Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: What Happened In 1960?

  1. #1

    Exclamation What Happened In 1960?

    WHAT HAPPENED IN 1960?

    In 1960, the Republican Party was controlled by its "East coast establishment" wing ("moderates," as liberals like to call them). In fact, most of the truly "limited government" types were states' rights "Dixiecrats" (southern Democrats). Eisenhower had been President for 8 years, and his Vice President, Richard Nixon, was the "heir apparent" to receive the party's nomination that year in Chicago. He was a shoe-in; even most "conservative leaders" got behind him, in order to defeat the "radical liberal" Democrats like John Kennedy.

    But there was a new breed of limited-government Republicans that had sprung up in the preceding few years; they were young, idealistic, energetic, and determined to eventually "take over" the GOP and steer it away from its establishment statism. To achieve this more quickly, they latched onto this Senator from Arizona - one of the only Republicans to publicly dissent from Ike's statist policies - and they made it their goal to bring this hayseed from the southwest to the attention of a broad public, and make him a nationally-known figure and the spokesman of the limited-government movement.

    These young Republicans would follow Goldwater around to all of his speeches and rallies, demonstrating for him at any Republican event they could find. They knew that Nixon was likely to win the presidential nomination easily, so they formed the "Youth For Goldwater For Vice President" (followed quickly by the adults' "Draft Goldwater" organization), and made as much noise as they could to attract attention to their ideological spokesperson. They realized they had to do something to forcefully bring Goldwater before the public, especially since the GOP establishment wanted nothing to do with him; they didn't believe for a moment that Nixon would actually pick him as his running mate, but that wasn't a necessary element of their strategy. They were long-term players, with an immediate goal in sight: the 1960 GOP convention.

    At the convention, it was an almost foregone conclusion that Nixon would be nominated; however, the Goldwater group had the backing of at least two state delegations, Arizona (of course) and South Carolina (the heart of Dixiecrat country). They put out a ton of propaganda to delegates and the press about why Nixon should pick a "true conservative" as his V.P. running mate (and that Goldwater was that "true conservative"), again with the goal of getting Goldwater out there in the public's eye. Since they couldn't nominate contenders for V.P., they nominated Goldwater for President from the floor.

    And then an interesting thing happened, which caught the Nixon team - who had tried so hard to make sure everything in the convention was tightly planned and under serious control - completely off-guard: a "spontaneous" demonstration for Goldwater erupted on the convention floor. It appeared that he had a groundswell of support!

    In fact, what really happened was that, thanks to those two state delegations from Arizona and South Carolina, hundreds of kids were snuck in "under the tent flaps" of the convention staging area. They were given false ID tags, and got onto the floor during the nomination, where they broke into their "spontaneous" (but actually carefully-planned) demonstration.

    This staged show of support took everyone by surprise, and had its intended effect: Goldwater asked for permission to address the convention, and permission was granted.

    And what did he say? Did he rail against the blatantly neo-conservative party platform that Nixon had surrendered to Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, whom William Batchelder described as "the archetypal east coast 'moderate' establishment Republican"? Did he call for all true believers in limited government to walk out and leave the GOP?

    No, he gave his second-most-famous speech (after his most famous 1964 "extremism in the defense of liberty" acceptance speech) and said that those young Republicans should "grow up," that they had lost that round, and that they should pull together, go home, take over the party, and come together again in 1964 to adopt a truly limited-government platform. And that's exactly what they did. "Let's grow up conservatives!" he said. "If we want to take this Party back, and I think we can some day, let's get to work." (What they didn't realize, as Batchelder noted, was that "establishment" Republicans would also get to work, and do "whatever it took, including supporting the duplicitous President Lyndon B. Johnson, to stop Senator Goldwater's presidential candidacy and the attendant ascendancy of American conservatism.")

    Goldwater, representing the "new Republicans," had finally appeared before a national audience. The appearance was positive; he was able to talk about the true limited-government message before the entire country. This set him up for four years later, when the movement had expanded and his support was stronger, to win the GOP nomination. The conservative movement then moved from the Goldwater organization, to YAF, to the New Right, to the Reagan Revolution, to the Contract With America and the takeover of Congress.

    Can history teach us anything?

    Bill Greene
    Delegates for Ron Paul for Vice President
    http://www.delegatesforronpaul.com/



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    And Goldwater wrote a book. And the media painted him as a fruitcake. And he lost. Then we got Nixon four years later.

    The Reagan Revolution, meanwhile, let in George H.W. Bush, and ex-head of the CIA, and eventually got perverted into neoconservatism.

    I think that, in this case, history is trying to teach us not to be condemned to repeat it.
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Americans are all in the same boat, beseiged by the same sharks. And if we don't remember that, we're all equally $#@!ed.

  4. #3
    R[∃vo˩]ution

    I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. -Ronald Reagan

  5. #4
    acptulsa, did you actually read the post???

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by rp4vp View Post
    acptulsa, did you actually read the post???
    Every word. I don't think this is 1964, I don't think we have sixteen years to spare, I don't think the true conservative movement of Goldwater played out very well, and I sure don't think anyone's going to be offering Dr. Paul a vp ticket any time soon. Given that the neocons are about to mire us in Iran and the fact that the Goldwater forces got no traction with the 'sixties anti-war movement, I think we must take a different direction. Not that we can't stand to learn from history--we just don't really want to follow in those footsteps.

