The Man Behind the Movement: Goldwater’s Ultimate Victory

Atlantic Unbound ^ | 8 August 2001 | Jack Beatty

[Publius]

Tuesday bump.

[ConservativeLibrarian]

Howdy to Publius Bump!

[Bill Rice]

I'm covered with big Goldwater buttons in my 3rd grade year book.

The Girl next to me had 1 small Johnson badge. (she was a commy!)

[Publius]

Not a Commie. Just fooled by the Establishment Media.

[Publius]

A what-the-hell, it's Thursday bump.

[Publius]

I-haven't-bumped-this-in-a-while bump.

[Publius]

It's-a-dull-Monday-afternoon bump.

[Publius]

Here's a bump for you. It explains why I think a toast to Barry is so important.

[Diddle E. Squat]

That's an interesting and great story about the Goldwater/Kennedy debates idea.

Well my political start was with the Reagan campaigns, so I missed out on '64. The article seems to try and thread race into every aspect of that campaign, so I immediately smelled a RAT. Was it really that important to the '64 campaign, or anything close to how this author portrays it? I'm sure it mattered, but this story reminds me of how a Stephanopolous would write it.

[wcbtinman]

"You're on your own."

One can only wish it were so.

[pariah]

The article seems to try and thread race into every aspect of that campaign,

Yer right, totally written from a liberal bias. According to the author, no one could ever possibly have sincerely believed in the principles of property rights, prosperity through small government and individual initiative, or (gasp) handling racial problems at the state/local level. Such professed principles are only an excuse for the powerful to trample and exploit the 'less fortunate', and of course RACE was/is the ever-present bogey-man. The learned liberal perfesser sees only two kinds of Goldwater voters: those who were consciously racist, and those who were too ashamed to admit their real reasons for supporting him. Everybody else supported LBJ and all Dem-sponsored legislation, naturally!

Of course, the truth is that this is an example of psychological transference: impugning one's own faults to one's opponents. Fact is, nobody wants elections to be about RACE more than liberals/Democrats. And nobody wants more to make race a non-issue than principled conservatives. Especially Senator Goldwater. But trying to make people forget about race and concentrate on the principles of good government and personal responsibility was a political impossibility in 1966. I remember... I lived just a few miles from Compton/Watts in 1965. And I remember how frightened all whites were. Only liberals look at their fear and call it 'compassion', while those who refuse to assuage black anger with gov't money and enhanced 'rights' are called 'racist'. Raised in a liberal household, it took me about 25 years to figure that out. (Most blacks have had it figured out all along.)

[Publius]

The issue of race was critical to the '64 campaign. Before abortion, it was the leading social issue of the day.

It had taken years of demonstrations and work in Congress to get the Civil Rights Act of '64 passed. Goldwater had opposed the bill on constitutional grounds because it was a carbon copy of the 1876 Civil Rights Act that had been struck down by the Supreme Court shortly after enactment. (Goldwater had a great understanding of American history.)

But, yes, race was the key issue of the 1964 presidential race.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Thanks for the explanation.

[okie01]

“You're on your own” – that’s the message the conservative movement has for Americans, according to David Frum...

And who wouldn't rather be "on their own", when the alternative is to have the Democrats "taking care of you" thru the medium of the federal bureaucracy?

[okie01]

Beatty makes the usual liberal elitist presumptions: conservatives are a.) not very bright and/or b.) racist.

It's a shame that liberals continue to make these mistakes -- thereby revealing that they are a.) not nearly so bright as they might think and b.) quite the racists, themselves.

[backhoe]

Goldwater was the first politician I publicly supported. My hometown was 80% New Deal Democrat. It was... interesting-

[Publius]

But trying to make people forget about race and concentrate on the principles of good government and personal responsibility was a political impossibility in 1966.

Actually, 1966 was an excellent year for Republicans and conservatives. The race situation had worsened to the point where liberals were having trouble using the old white guilt reflex to get votes. Inflation was heating up. The first serious peace marches -- and student disturbances in California -- were getting headlines and worrying the middle class, which had not yet turned against the war.

The Republicans recruited in the business community and brought forth the best slate of candidates they had fielded since 1948. Ronald Reagan came from behind and polished off Gov. Pat Brown in a landslide. Chuck Percy took out socialist Sen. Paul Douglas in Illinois. There were many other victories.

Richard Nixon campaigned tirelessly for Republican candidates and earned the IOU's that gave him the edge two years later for the presidential nod. Lyndon Johnson made one of his rare political mistakes that year and criticized Nixon publicly at a press conference, calling him a "chronic campaigner". Nixon asked for and got from the networks time to reply to Johnson, and his measured response brought his political career back from the dead.

1966 was the turning point for the Republicans and was the critical stepping stone to their return to power in 1968.

[Publius]

A surprising number of people would prefer to have the federal bureaucracy take care of them from cradle to grave.

In the last election, it was about half the electorate.

[Publius]

Although your town may have been 80% New Deal Democrat, I'd be willing to bet that in 1980, most of the people became Reagan Democrats.