[Ohioan]

Will, at best, is very confused about what happened in 1964. Having lived through it, I will assure all that Goldwater did not lose for the reasons he suggests. Goldwater had overtaken JFK in some of the polls, before Kennedy was assassinated. What followed that is more complex, by far, than what Will suggests.

But here is the yet more essential point. For those of us who would retain the America vouchsafed to the next generation in the 1780s, it is not about victory for a particular personality; not about the quest for power or glory. Even a losing campaign that helps educate for a more hopeful future, is infinitely preferable to the election of one who pretends to serve, but constantly retreats in the face of the ongoing Collectivist assault.

In that reality, the Goldwater campaign was at least a partial success. It clearly paved the way for the Reagan "revolution." It was Reagan's beautiful TV address for Goldwater, which introduced Reagan as a serious force on the American political scene.

At worst, Will's pitch is an effort to sell surrender as a new pragmatism.

William Flax

[Fiji Hill]

Will, at best, is very confused about what happened in 1964.

A number of factors contributed to Goldwater's defeat in 1964--Goldwater's reluctance to run, strife within his campaign team, the refusal of the Rockefeller wing of the party to actively support him, etc. The election was hardly a repudiation of conservatism.