that anyone who really wanted to have a serious future shot at a presidential nomination could not afford to be a bystander, no matter how bad the results November might turn out to be.
Richard Nixon was not as conservative as Goldwater, but as a more moderate Republican he knew that faithfulness and diligence in such moments was crucial. Arriving in San Francisco that year for the Republican Convention, Mr. Nixon made his position perfectly clear: “I, for one Republican, don’t intend to sit out, or take a walk” – an obvious signal to Goldwater supporters and detractors. And while Rockefeller was shouted down as he addressed the crowd that week, Nixon was received warmly. In fact, historian Stephen Ambrose suggested that Richard Nixon’s speech at the 1964 Republican National Convention was the opening speech of his 1968 candidacy. The future president told his party:
Before this convention we were Goldwater Republicans, Rockefeller Republicans, Scranton Republicans, Lodge Republicans, but now that this convention has met and made its decision, we are Republicans, period, working for Barry Goldwater…And to those few, if there are some, who say that they are going to sit it out or take a walk, or even go on a boat ride, I have an answer in the words of Barry Goldwater in 1960 – ‘Let’s grow up, Republicans, let’s go to work – and we shall win in November!’
Of course, not all Republicans went to work that year, most notably Rockefeller and Romney—a fact not forgotten by conservatives four years later—but Nixon did.
Immediately following the convention, he orchestrated a meeting between former President Eisenhower and Goldwater at Ike’s Gettysburg, Pennsylvania farm, gaining a valuable endorsement. Then in the fall, Nixon took a leave of absence from his lucrative law practice and spent five intense weeks traveling to thirty-six states and delivering more than one hundred and fifty speeches on behalf of the national GOP ticket and state and local candidates. In doing so, he established (in some cases reestablished) relationships he would turn to for help when achieving stunning victories (credited by most to Nixon’s efforts) two years later in the 1966 mid-term elections. Of course, all this helped pave the way for Nixon’s nomination and general election victory in 1968.
Goldwater and Nixon were never close friends, and disagreed on many matters of politics and policy—but they, the conservative and the moderate, understood the importance of discipline and loyalty in a two-party system. In 1960 the conservative worked for the moderate. In 1964, the moderate worked for the conservative. They saw it as the right and smart thing to do. And on January 22, 1965, just two days after Lyndon Johnson was sworn in for his new term, Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon attended a meeting of the Republican National Committee. During his remarks, the man who had been humiliated by Lyndon Johnson turned to Richard Nixon and expressed his gratitude for making an extraordinary effort on behalf of his candidacy telling him: “Dick I will never forget it.” He then told him that he would happily return the favor in the future adding - “if there ever comes a time, I am going to do all I can.” That time came in 1968—and Barry Goldwater delivered for Dick Nixon.
If moderate Republicans find themselves tempted to act out in 2012 like Rockefeller and Romney did back then, they should take a good look back at 1964. Then they should look at 1980. Ronald Reagan’s success, as the clear political heir of the Goldwater movement of the early 1960s, came about, at least in part, because he managed to persuade moderates to jump on his bandwagon. And they did in droves.
The alternative would have been a second term for Jimmy Carter, a scenario nearly as unsettling as another term for Barack Obama.
Largely remembered as the year of the electoral massacre of Goldwater by Lyndon Johnson, there is an interesting subplot to the story that played out in 1964. The moderates of the day sat on their hands. Sixteen years later, they had more sense and the electoral math bears out that this wisdom helped make history.Gosh, and guess who that 2012 analogous candidate should be?!? More shilling by TownPaul.com.
1964...Pawlenty=Mondale; Daniels=Dukakis; Gingrich=Goldwater; Romney=Romeny (pro-abortion, pro-Romney care). Wish I could be more optimistic.
Just don’t see the media establishment allowing anyone to seriously challenge The Messiah. They have savaged Palin and now Trump. Even though the new birth certificate looks extremely fake...no one, including Fox and the National Review is going to question it.
They are scared; but of exactly what, I’m not sure.
Don’t panic yet, there will be plenty of time to panic next year if we let someone like Gingrich or Romney or Daniels get nominated.
Waiting for Sarah.
All in good time, America will rescue itself again.
Looking back on 1964 is a little remote. That year, FDR was a recent memory, like the first Bill Clinton election is now.
Since then, we’ve had Reagan, who got us out of an economic disaster created by Democrats. Swing voters should realize that now.
Good article. As I look back, 1964 was the pivotal election year for our country — it put us on a path to the fiscal insanity we are dealing with today. In your heart, you knew Barry Goldwater was right but it was impossible to overcome the JFK assassination sympathy and LBJ’s lies and distortions (with MSM aid and comfort).
This is a good warning for the current year but perhaps on the other side: to hear Rush and Mark Levin slam the potential candidacies of Mitch Daniels and/or Chris Christie makes me sick. Talk about making the “perfect the enemy of the good”, both of these guys have proven themselves to be very good governors and principled executives with very good arguments and policy prescriptions for the critical economic, budget, entitlement reform problems that dominate today’s crisis situation.
I’m open to others in the running (except for Mitt and Newt, both of whom I believe are completely flawed) but if either Daniels or Christie get in the race, I hope they get a fair hearing and I believe either would be strong against Obama. Then the question might be: will the Tea Party (a group I consider myself aligned with) sit this one out to the detriment of our party and our country?
Who does Rush and Levin support?
What timing of ‘The Powers’ behind 0.