    Sorry.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 04-30-2008 at 01:52 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Americans are all in the same boat, beseiged by the same sharks. And if we don't remember that, we're all equally $#@!ed.

  7. #6
    Then you missed the point. Maybe next time.

    BG

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by rp4vp View Post
    Then you missed the point. Maybe next time.

    BG
    I don't think so. You seem to be saying that we need to take our time, we can build up a movement if we take two decades about it, and an attempt to move people at the convention will just result in Dr. Paul rebuking us and saying wait 'till next time or some similar outcome. I still say we don't want to follow in their footsteps--not least because the conditions are very, very, very different now than they were in 1960. Ike wasn't a complete idiot, the public wasn't mad at him, he didn't have both our fists and both our feet in a tar baby, and we weren't yet to the point of the T-bill being unsalable.

    Did I miss the point? If so, do enlighten me.
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Americans are all in the same boat, beseiged by the same sharks. And if we don't remember that, we're all equally $#@!ed.

  9. #8
    Moving post but have to agree with Acptulsa here...The Goldwater moment has come and gone and we are left with the current state of affairs. Today is a new day and we are facing a different, more technologically advanced situation. Did 1960 have to contend with diebold? Did 1960 have a resource as rich as the internet where we may be able to network, but they are also infiltrating?

    We need to come up with something a bit more current and ingenuous, and we need to move fast. Between the power they have managed to write into effect, and the capacity of duping the public we have seen indicated through televised indoctrination, we have a hard road ahead of us...I fear we will need to do far more to oust the current war-mongering spendthrifts then Goldwater's crowd ever thought would be necessary.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by moostraks View Post
    Moving post but have to agree with Acptulsa here...The Goldwater moment has come and gone and we are left with the current state of affairs. Today is a new day and we are facing a different, more technologically advanced situation. Did 1960 have to contend with diebold? Did 1960 have a resource as rich as the internet where we may be able to network, but they are also infiltrating?

    We need to come up with something a bit more current and ingenuous, and we need to move fast. Between the power they have managed to write into effect, and the capacity of duping the public we have seen indicated through televised indoctrination, we have a hard road ahead of us...I fear we will need to do far more to oust the current war-mongering spendthrifts then Goldwater's crowd ever thought would be necessary.
    It was actually a lot easier to rig an election back then. No one was watching, and the ones who did had to rely on the media, who didn't cooperate with them. Now we have the internet to pick anomalies in the vote count, and then we can make it "go viral."
    http://www.ronpaul2012.com/
    Quote Originally Posted by GK Chesterton
    It is often supposed that when people stop believing in God, they believe in nothing. Alas, it is worse than that. When they stop believing in God, they believe in anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rt. Hon. Edmund Burke
    Nothing is so fatal to religion as indifference.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by nate895 View Post
    It was actually a lot easier to rig an election back then. No one was watching, and the ones who did had to rely on the media, who didn't cooperate with them. Now we have the internet to pick anomalies in the vote count, and then we can make it "go viral."
    I disagree with you. I don't see any advantage which has been had by the knowledge that some of these primaries have shown anomolies...

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    I don't think so. You seem to be saying that we need to take our time, we can build up a movement if we take two decades about it, and an attempt to move people at the convention will just result in Dr. Paul rebuking us and saying wait 'till next time or some similar outcome. I still say we don't want to follow in their footsteps--not least because the conditions are very, very, very different now than they were in 1960. Ike wasn't a complete idiot, the public wasn't mad at him, he didn't have both our fists and both our feet in a tar baby, and we weren't yet to the point of the T-bill being unsalable.

    Did I miss the point? If so, do enlighten me.
    Yes, you did. I'm certainly NOT saying "we need to take our time" -- the whole point was that the grassroots took action, set goals for the current convention, achieved those goals to the extent they could be achieved, and used that success to springboard their takeover of the party.

    I didn't say history should repeat itself. Good grief.

    BG

  14. #12
    in au-h2o terms, history almost could be totally repetative,
    and what prevents this is if 2012 people understand 1964!

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by rp4vp View Post
    Yes, you did. I'm certainly NOT saying "we need to take our time" -- the whole point was that the grassroots took action, set goals for the current convention, achieved those goals to the extent they could be achieved, and used that success to springboard their takeover of the party.

    I didn't say history should repeat itself. Good grief.

    BG
    I agree with you, then. And I'm sure I'm not the only one that appreciates the look back. Thank you.
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Americans are all in the same boat, beseiged by the same sharks. And if we don't remember that, we're all equally $#@!ed.



Similar Threads

  1. Want: Death from Starvation Chart 1960
    By sirellyn in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-21-2010, 10:14 PM
  2. 1960: A Year That Changed America
    By FrankRep in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-19-2010, 10:07 AM
  3. Anti-federalism and 1960's Segregation
    By DeadheadForPaul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-26-2009, 12:53 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-08-2008, 03:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •