The Goldwater-Reagan Victory

American Spectator ^ | 05 oct 07 | Jeffrey Lord

[rellimpank]

The polls were dismal. And they were accurate. Just over 38% of the American people were getting ready to vote for the first modern conservative to be nominated for president, Arizona's Senator Barry Goldwater. Nonetheless, a fledgling conservative, actor Ronald Reagan, boldly committed to do a television commercial supporting Goldwater. The commercial was a version of a speech he had begun delivering around the country as he toured General Electric plants in his role as GE spokesman. The name of the talk was "A Time for Choosing," and it aired the evening of October 27th, forty-three years ago this month. Eventually, the speech made Reagan president.

But why? And what does this have to do with Rush Limbaugh?

[Slapshot68]

I sure miss the Gipper. He’s what we need right now.

[My2SonsAreMarines]

My introduction to the fight was as a 6-year old kid handing out Goldwater bumper stickers together with my parents in that stepchild of Massachusetts and bastion of Kennedy worship, Rhode Island.

The backlash against liberalism, welfare, Vietnam and "Johnson sandwiches" (debased currency in the form of clad coinage introduced first in 1965) started conservatism on its way back in the 1966 election cycle (similar backlash that brought in Gingrich's class of 1994 to power against Clinton) and the election of Ronald Reagan to the governorship of California.

[Defiant]

This article assumes a static electorate. What we have now is not conducive to educating the American people on why less government regulation and lower taxes are better. When the GOP wins the argument, and convinces the majority of Americans to follow conservativism, what is the very first thing that happens? Illegal aliens voting (beginning a decade ago when Bob Dornan lost his seat), importing illegal voters by the truckload (literally), letting felons vote, etc.

America can absorb a certain percentage of new citizens from any country. Poor immigrants will tend to be Democrats, but over a generation or two, they will become more independent in their thinking, freed by education and wealth to think for themselves. Many will choose conservatism, and so the ebb and flow of voting patterns will continue. So long as we convince the majority of Americans, i.e., those who have lived here all their lives, then we have a chance to obtain victory at the ballot box and reverse the creeping socialism that has transformed the country after 70 years.

However, import enough illegals to swing a few key states, and to make states like California impossibly liberal, and you have a situation where the actual American electorate, the people who voted for Reagan in the 1980s and their offspring, and the LEGAL immigrants who came after, cannot prevail in elections. Then, it doesn't matter what arguments a candidate makes, what matters is raw demographics, which will translate into greater power for socialists, which will spiral into even greater power for socialists, as they silence critics in the Hugo Chavez way. (Here, they might be more subtle at first, but eventually, socialists lose all subtlety).

So, yes, we may well be winning the argument among Americans. But we may also be losing the country at the same time. We're like the Afrikaaners without the racism, or the Christian Lebanese--being swamped by demographics, and finding ourselves a minority in the land we made great so that barbarians can take it over and destroy it.

There is a short window to reverse the trend, but the 2008 Presidential election is a key moment in that struggle. Lose that one, and it could be a tipping point--first with 20 million new "citizens" to vote with, then with all kinds of regulations on speech (campaign finance, fairness doctrine), then with heavy handed treatment of dissenters (IRS audits, environmental regulators, antitrust litigators, whoever is needed to get you to comply).

It could happen. Next time these people get in, with Hillary at the helm, there is no way they will permit themselves to lose Congress or the White House again. They have seen the future, and it is demographics, electronic voting and corruption.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

I read “A Choice not an Echo” and “The Conscience of a Conservative” when I was in my early teens. Goldwater was a breath of fresh air. He brought hope to those of us with Libertarian Conservative philosophies. I remember at the convention of 1964, he said “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice and moderation in defense of justice is no virtue.”
Also, he said “Keep the Government out of our pocketbooks and bedrooms.”

[ansel12]

Goldwater and Reagan.

Mitt Romney was present, witnessed, and was proud of his father for walking out of the 1964 Republican convention, in protest of Goldwater and his right wing supporters.

Thirty years later Mitt Romney himself was campaigning against Ronald Reagan.

“I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.

[My2SonsAreMarines]

Thirty years later Mitt Romney himself was campaigning against Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan was not running for anything in 1994.

[ansel12]

I should have said Reagan’s accomplishments and legacy, and conservatism in general.

[jim_trent]

He also came out against gun owners towards the end. I still don’t know how he changed from being a rock solid conservative to left-of-center near the end of his life.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

The name of the talk was "A Time for Choosing," and it aired the evening of October 27th, forty-three years ago this month. Eventually, the speech made Reagan president.

I was a Goldwater campaign worker at the time and tuned in to watch it on TV. It was awesome.

I can remember when I was 18 stationed at Camp Pendleton in 1961 playing pool in the company rec room when Goldwater came on the TV in the room. At that time I was apolitical and had no idea who Goldwater was.

But as I played pool with the words of the Goldwater interview coming from the TV. His words caught my attention. I stopped playing pool and staring listening to the interview.

I never heard a politician sound so honest and logical. No nuance or dancing around the questions. He was direct, honest and to the point. Not the typical political blather you normally hear.

I was a committed Goldwater supporter and conservative from that point on.

[My2SonsAreMarines]

He also came out against gun owners towards the end. I still don’t know how he changed from being a rock solid conservative to left-of-center near the end of his life.

His drift started with Roe v. Wade decision and his support thereof. He became more defined as a libertarian than as a conservative after that.

[rellimpank]

—you’ve got it , in a nutshell-—