The Republicans can’t find anyone to set on their pedestal.
Everything is falling into place for America’s entire takeover
by commies, illegals, muslims, drug lords.
Who will it be—all because we don’t have a sitter for our pedestal.
Glad I probably won’t be here to see who finally wins the war
between those groups.
One thing I’m watching VERY closely is who the media selects as the “GOP frontrunner” and presumptive nominee.
We had better choices than McCain in 2008 but the media annointed him and we were stuck with a pure RINO.
No more.
Can’t agree with much of this. Reagan neither courted nor received the unflinching support of moderate Republicans in 1980. A quick look at one or two of the preConvention debates pretty much tells the story: jabs like those aren’t easily swallowed afterward. The “choice, not an echo” that Reagan so forcefully conveyed finally worked, moderate GOPers notwithstanding. Not one of those so-called GOP moderates put in a quarter of the time touting Reagan that Nixon, all by himself, put in for BG.
Not sure how this translates to 2012 though. Sarah would get little enthusiastic support from party members & regulars; but she’s not just able to talk over the old media but to manipulate the new. On the other hand, she hasn’t yet paid the dues Reagan paid for party support—16 years of Conservative commentary and surrogating, 8 years of fairly high-approval state-administration, and a hard-to-fault *amiability* even among enemies. No one can duplicate those advantages, but if having few enemies—especially in one’s own party—is a plus, the only one I can think of with the same appeal is Paul Ryan. What a ticket they’d make—
I say we draft Ted Nugent!
Anybody else, and it will be "Goldwater Disaster Redux".
The candidate for 2012, to be successful, faces an unprecedented challenge, both in scope of national urgency, and in the unique appeal of the opposition candidate.
America's crisis is one of leadership and wrongheaded ideas.
To restore individual liberty, opportunity, prosperity and plenty, requires leaders who understand and have a passion for the ideas and principles underlying the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
Further, that leader must have the unique ability to motivate and inspire a diverse population of individuals that the ideas which made America great are the same ideas which can extricate America from its present crisis.
Because of the multiplicity and power of entrenched groups who have censored the ideas from textbooks and much of public discourse, and have created a class of political elites, as well as a dependency class, such a leader must be fearless, authentic, and able to appeal to a broad spectrum of the citizenry.
To defeat the current head of the political elites will require authentic and seasoned leadership skills, as well as superior communications ability.
It can be done, but not with politicians whose understanding of America's founding ideas consists of sound bites and flag pins. Even retread candidates like Gingrich, who have a deeper understanding than others, will be accused of the same tired old charge which, to an important set of voters, may prevent a win.
A proven leader who has no political "baggage" and possesses a real passion and understanding of America's founding ideas could expose the fraudulence of progressive ideas and appeal to a broad set of voters.
The moral philosopher, Adam Smith, in the Year 1775, published his "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations." Isn't it interesting that the following year saw an exceptional group of individuals in America declare a set of ideas which, within a decade set in motion a system of self-government whose "benign" (Madison) influence allowed Smith's ideas to flourish and create a place of opportunity, prosperity, plenty, and freedom where oppressed people from all over the world found refuge for over 200 years?
Only now, after a few decades of so-called "progressive" dominance is that place of freedom and opportunity threatened.
A candidate who can help new generations discover that truth can expose the fraud which is being perpetrated upon them and their posterity.
>>>> to hear Rush and Mark Levin slam the potential candidacies of Mitch Daniels and/or Chris Christie makes me sick. >>>>
Your analogy misses the point of what Rush and Levin are doing and the point of the article and what 2012 looks like. Rush and Levin want to avoid another McCain nomination, but you can guarantee that both will support any Republican against Obama. Just like they did with McCain - very unhappily — but they did it. Just as the article suggests.
Besides, the article is assuming a conservative candidate and the need for moderates to support him (or her) — NOT vise versa.
If it’s more like 1980: Cain=Reagan, Palin=Not Running, Romney=Stassen, Daniels=Bush
or something..
It did more than that. Our country was already well down the road to socialism due to the policies of LBJ's hero, FDR. However, LBJ did accelerate that effort with Medicare, the Voters Rights Act, and other things.
Many in the South thought LBJ would be a conservative since he was from Texas, but he quickly dispelled that idea. He did it mostly for his own self-agrandizement and to further the future of the Democrat Party by solidifying the black vote behind them. (I also think he had the hots for Jackie and wanted to prove to the snooty Kennedy liberals that he was not the country bumpkin they made him out to be. He was saying that he was one of them, a liberal.) That moved the Democrat Party firmly into the Liberal column where it had previously been rather conservative due to the many Southern politicians with seniority and key positions in both houses of Congress. Many misguided Southerners worshipped FDR because of his welfare programs during the depression. Otherwise, they were conservative.
It was clear that the other big Republican guns in 1964 (all moderate Governors), Nelson Rockefeller of New York, Bill Scranton of Pennsylvania, and George Romney of Michigan, had little interest in supporting Barry Goldwater.
1964 also marked the beginning of the decline of the "Country Club Republicans" from the NE and the rise of conservatives in the Republican Party. Goldwater didn't win but his ideas had a lasting influence. Reagan was a direct result of what happened in 1964, so yes, it was a pivotal year.
Palin will lose as bad as Goldwater did.
Or at least Dole.
We should ask the moderates a point-blank question:
We (conservatives) have held our noses to vote for your guys for decades. Why can’t we ask the same of you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.