Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FDR (talk | contribs) at 04:37, 22 August 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Independent ads?

Hector, the ad was aired as part of Johnson's campaign, according to every source I have encountered. You may be thinking of the famous "Daisy Girl II" aired against Al Gore in 2000, which was created and run by Arelino Industries in Texas, which CBS calls a "mysterious group". These kinds of "non official" ads were largely unknown in the 1960s. From my understqanding, they arose in large part because of limitations of campaign finance that were not enacted until after Watergate. -- Decumanus

The Party moves right

Did he "moderate his position" or did the Party go off the deep end? Goldwater told Dole in Feb '96: "We're the new liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?"

Goldwater's mental health

Is it true that Barry Goldwater seeked the help of a psychiatrist, therapist, or in some similar area before he ran for PResident in 1964. This was taboo at that time and it seems that I recall it affected his ability to win. PLease verify.....

The Johnson campaign tried to portray Goldwater as mentally unstable, but I believe you've conflated him with Thomas Eagleton, the McGovern VP nominee who withdrew his name what it was disclosed that he had had psychiatric treatment. Ellsworth 17:55, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Goldwater as founder of the movement

Cut this sentence:

An original thinker, fearlessly outspoken, he built the political machine that was inherited by Ronald Reagan.

I disagree with the italicized text. After the 1964 election the national Republican party was in a shambles - the Democrats had their largest House and Senate majorities since the Depression, if not since the Civil War. Goldwater certainly didn't "build a political machine" in the sense in which that is ordinarily understood i.e. by winning elections.

The party was brought back to life by the Nixon victory in '68, in which Goldwater had no part - although he did get back into the Senate, winning an open seat.

I tend to concur with Theo Lippman that Reagan was elected president in 1980 primarily because he'd been running for 16 years and the political climate was finally right for him. Ellsworth

The phrase "political machine" may be a poorly chosen one, but the basic point about the continuity between Goldwater and Reagan should be made. The Goldwater campaign not only gave birth to Reagan's political career, it was a watershed moment for the Republican Party, and more specifically, the conservative movement which came to control it. RadicalSubversiv E 00:34, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree, but I believe that the sentence as originally written (and perhaps the article as a whole?) gives Goldwater a bit too much credit.

To take just two of the planks of Goldwater's campaign platform: 1. he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other civil rights laws directed at private (as opposed to governmental) economic discrimination against minorities and 2. he favored complete privatization of Social Security.

These ideas were not endorsed by any serious Republican presidential candidate since, and it is questionable whether these positions commanded a majority the national Republican party as a whole - Republicans in Congress favored the CRA of '64 by a large margin, and in fact the Act never would have passed the Senate filibuster if the GOP senators hadn't supported it. Ellsworth 14:08, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic, but I think you've phrased those examples far too narrowly. Beginning in 1968, the Republican Party absolutely did put itself squarely in opposition to the civil rights agenda. And social security privatization has become a major cornerstone of Republican domestic policy -- it's just that no presidential candidate has been political suicidal enough to propose doing so all at once. RadicalSubversiv E 19:50, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The "civil rights agenda" shifted over time, so I agree that ultimately the Republican Party found itself at odds with the leaders of the civil rights movement on issues such as forced busing etc. - but many Democrats came into conflict with that agenda as well.

As far as the 1968 date - Nixon proposed the "Philadelphia plan" to use "quotas, goals and timetables" to improve minority participation in government employment and contracting in 1969. So I don't see how 1968 can be regarded as the demarcation line.

And didn't Bill Clinton acknowledge that Social Security is going to need some kind of overhaul in order to keep it from breaking tha bank, and appoint some kind of commission to make recommendations in that regard?

Actually, self, that was Bush, although Clinton set up a commission on the broader issue of "entitlement reform", which went the way of others of its kind... Ellsworth 17:12, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But, getting back to what's in the article, I think with that sentence removed it's pretty close to being spot-on. Ellsworth 18:50, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Goldwater and the liberal consensus

In American politics -- and particularly when discussing the 50s and 60s -- referring to someone as a former Communist, especially without any context, is incendiary. You might as well be telling the reader "what follows is extremist dogma which you should ignore." The only thing that's even potentially relevant as background for the comment is that he is a leftist and hence unfriendly to Goldwater. Anyone interested in Hofstadter's views on capitalism-writ-large, which are immaterial to the quotation given, can consult the article about him. RadicalSubversiv E 22:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The passage in contention:

At the time, Goldwater seemed to many to be far out of step with the then-prevailing Cold-War liberal consensus in U.S. politics. Leftist Historian Richard Hofstadter remarked at the time, "When, in all our history, has anyone with ideas so bizarre, so archaic, so self-confounding, so remote from the basic American consensus, ever got so far?"

Why not just drop the quotation the context can't be agreed upon? I hardly consider Hofstadter as being the last word on Goldwater anyway. Or Lewis Lapham, for that matter - the Lapham article that's cited there is just an anti-conservative screed with a few statistical charts thrown in. Lapham goes so far as to refer to the Mongols besieging Vienna, which they never did. Ellsworth 22:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am just going to drop the Lapham article which has since been determined to have other problems with it, such as containing analysis of the 2004 Republican convention as if it had already occurred, which it had not. Ellsworth 15:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have no problem with dropping the Hofstader quote (which I introduced), but there should be some remark on the prevailing liberal consensus of the time. Even within the Republican Party, the Goldwater candidacy was seen as an insurgency; this was a party whose leading figures at the time included liberals Nelson Rockefeller and William Scranton and where John Lindsay was a rising star; Richard Nixon, who was on the party's ticket in every other presidential election from 1952 to 1972 - that's 5 out of 6 elections - was more or less within the liberal consensus, although certainly at the "right" edge of that consensus politics, nowhere near Goldwater in any event. -- Jmabel 23:08, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

You're right, the quote isn't worth battling over. We do however, as Jmabel says, need to explain that Goldwater was way outside the consensus. I've added a new paragraph in the opening trying to get at that, and inserted a quote from a recent Goldwater biography that tries to get at this issue, as well as the subsequent drastic shift in that consensus. RadicalSubversiv E 23:44, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like the way you did it, I think it gives a broader perspective to the article. Ellsworth 23:56, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ummm, but I have to say, Perlstein is no more an impartial observer than Lapham or Hofstadter. Did you read his post-mortem Reagan-bashing in Salon.com? Can we maybe balance Perlstein's rather idiosyncratic analogy with something from someone more kindly disposed to Golwaters philosophy? Ellsworth 16:40, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How is Perlstein's analogy in any way derisive of Goldwater? It's merely an attempt to describe the magnitude of the political shift that is largely a result of his political legacy. Yes, Perlstein is a lefty. But he's also a trained historian (I think at the University of Chicago) who's probably written the most comprehensive account of Goldwater's '64 campaign, which has won a fair amount of praise even from conservatives. Moreover, what do his writings on Reagan have to do with anything? RadicalSubversiv E 19:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm saying, Perlstein besides writing books, has had a fair career as a liberal polemicist. Nothing wrong with that, but it renders his analysis suspect.Ellsworth

No, I don't think it does. The work in question is a scholarly and well-respected one, and thus an appropriate source for a quote. Other works by the writer are immaterial. RadicalSubversiv E 20:54, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other works I find valuable for two reasons: 1. It gives you an insight into the writer's POV 2. It tells you whether the person is inclined to play fast and loose with the facts. For an example of Perlstein's bloviations on Reagan, Goldwater and conservatives, I give you this salon article. Just on the last three paragraphs, Perlstein berates Reagan for not being able "make peace...with the welfare queens he fabricated" (how do you make peace with someone who you fabricated?) and for not "deign to publicly acknowledge" AIDS until 1987 - this is way off, see Ronald Reagan. A good analyst will get his facts right no matter how great his antipathy for his subject. Ellsworth

That Perlstein personally has a left POV is certain. What is at issue is whether it seeps into the work, and the quote provided, in such a way that it is inappropriate for a Misplaced Pages article. You haven't provided any evidence that it does. As for the Reagan article, the only fact you've got him on is the AIDS matter, which is a common mistake, based on Reagan's long-standing refusal to address the epidemic in any kind of official way. RadicalSubversiv E 22:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's more, much more, on Perlstein's POV extending to getting the facts wrong than just what I cited. That was just a couple examples. (Should someone who fancies himself a historian be excused for making a "common mistake"?) But that's really a discussion for the article on Perlstein, which has yet to be written.
I will try to parse the quote at a later time. Ellsworth 22:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for the quote, I think it injects a needless sexual element into the analysis, that has no analog with the issues in Goldwater's 64 campaign. Ellsworth 20:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it does, but feel free to remove that phrase with an ellipsis if you think it necessary.

Also, "historian" is fine, and probably more accurate. RadicalSubversiv E 20:54, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll leave it the way it is for now, until I can find something to counterweight it. Ellsworth 21:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quotes section dropped

I have dropped it, as they all relate to a single subject and there's a link to the Goldwater page on wikiquote. Here's the section as last edited:

However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C," and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

- From the Congressional Record, September 16, 1981

Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.

- Response to Jerry Falwell stating he was concerned that Sandra Day O'Connor might be moderate on abortion and other social issues, 1981.

I don't have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the country.

- Interview by The Advocate

A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right.

- Interview to the Los Angeles Times, 1994

By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars...Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northem Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?

- Speech to Senate, Sept. 15, 1981

I don't like being called the New Right; I'm an old, old son-of-a-bitch. I'm a conservative.

- Showing his contempt for a new conservative movement focused on Republican Jesse Helms of North Carolina, 1992.

Dropped link

This link:

• Extended obituary from the Arizona Republic

doesn't go where it says it does. I'll put it back if I can find the article. Ellsworth 22:25, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Found it, it's back in. Ellsworth 21:50, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nine holes

The joke about someone half-Jewish being allowed to play nine holes at the restricted golf course is an old one, told about many people. If we are going to mention it here, it should be with a citation (e.g. a particular time Goldwater told the story about himself). It's perfectly likely that he told this story about himself; it's even possible that he actually used the joke in such a situation at a real country club, but it's unlikely that he invented the joke. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:49, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

In his autobiography, "Goldwater," BG attributes this joke to his brother Bob, speaking about HIS brother Barry at "a golf pro tournament near Los Angeles." B. Goldwater adds, "The story got a big laugh, but the incident never occurred."

Article has been changed accordingly. Thanks. Ellsworth

Incidentally, someone who knows how to work this Misplaced Pages thing (this is my first visit) should add Goldwater's autobiography to the recommended reading list. It's wonderful reading. The book is: "Goldwater" by Barry M. Goldwater with Jack Casserly, copyright 1988, pub. Doubleday, NYC, ISBN 0-385-23947-5

Done. Ellsworth 14:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Needless Daschle Bashing / Goldwater's feat

Everyone keeps adding back the Tom Daschle bit that I keep erasing. The sentence as it is constructed is inaccurate and is meant to convey an inaccurate impression. Tom Daschle was not the senate Majority Leader, William H. Frist was. Daschle was the Minority Leader when he was defeated. You could possibly say he was a former Majority leader because he had at one point previously been one, however McFarland wasn't a former Majority Leader when he was defeated. John Thune's victory is not equivalent to Goldwater's and bears very little relevance to Barry Goldwater himself. If you wanted an illustrative point for Goldwater’s victory why not look to the previous time it actually happened as opposed to the current time when it didn't quite happen. (unsigned, undated, presumably anonymous, was mid-November 2004 -- this annotation added by Jmabel 22:01, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC))
Skip next para. for my response. Ellsworth

Have reverted the removal of the sentence that after Goldwater in '52, no one was able to defeat a Senate majority leader for re-election until 2004. This seems pertinent due to its being an unusual occurrence. Discussion? Ellsworth 21:42, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would you accept "last time a Senate Floor Leader was defeated for re-election until 2004"? Ellsworth 23:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Or see the latest version. Ellsworth

Name change

Hid this text:

(and changed his name from Goldwasser to Goldwater )

Which is it? Please check sources and then put the correct text back in the body of the article. Ellsworth 14:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

cofounder of arizona naacp

seeing what a racist platform he ran on in the 1960s i found the NAACP founding hard to believe. Can someone back it up with a source?--Gary123 8 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)

You'll find mention of this in pretty much any detailed biographical information on Goldwater; I'm pretty sure it's in Perlstein's book, and certainly others. It's important to understand (and perhaps this needs to be clarified), that Goldwater didn't run on a racist platform in the same way that Southern segregationists did. His opposition to much of the 60s civil rights legislation had to do with his political philosophy about the role of government. He had very little taste for appeals to white racism, and fastidiously avoided them until late in the campaign when he felt he had been unfairly smeared. RadicalSubversiv E 8 July 2005 23:22 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

Barry Goldwater was obsessed with conspiracy theories about the Council on Foreign Relations and other secret organizations that he believed banking clans like the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers were using as instruments to achieve world domination. His chief rival for the Republican nomination for President in 1964 was Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, who came from the Rockefeller banking clan. Goldwater hated Rockefeller and was obsessed with conspiracy theories about his family. Goldwater seems to me to have been somewhat paranoid. User:FDR 20 Aug 2005)

• Do you have evidence for any of this or are you just stirring up shit? -- Jmabel | Talk 15:33, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Why would I say it if it were not true. He wrote that the Trilateral Commission, a group founded by the Rockefellers and similiar to the Council on Foreign Relations, was a "Vehicle for the multinational consolidation of commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States". This quote is from his 1964 book, With No Apologies. I will provide more information to verify my claim later. FDR | Talk 11:53 PM, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have thought about this some more and have some more evidence to support my claim. Jim Marrs, a New Age conspiracy theorist who rants against the Rockefeller family, cited Goldwater quotations to support his arguments in his book Rule by Secrecy:The Hidden History that Connects the Freemasons, the Great Pyramids, and the Trilateral Commission. In addition another anti-Rockefeller New Age conspiracy theorist, David Icke, cited one Goldwater quotation to back his argument. I will provide a link to an article where Icke quotes Goldwater,it is the same quotation I quoted earlier: http://www.davidicke.com/articles2/rd-table.html. After making this addition and posting the link I found that for some reason the link did not work even though I gave the correct address. I apologize for the link not working. FDR | Talk 12:05 AM, August 21, 2005 (UTC) I also think that User Jmabel should try to avoid using cuss words like "shit" on Misplaced Pages. FDR | Talk 1:41 AM August 21, 2005 (UTC) Because of Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy I should stress that the criticism of the language the other writer here used was just a suggestion on how he could improve his contributions, not a personal attack on him. FDR | Talk 2:08 AM August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Nothing here bears out a claim of "obsession". The fact that people who have made a career out of puching such theories cite Goldwater is not what I'd call solid evidence. Is there anything from a mainstream source calling this an "obsession"? Is there extensive material on this in Goldwater's own writings and speeches? No, he certainly was not a friend of the Rockefeller wing of the Republican party, but it's a long way from that to "obsessed with conspiracy theories". -- Jmabel | Talk 21:29, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I have more evidence for my claim from a mainstream source. One of his biggest supporterts was a leader of the far right in the GOP named Phylis Schlafy. She wrote a manifesto supporting Goldwater and his ideas called A Choice, Not an Echo. In it she claimed that banking clans such as the Rothschilds and Rockefellers were using secret societies such as the Builderbergs and the Trilateral Commission to help establish a communistic government over the whole world. She is right a very prominent figure in the GOP and is certainly a mainstream source since she was one of Goldwater's biggest supporters. Plus the John Birch Society supported Goldwater very much when he ran for president. Robert Welch in particular was very supportive of Goldwater. He support from right-wing GOP anti-communist named Dr. Frederick Schwarz, head of the California based Christian Anti-Communism Crusade. For more information on this aspect of Goldwater links conspiracy theorists and the far right I will provide a link to this article http://www.publiceye.org/huntred/Hunt_For_Red_Menace-04.html. I will provide more information later. FDR | Talk 11:26 PM August 21, 2005 (UTC)