Political Hay
The Goldwater Lesson
As CPAC gathers, pollster John Zogby’s warning and a look back at 1964.
(Page 2 of 2)
In what must now be regarded as a classic political book of the period, reporter Robert J. Donovan, a bestselling author of the day with admiring books on Eisenhower and JFK, wrote a quick post-1964 election book published in December of that year called The Future of the Republican Party. Then Washington bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times, Donovan is described on the book’s cover as “one of the foremost political analysts” in the country. Quite unwittingly, Donovan sets the template for just about every future criticism of the conservative movement that would be repeated endlessly over the next forty years, including lately by John Zogby. Right up front in his foreword, Donovan expresses his real fear that Goldwater and his band of conservatives “reversed the liberal trend of Republican presidential nominations that had prevailed for a quarter of a century.” (He glosses over the fact that all the moderate nominees excepting the military hero Ike — Hoover, Landon, Willkie, Dewey and Nixon, the latter campaigning in 1960 as a moderate — lost.) The newly powerful conservative movement, Donovan asserted, can only open “the floodgates of factionalism” and “put the party once more on the road to defeat.” Conservatives have so damaged the Republicans, he insists, that the GOP will never regain the White House “at least until 1988” — then 24 years distant.
In the face of all of this Goldwater meets the press a few days after the election. On November 15, chatting with reporters over a beer in Montego Bay. Calmly he says that it’s time to change the two-party system as it is currently structured (in 1964). America needs, he says, “two new teams” called liberals and conservatives. There must be recognition of two vastly different approaches to America’s problems. Focusing on the election returns that had him winning only six states, Goldwater says that “this year, obviously, millions of Republicans decided socialism and central-decided socialized government is all right. I want to find out why this, all of a sudden, has been embraced by so many.” He goes on to say flatly that he believes “the time has come for a real realignment of the two parties.”
His remarks are greeted with fury by GOP moderates. Former UN Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, the losing 1960 GOP vice presidential nominee and a prominent moderate, tells the Times the next day that Goldwater’s idea is “totally abhorrent to the American two-party system.” Governor Rockefeller reiterates that he has a vast difference with conservatives “over principle.”
In remarks that fairly leap from the page decades later, the Times itself says that Goldwater lost because he presented “disturbing questions” to voters that challenged liberal assumptions. While a Democrat just elected in LBJ’s landslide, Congressman-elect James Scheurer, a Bronx Democrat, says that the complete control of Democrats in Washington means there are “no excuses for not doing a good job.”
Disturbing questions and no excuses for doing a good job. Indeed.
Four and a half decades later the results of liberalism’s “good job” make it crystal clear why Goldwater’s “disturbing questions” were so angrily dismissed. Donovan was not alone in insisting that a Goldwater administration “might somehow lead to war” or that Goldwater’s idea to cut taxes by 25% was “suspect.” The Goldwater notion that the New Deal was, in fact, a failure infuriated liberals. The idea that LBJ’s just-promised “Great Society” could ever possibly be considered a bad idea drove them crazy.
What happened, of course, was that liberals inserted the U.S. into Vietnam — sent half a million troops — and yet refused to win the war outright. Thus, disaster. Fifty thousand American boys killed, and millions of Southeast Asians mass murdered when liberals abandoned the war. Liberalism was left with a searing ever-lasting image as the team that always favors appeasement if not isolationism itself, mass murder or American national security be damned. The idea that conservatives could possibly be more irresponsible than LBJ and Robert McNamara vanished.
Domestically, the insistence on injecting the federal government into every crack and crevice of American life from health care to education has, decades later, resulted in the imminent bankrupting of Medicare and one urban school system after another that produces platoons of badly educated kids. Understanding exactly that Goldwater got it right about socialism all the way back in 1964, all but three Republicans in the entire House and Senate refused to back the Obama “stimulus” bill that is widely seen as nothing less than a massive repeat of LBJ’s failures that will doom whole generations — a Great Society on steroids.
Yet in spite of the lessons learned from Barry Goldwater, there are still moderates aplenty who echo the 1964 voices of a John Lindsay or a Henry Cabot Lodge or Meade Alcorn. In fact, the 1964 “blame the conservatives” pattern is so standard as to be little short of a joke. Sure enough, following the 1976 defeat of Gerald Ford by Jimmy Carter, Mary Louise Smith, the outgoing moderate GOP RNC chair, pleaded that the GOP not make a “fatal lurch” to conservatism (meaning the looming figure of then ex-Governor Reagan). Moderate Michigan Governor William Milliken called an “emergency session” to fight off the conservatives, while another moderate governor (Thompson of Illinois) proclaimed the Party “ill…with grave problems.” The Times, just as Donovan did in 1964 and Zogby would do in 2008, proclaimed that the prominence of conservatives meant that the GOP in 1976 was “fighting for its survival.”
In 1992, after George H.W. Bush abandoned the conservatives who elected him in 1988, up popped moderate Iowa GOP Congressman Jim Leach to insist that the 1992 Bush loss to Bill Clinton was all the conservatives’ fault. Leach insisted to the Times that “the party has become too co-opted by narrow [conservative] groups.” In 1996, Democrats chortled that they had won because they portrayed the moderate Bob Dole as a conservative “extremist.” Now, after the 2008 McCain loss in which the nominee, like Willkie, Dewey, the 1960 Nixon, Ford, and the 19992 Bush and 1996 Dole, ran as a moderate, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis ( a former colleague of mine) updates this game to blame…Rush Limbaugh.
There are two lessons from all of this that CPAC attendees will doubtless know well.
First, conservatism is a political winner. The Donovan nightmare scenario that predicted a straight line of GOP presidential losses from 1964 to at least 1988 was laughably wrong. Nixon, campaigning as a conservative in 1968 and 1972, won. Ford the moderate followed the Donovan prescription in 1976 and lost. Conservative Reagan won two landslides in 1980 and 1984, while George H.W. Bush, under the tutelage of Lee Atwater, ran as a conservative and won the 1988 election.
Second, as CPAC-ers will also know, Goldwater was right about the results of liberalism. As practiced since 1964 it has been shown to be nothing less than an unending series of public policy disasters. From the Great Society’s misspent trillions to the bankruptcy of Social Security, Medicare and now Wall Street and the U.S. housing, banking, and credit systems. From school busing to Vietnam to the Detroit public schools to the entire recession-drenched state of Michigan, the policies that Goldwater — and later Reagan — warned about have proven themselves over and over again to be little short of unmitigated disasters.
The gathering at the end of this week of the Conservative Political Action Committee will be, without doubt, a serious moment in the next forward march of the conservative movement. Looking back at the lessons of Barry Goldwater can only help underscore that there is nothing new under the sun in the Obama era. Not its policies, and certainly not the dire warnings that conservatives should abandon conservatism for some “moderate” version of those policies. In spite of John Zogby and the ghosts of Zogby’s past, the conservative future — a bright future of ideas and victories — begins now.
As usual, William F. Buckley got it right. Forget the undertakers.
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (75) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/24/the-goldwater-lesson
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Alan Brooks| 2.24.09 @ 8:57AM
another on-target piece by Lord.
Libertarians have me confused, they are genuinely free market and have done so much, but they are as unpredictable as radical conservatives. some are merely souped up RINOS.
when i lived in Phoenix for a season too many libertarians (i.e. "Anthem", a large community of 'liberated' families) I met were Michael Jackson/Roman Polanski-types in their personal morality. 'do as thou wilt' is hardly so con.
I believe you will find it tougher going than you even think.
Eric| 2.24.09 @ 9:07AM
The only problem with Goldwater’s conservatism is it arrived too early, before the teachable moment. That moment came when Democrat Jimmy Carter proved that: 1) you could have both high inflation and high unemployment at the same time, disproving the Keynesian “Phillips curve” theory, and 2) choking America’s energy supply by attacking oil companies is a prescription for mass joblessness, and 3) high taxes and excess regulation hurt business and kill jobs.
So the people were ready when Reagan offered the alternative.
The teachable moment has almost arrived again. The Democrats are again choking the energy supply and pushing higher taxes and regulation.
Moderate Republicanism is a proven loser; McCain may have lost the election (and helped tank the economy) when he ran back to Washington to promote the socialist bailout, instead of campaigning against the government interference that caused the housing finance mess in the first place. (Every time a moderate Republican says “let’s put politics aside” to promote some big-government scam, he commits political suicide, makes bad policy, and insults the democratic process).
Republicans should instead campaign loudly against the big-government policies that made the mess we’re in. Republicans should rightly tie the economic collapse around the necks of its big-bully-government authors, including then-Senator Barak Obama who blocked Fannie Mae reform (and to some extent big-spender George Bush for failing to oppose Democrat schemes strongly enough).
We have indeed reached the crisis moment, with all the bills coming due, and Democrats are ready to repeat the New Deal formula: government causes the crisis and then uses it to scare people into voting for even bigger government. But this time it could be different, because we may have enough independent news/information sources to report the opposition argument – but only if it exists. If Republican leaders fail to unify around the message – that big-government caused our problems and freedom is the answer – then they will certainly again be sent into the political wilderness for 40 years, just as they were after the New Deal.
Alan Brooks| 2.24.09 @ 9:07AM
btw, Palin has what it takes, however it took Maggie T. and Jeanne Kirkpatrick till their golden years to be statesmen (we don't have to write 'stateswomen' at AS), meaning Palin wont be ready until after 2020-- a virtual eternity to wait in politics.
so that leaves the midterms. which means you have to find someone such as Newt but-without-the futurist-blarney.
Gill O'Teen| 2.24.09 @ 9:40AM
I was too young to vote for Goldwater in '64, but I was as proud to be one of his few supporters at my high school as my Father was that he had never voted for a Dumbocrat, and he was a child of the South. Unfortunately, I so hated what Johnson was doing in Vietnam that I allowed the American Communists to mislead me into supporting Eugene and George. I was never a supporter of Bobby's, so at least I wasn't a total loss.
It took Reagan the Great to pull me out of the cess pool of Dumbocratic politics, and I have voted for the Republicon candidate ever since. However, too many times I held my nose while doing so since the Republicon candidate's only recommendation was that he was not Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry or Obumah. Well, that’s a sorry reason for voting, and with the inept performance of McCain last year, I suspect he voted for Obumah - he sure campaigned for him, I have decided I will no longer support any candidate who does not stand for traditional conservative values. I will no longer vote for any Republican “moderate” proud of his ability to work with the liars, cheats and criminals now in control. Birds of a feather and all that. The argument that I would be throwing away my vote no longer holds water. I voted for McCain and that’s what happened. From now on if I can’t vote ‘for’ someone I’d rather write in “Donald Duck” or “Moe Howard”.
Sons of Sam | 2.24.09 @ 9:48AM
Why would any "swing voter" go for a fake Democrat when they can vote for a real one? Why would anyone follow in the lead of some knock kneed candy*ss RINO, when all these so-called "moderate" Republicans ever do is shout "me too" every time the ObamaNazis propose some new way to beat up America?
WE NEED A CHOICE, NOT AN ECHO
S.O.S.
http://www.geocities.com/samadamssos/
Doctor Right| 2.24.09 @ 9:49AM
When our Party starts taking advice from a Democrat pollster on how to conduct our affairs, then we are truly finished.
I'm going to CPAC this year, and I can't wait! This year's conference is going to be more energizing than any since...Well, maybe ever.
This nation has NEVER before so needed conservative principles and conservative leadership. Obama's socialist ideology provides us with an opportunity to finally show the American people what socialism looks like up close and personal - and if they didn't like Jimmy Carter in '80, or Clinton in '94, those pale in comparison to what Obama is doing today.
It's laughable when pundits on the left and the right proclaim conservatism "dead" as a result of the '08 elections when, as Rush Limbaugh aptly points out, it wasn't even on the ticket! McCain tried to run a center-slightly-right campaign, and tied himself in gordian knots with all of the attempted voter "triangulation" (such as coddling the sensibilities of illegal immigrants while trying to convince the rest of us that he was "tough on immigration"...). The only sensible thing McCain did in '08 was to acquiesce to the selection of Sarah Palin as his Veep choice (remember, he wanted Joe Lieberman!). Had he not gone with Palin, Obama's victory would have been even greater.
Like I said, I can't wait for CPAC.
Let the battle begin!
Anthony| 2.24.09 @ 10:40AM
I'm a bit confused here, Zogby admonishes R's not to be conservatives or they will continue to lose elections. In the alternative, should we C's refuse to go away, form a 3rd party of moderates. Let's deconstruct Zogby's logic. In the 1st instance, what part of the John McCain campaign was conservative? How could a bi-partisan, Democrat friendly, compromiser on vital issues such as immigration, energy & AGW, be labeled conservative, in order to explain his loss? Perhaps Zogby can tell us.
I suspect however, that Zogby has bought into the MSM & leftists Orwellian attempt to wipe conservativism from the lexicon of political thought. Moderates, such as McCain, are cleverly re-labeled conservatives, hence moderate R's occupy the far right of the political spectrum, with real conservatives off the chart completely. Pretty clever; it insures that radical leftist Dems will only compete against Dem lites, such as McCain, which will insure more Democrat victories. In the alternative, should true conservatives rise up and re-take control of the party, then a 3rd party, a la Perot, would again insure Democrat victories.
Of course, notice that when Democrats were losing elections, not so long ago, and the relevance & viability of the D party was being discussed, neither Zogby nor any other of the pundits admonished D's to seperate themselves from their radical base. Probably because the radical base has become the D party. Yet national D's always run on conservative themes, except Obama, who was a bit more open about his leftist bent, such that the MSM rushed to cover it up. Funny thing about that!
Zogby sets up a no lose senerio for Democrats and a continued fracture amoung R's. Granted, northeast R's & others contribute to this fracture, hence giving Zogby & Co. cover to continue to exploit the issue. The irony is, in less than a month's time, Obama & the Dems have radically socialized America beyond their most wild dreams. Chaos is here, and a serious crash is coming, brought to America by Marxist re-distributionists. Among some intelligent D's, the Obama Marxists are causing beads of sweat to appear. Conservative R's are publicly being labeled the saviors of the republic and our economic way of life, ala the Chicago tea party this July. Genuine revolt is in the air, and Zogby tell us C's to stand down on the brink of watching the D party disolve, just like the Soviet Union did, while leftists begged Reagan to stand down. Yep, we need to listen to those moderates, just like Colin Powell, who told Bush 41 not to finish the job in the 1st G.W.
Mr. Zogby would do well to focus on the fate of Democrats, or what will be left of them, after Obama is finished wrecking America.
Lee Schafer| 2.24.09 @ 10:41AM
It will be much harder for conservatives to overcome the moderates and RINOs in the GOP this time. In the 45 years since Goldwater, liberals both democrat and republican have become entrenched in our education system and the media. Today's young voters, those under 40 have never been taught the dangers of socialism and the government nanny state. How else can one explain how our country could elect an avowed marxist like Obama to the highest office.
In Goldwater's days the press was liberal but still prided itself on being fair and impartial. The media didn't take sides as they so blatantly did in 2008. Our schools in 1964 were still stressing the importance of free enterprise and capitalism. Today our educational system stresses a socialistic form of government and has painted this as the fairness for all.
Conservatism can not make a come back without a massive informational and educational program, once again telling people about the destructiveness of socialism. Even then it may be necessary that conservatives be willing to take to the streets in protest to the socialization of our economy and nation. Conservatives may well have to fight the revoluntionary war all over again.
Thomas| 2.24.09 @ 10:58AM
This year's election strategy pretty much bolsters Mr. Lord's point. Barack Obama actually campaigned as two different people. In the primaries, he was just slightly to the right of Vladamir Lenin and won the Democratic nomination. In the general election, he actually ran as a moderate and on some issues portrayed himself to be slightly to the right of John McCain. Now by moderate Republican standards, McCain should have been a shoe-in. A liberal-moderate Presidential candidate running with a conservative VP should have been able to win handily by garnering the votes of the "vast" moderate electorate as well as the conservative base. So why didn't he win?
The media had something to do with it. BUt overwhelmingly it was do the fact that, even with a dynamic conservative VP, many [if not most] of the conservatives in this country could not bring themselves to trust the man who had actively worked against their interests and philosophy for twenty years. The GOP lost because they have abandoned the basic principles of conservatism that gained them the White House in 1980, 1984, 1988 and 2000 and the Congress in 1994. If the GOP wants to win, then they have to field truly conservative candidates. If not, keep running McCains.
JP| 2.24.09 @ 11:04AM
Lee Shafer makes good points. I would also like to add that with each successive Democratic led Congress or administration the Center keeps being pulled Left. George Will once dubbed President Reagan an FDR Republican. This made sense as the Democrats in 1980 were so far to the Left that they made FDR look conservative. You can say the same for Truman, Adalia Stevenson, JFK, and LBJ. When a conservative like Reagan does come around, the Center is much farther Left than earlier times, and all that conservative can do is nudge a little Right. Unfortunately, the machinery that led to the Leftward surge reamins intact.
What should concern the GOP right now is the sprint to the Far Left Obama, Pelosi and Reid are making. They are following WH Chief of Staff Emmanual's quip of not allowing any crisis go to waste. What they are proposing is an even more complex machinery of socialism that like the New Deal and Great Society will remain in prepetuity. This is the genius of 20th Century Liberalism. Once a system is in place it is nealry impossible to tear it down. Obama et als know the window of oppurtunity is narrow and they are sprinting to add (or perhaps finish) to the socialist or neofascist state (Jonah Goldberg has alot to say on NeoFascism).
The tast for the GOP, but especially for conservative-libertarians is daunting. How can we ressurect old, dusty ideas such as Federalism and individual liberty to a nation that demands more and more goverment?
JP| 2.24.09 @ 11:32AM
Thomas,
You are debating tactics and not grand strategy. Each election cycle has its own challanges and oppurtunities. Obama just took what McCain offered him. The die was already cast. The conservatism of the GOP in 1984 was way different than 2008. One could argue that the word conservative has gone the way as the phrase "family values" -that is, it is meaningless. Niether McCain nor Palin governed as conservatives. McCain at times was at odds with the 1st Amendment, and Govenor Palin exthorted money from mining and oil businesses. Both have attractive bios and CVs, but have little to offer in the way of overarhcing political philosophy. Like Bush41 and 43, not to mention Reps Delay and Cunningham, Sens Dole and Lugar, McCain and Palin call themselves conservatives. But in personal life as well as political life, none of these people lived or governed as conservatives. They were all part of the leftward march into the gutter of our post FDR society.
It is my fear that our political classes just mirror society at large. Lincoln spoke of the "better angels of our nature". But in the last 20 years only the lowest common denominator reigns. At least for now, a very large minority or even a majority of voters prefer the party that plays to this bottom feeding form of politics (no one now flinches when we borrow $475 billion to prop up a corrupt mortgage market. Niether do they bat an eye when a teacher seduces a student, or politician evades taxes). Could there be a connection to a society where 13 years olds hook up and where borrowers can run up huge credit card bills and demand the goverment "do something about it"? If so, what ails our nation cannot be fixed by politics.
Individuals as well as society can reform. But they need the freedom and liberty to do so. That would be a good place for the GOP to start.
Nick| 2.24.09 @ 12:09PM
Mr. Lord,
Bravo!
Perhaps you could send your essay to Richard Nadler.
Thomas| 2.24.09 @ 12:09PM
JP,
I think you need to re-read my previous post. I specifically stated that McCain was not a conservative, but a liberal-moderate. Palin espoused conservative philosophies and whether she can be classified as a true conservative was moot at the time of the election.
Actually I was discussing strategic goals for the GOP.
I said, "The GOP lost because they have abandoned the basic principles of conservatism that gained them the White House in 1980, 1984, 1988 and 2000 and the Congress in 1994. If the GOP wants to win, then they have to field truly conservative candidates."
This is strategic planning in nature. If the GOP adopts the "strategy" of running candidates who embody principles shared by the vast majority of Conservative voters they win. If they do not, they lose. Simple, no?
My mention of the tactics used in the current election is an illustration of my point concerning winning strategy. Obama ran as an uber-liberal in the primaries to appeal to his party's base. He then ran as a much more moderate candidate in the general election to attract more moderate voters, but he never abandoned the Democratic base, liberals. McCain campaigned as a conservative from the get-go. Unfortunately, given his track record, the conservative base of the Republican Party wouldn't buy that. And, the more conservative candidates in the Republican primaries siphoned off votes from one another, allowing the "moderate" Republicans [as well as independents and Democrats] to choose their Presidential candidate. To counteract the definite lack of enthusiasm, one might even say hatred of McCain, among conservatives; the Republicans picked a little known female governor who articulated conservative values. This was still not enough to garner sufficient conservative votes to win the election.
The point is that conservative voters have not disappeared, nor have their numbers been significantly reduced. Courting them is a win for Republican candidates. Ignoring them is guaranteeing a loss at the polls.
dcd| 2.24.09 @ 1:04PM
Any way you slice it you still need 50%+ to win the electin. The so-cons aren't enough, and they scare anti-luddites and people who don't want politicians involved in there private (bedroom) lives. The fiscal cons aren't enough, it just doesn't get people excited. And the defense cons aren't enough because people figure if the government is going to spend trillions of dollarsthey would like to see some of. Altogether you've got maybe 45-50% of the population, which with a dollar gets you a cup of coffee.
Is there some other group of society that the right can make peace with?
frost| 2.24.09 @ 1:26PM
Zogby's opinions are a joke, and so are too many of the staunch "social" conservatives, I fear. Candidly, I find it nearly impossible to vote for anyone who does not follow Barry Goldwater's policies (as related by Mr. Bozell years ago and the senator's repeated opinions0, period.
Sure, this will probably tick-off (how's that for politeness?) the right-right zealots who can't stand that gay-stuff, stem-cells and, of course, abortion -- the no-choice stance; don't want to ruffle too many feathers...
No, Barry Goldwater approved of choice in most every social situation. Let me repeat that word, CHOICE. Lest some readers suffer from Terminal Vapors, severe angst and the like, may I remind you that Goldwater was more of what we call a Libertarian these days - - you answer to God, not a bunch of sanctimonious individuals who'd presume to judge what should (or should not) be "allowed."
The most principled individual politician I've ever heard of (and I've spoken with s number of presidential candidates, have known a few governors, a senator or two, among others), if future guys don't possess his wisdom, I'll pass. That's all.
Pingback| 2.24.09 @ 1:39PM
Rebuilding The Republican Party - Page 2 links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jeffrey Lord| 2.24.09 @ 1:41PM
Frost....
Abortion doctrine is NOT about choice. When is the last time you had a vote on abortion policy on your ballot or your legislature? The so-called "pro-choice" position on abortion is about judges denying the rest of us choice. If abortion on demand is as popular as its proponents insist, why not a vote? Why not a...choice? If abortion were the law because of a legislative or popular vote instead of judicial fiat we would not still be debating the issue almost 40 years later...
Pingback| 2.24.09 @ 1:48PM
Obama's Biggest Political Challenge - Page 3 links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jason | 2.24.09 @ 2:11PM
What the Zogbys of the world refuse to recognize is that moderate Republicans aren't going lead the party in the right direction and win big elections. They fail to acknowledge the fact that Moderate Conservatism's poster-boy, Mr. Maverick himself, LOST! What's it going to take to satisfy these people? A SOCIALIST Republican? I'm going to have to step away from the computer. This is too upsetting.
http://www.rightklik.net/
RJ| 2.24.09 @ 2:38PM
Goldwater's conservatism was a limited government one; where the GOP lost it's way the past decade (and make no mistake, it DID lose it's way) was by abandoning limited government principles and becoming Conservative Big Government, with bloated social/entitlement spending, from-on-high Federal mandates on things such as education, a meddlesome social agenda FAR beyond abortion (while many of it's pols- Foley and Craig instantly spring to mind- engaged in the same behaviors too many in the party hector others to avoid) and fiscal irresponsibility.
The problem has been a LACK of conservative Republicans in the Goldwater (and Reagan) mold, not too many.
frost| 2.24.09 @ 2:44PM
Here we go again ----- which is what good ol' Barry realized, as he also was pro-CHOICE....
The fact that abortion is presently legal? There's no one forcing people to have 'em... and, any pending legislation to overturn Roe/Wade? I'd oppose it simply because I have that Libertarian view that FREEDOM of CHOICE is as valuable as the 1st and 2nd Amendments, for starters. Any dogmatic stuff stinks (in my not-so-humble opinion), and I resent the hard-right pontificators telling my daughters what they may/may not do?
No thanks. Got a lot of things to do ("retirement" is a bitch -- too busy), so I'll wrap it this way, fully aware that the zealots will attempt to refute the logic, but, simply: My wives and I are/were pro-CHOICE - - - but between us we've had nine children between us. The word is "CHOICE" - - underline that, okay? 'Nuff said.
Jeffrey Lord| 2.24.09 @ 3:16PM
Friend Frost....
Ahhh...You did not answer the question as to why the rest of us are deprived of the CHOICE of voting on abortion "rights"...Your "choice" is not a choice at all, it is a judicial fiat with which you happen to agree. Enjoy your retirement!
Nick| 2.24.09 @ 3:33PM
Frost,
So if someone CHOOSES to put a bullet in the brain of one of your 9 children, you won't have a problem with that? That would be more humane than having your arms and legs ripped off, your skull crushed, and sucked up with a vacuum. Or being burned alive with saline.
It's all about the FREEDOM of CHOICE right?
dcd| 2.24.09 @ 4:09PM
That's all very graphic, but the abortion debate will not be settled (or progress) in a forum. As it is a question one party will be for and the other against (choice/abortion). The issue by itself is not enough to win, nor apparently in combination with fiscal policy; at least not in the lip service espoused. What else do you have to offer?
frost| 2.24.09 @ 4:35PM
Mr. Lord, sir -- sorry. Sure. Vote on it if that's what you want, and it can get passed... I have no objection. And, even if I did, in today's political climate (uck!), have my doubts if it would pass.
And, to the deranged zealot. Nick, your sorry excuse for a comment doesn't merit an answer; a woman can Choose to have a baby...
It's folks like Nick who've cost the GOP lotsa votes. As anticipated earlier, zealotry is an unfortunate result of the topic, and I sure don't need the lecture.
Dcd's right, and as an independent Independent with more than a few Libertarian leanings, methinks "choice" is a good word - - so now, if you'll pardon me, think I'll go vacuum the pool...
Nick| 2.24.09 @ 4:41PM
dcd,
I like for pro-choicers to know what that choice actually entails.
I'm not Pro-Life because it's a winning issue or will put Republicans in power. I'm Pro-Life because abortion is evil and kills an innocent human being. Period.
But if all you care about are winning issues, think about this: A person who has no problem with taking away someone's right to life will certainly have no problem taking away your right to property.
Which Republicans consistently vote for higher taxes and more spending? The liberal pro-aborts, that's who. Which supreme court justices voted for a bogus eminent domain claim in Kelo and are agianst private property rights in general? The same ones who support Roe v. Wade.
If Libertarians want to keep the fruits of their labors, they should realize that it is Pro-Lifers who are more consistant than the mushy moderate/liberal RINO's.
Nick| 2.24.09 @ 4:50PM
Frost,
And I'll remind you of the words of Mr. Goldwater: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
It's too bad he didn't practice what he preached, but I do. So call me names all you want. The truth hurts doesn't it?
dcd| 2.24.09 @ 5:41PM
Moderates do not tend to be mushy or unreliable. Generally they are very consistant on the issues that matter to them, which is where republicans loose their votes. Trying to figure out which party will pay heed to their concerns makes life much more difficult for moderates than for dogmatic conservatives or liberals.
A moderate who thinks a strong national science/research policy is important has little sympathy for liberal social policy but will be repulsed by conservative creationist ideology. If republicans would bother to come up with strong environmental arguments, the large conservationist movement can be readily persuaded.
Although there is a duality in parties the populace has far more concerns than a few, insignificant as far as moderates are concerned, litmus tests.
Nick| 2.24.09 @ 6:11PM
dcd,
Just which Republicans were pushing this "conservative creationist ideology"? Any other straw men you'd like to try? Again RINO's, a.k.a. moderates, consistently vote for bigger gov. and curtailing individual rights.
Washington, Adams, Franklin, Henry: The great moderates of American history, ladies and gentlemen. Fence-sitters don't make history, they follow it.
frost| 2.24.09 @ 6:12PM
Pool vacuum'd and swell - - Nick, you appear to be a presumptuous twit. That's not name-calling, just a pretty legitimate observation, I'd wager.
Kinda remind me of the Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson group -- and that blubbering woman with the pink hair and runny mascara. Sorry.
And, for what it's worth, Barry Goldwater was pro-CHOICE.
dcd| 2.24.09 @ 6:22PM
Both former president Bush, Palin, and Jindal (the current standard bearers for the party) have publicly declared a desire to stop teaching science in schools. This was clearly done when they stated "the controversy" over the origin of species should be taught, there is no scientific controversy on the matter. Shoehorning incoherent psuedoscientific gibberish like intelligent design into the curriculum means that religion not science is taught.
Most moderates are only moderate in comparison to the current politcal poles.
eyeswideopen| 2.24.09 @ 6:57PM
Lee Schafer said, "Conservatism can not make a come back without a massive informational and educational program, once again telling people about the destructiveness of socialism. Even then it may be necessary that conservatives be willing to take to the streets in protest to the socialization of our economy and nation. Conservatives may well have to fight the revoluntionary war all over again."
I agree. The GOP is dead! Do not waste your time trying to reform it! All conservative must withdraw all financial and organizational support now!
Where will we, conservatives, go? The choices are help form a strong third party to displace the GOP (I prefer the Constitution Party) and/or form/support grassroots organizations to work outside the political party system to bring about change that we believe in. I see the latter taking hold and getting stronger every day. Viva la revolucion!
Nick| 2.24.09 @ 6:57PM
dcd,
President Bush and Governors' Palin and Jindal have said no such thing. Unless you can provide quotes and sources from these people, quit libelling them. And not from Media Matters or huffpo either.
dcd| 2.24.09 @ 7:09PM
August 1, 2005, at a round table interview with reporters from texas bush said "the controversy" should be taught.
On a televised debate on KAKM Sarah Palin said she was a proponent of teaching both.
Jindal signed Louisiana academic freedom act in 2008 permitting teaching intelligent design.
Since you are not aware of the positions of leading republicans I suggest you at least check there wikipedia pages, or run a quick google search on the subject.
They are not ashamed of their creationist positions, though they do seem to be unable to distinguish science from religion.
dcd| 2.24.09 @ 7:17PM
Nick, apparently you are a moderate on the whole teaching science vs pseudoscience issue. As a fence sitter you will therefore not make history, but rather follow it.
Nick| 2.24.09 @ 7:28PM
dcd,
I'm perfectly aware of their positions. You wrote: "...[they] have publicly declared a desire to stop teaching science in schools." False. Their positions are to teach both. Darwinism is also a set of religious beliefs. And you're not being very pro-choice, are you?
Nick| 2.24.09 @ 7:32PM
dcd,
Exactly how am I moderate on this issue?
dcd| 2.24.09 @ 7:47PM
I did not understand your intent. Teaching "intelligent design" is not teaching science. Teaching that psudoscietific hokum is a viable alternative to research and experimentation is not teaching science. Teaching that if the subject matter gets confusing everything can be attributed to supernatural causes is not teaching science.
Sceince is not about choosing to believe something or not, such wishy washy ambivalence is the realm of religion.
Science is about rigor, evidence and experimentation. Evolution is not a religious belief system but rather a scientific theory supported by copius evidence, extensive experimentation and thorough review.
When someone states that a doctrine that lacks all qualities of good science can be taught as if it were science, then that party is definitely taking the position that science should not be taught.
Therefore it is true that Bush, Palin, and Jindal are of the opinion that science should not be taught.
dcd| 2.24.09 @ 7:55PM
Nick, if you were aware of the bush/palin/jindal intelligent design position (thinly concealed creationist ideology) why did you feign ignorance on the matter and request citations ?
Jeffrey Lord| 2.24.09 @ 8:02PM
Frost...
While I happen to be "pro-life" it has seemed to me over the years that the real problem with social issues is process. Nick's passion is both real - and typical of those on both sides of the issue. I find it increasingly crazy to believe that one can resolve issues like abortion or gay marriage by having a judge or collection of judges inserting their personal preferences for that of the voters. These kinds of issues are very difficult in the sense that "pro-choicers" will never convince the Nicks of the world, nor will the "pro-life" Nicks of the world convince Mr. and Mrs. Frost. Yet it seems inescapable to me based on American history (think, say, prohibition or civil rights) that an issue of great social magnitude will ever be "resolved" unless we all agree to give everyone a voice. Prohibition came about because a majority was persuaded that alcohol should be banned and so voted a constitutional amendment. Disaster ensued, and the American people later changed their minds and reversed course by undoing that which they had voted for. (Maybe they just wanted a drink without the hassle!) When people have the sensation that X...any kind of X....has been jammed down their throats by a judge's personal preference and they have no recourse, the cause of X suffers. No one blinks an eye at blacks dining in restaurants, yet once they did blink (and much worse!) The civil rights law that governs public accomodations was debated furiously in the post-Civil War 1800's and again in the 1960's. What this says, I think, is that people need to be persuaded. To think it out. And yes, human beings being human beings, this can take time. Your position or mine or Nick's may be in the majority or the minority....but it will never not go furiously challenged for eternity if it is not eventually put to everyone for a vote. In the case of the American system this means ballot initiatives, laws in state legislatures, laws from Congress, perhaps a constitutional amendment. As mentioned earlier, I believe the mere fact we are having this little back-and-forth decades after Roe (1973) is because of the WAY abortion has been dealt with even more than the substance of the issue itself. While I find myself on Nick's side of the substance, I think the process that seems to advantage your side on the surface has in fact seriously undermined it. It is very hard to say one is "pro-choice" at the same time one says to Nick, in essence, you have no choice in the matter... so stuff it. Whatever that attitude is, "choice" ain't it!
On the lighter side...as an ex-life-guard I used to clean pools. I hope the technology is better!
dcd| 2.24.09 @ 8:11PM
It would seem that no matter how the abortion issue is resolved half of the country will be very dissatisfied. As Mr Lord noted even a popular vote and constitutional amendment is no gurantee of harmony. This will be even more acrimonius if roe v wade is over turned and abortion becomes a state issue. Would it be surprising, given the level of passion, if interested parties descended on particular states to gurantee their desired outcome so that they can "jam it down the throats" of their opponents?
Nick| 2.24.09 @ 8:30PM
dcd,
I know exactly what science is and is not. More than you do apparently.
First, you are conflating Creationism and Intelligent Design. They are not the same thing. Please educate yourself.
And second, could you explain how one tests evolution in the lab? Just what experiments can you perform that would confirm any dogma of Darwinism?
Evolution was a poor hypothesis by a 19th century atheist. All other scientific fields have advanced since the 1850's. Darwinists are still searching for their missing links.
Jeff Nordlander| 2.24.09 @ 8:47PM
As a 20 year old college student I am in the unique position of understanding the coming generation. If you think that the way to regain a Republican majority is by fielding "true conservatives" you are in DENIAL.
Jeffrey Lord| 2.24.09 @ 8:58PM
Jeff..
So you mean the coming generation is opposed to racial equality and color-blindness, believes that appeasement is the way to deal with America's enemies and wants the government to tax them into poverty? Well, OK then. You're right. True conservatives will not find any takers in that crowd!
Ahhhhh...how times never change. The aging process awaits....
Nick| 2.24.09 @ 9:03PM
Frost,
Your powers of observation reek. Swaggart says I'm going to hell because I belong to that extremist organization known as the Roman Catholic Church. Me and the Pope, a couple of "deranged zealots".
Thanks for showing your bigotry towards Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, though.
dcd| 2.24.09 @ 9:17PM
There is no distinction between ID and creationism. Even Behe, pitiable frontman for the ID movement, was unable to distinguish the two when questioned on the matter during the kitzmiller v dover trial. They both make unsupported calls to supernatural forces.
Further, lab support has been accrued from fossils, geology, chemistry, embryology, archeo-genetics, genetic trait development, isolation speciation, etc. Darwin proposed a unifying theory for the origin of species which combined with the overwhelming and steadily growing fields of biology, physics, and chemistry developed into the theory of evolution.
But the evidence really doens't matter to you does it Nick, your not actually concerned with or even marginally interested in good science so why pretend?
As for missing links (a frowned upon term) they are only missing till they are found. Since so many have been found they are simply called links.
Nick| 2.24.09 @ 10:06PM
dcd,
Creationists believe in either the literal 6 day creation or a young Earth. ID is self-explanatory, with some proponents having no problem with a 12 billion old big bang. I would call that a BIG distinction. Wouldn't you?
I have always been interested in science and am always open to evidence. You said evolution was supported by experiments, give me an example. All you did was string together a bunch of scientific fields. That's not proof. Give me your best evidence for evolution. You've done so much investigating, this shouldn't be so hard, should it?
What I believe is God created the universe and man. How He did it I don't pretend to know, I wasn't there. Neither were you, and no one took pictures. So I'll go where ever the evidence takes me. Not where a bunch of atheists who want be their own gods and decide for themselves what perversions are OK to commit.
dcd| 2.24.09 @ 10:22PM
Your really not interested in my explanation and you would most likely not accepted my statements as evidentiary. For a comprehensive analysis of evolution and intelligent design I suggest consulting wikipedia.
For the most accesible lab support consider the development of antibiotic resstanc in bacteria and insecticide resistance in fruitflies (always dismissed as microevolution by creationist). To continue the speciation of a mouse population into distinct species after centuries of isolation on islands. Next the steady progression of the fossil record from archaic whale to modern type, accompanied by the gradual reduction of limbs and acquisition of traits useful in an aquatic environment.
There are many flavors of creationism, each one yields as the scientific evidence makes it increasingly ridiculous. Young earth creationism was replaced with old earth, gap and then progressive creationism. The latest flavor is intelligent design (a simple replacement word as shown by the word by word substitution in the early texts of "pandas and people")
As for going where the evidence takes you, what evidence (real not the pretend stuff that Behe and Wells supply) leads to ID?
Nick| 2.24.09 @ 11:59PM
dcd,
Nice dodge. I wouldn't have asked for the best evidence if I wasn't interested. So lay it on me. And if you're educating yourself on wiki, you're going to get burned. Anyone can post anything there.
Resistance is rightly dismissed. When an ebola outbreak kills 75% of the people infected, did the 25% that survived evolve?
You have no idea how those mice got on those islands, just conjecture. There is no gradual progression in the fossil record, only gaps. Where there are gaps, artists fill them in. Nat Geo just had a special celebrating Darwin. The parts I saw were just computer cartoons.
Your "many flavors" comment doesn't rebut what I wrote about the BIG differences between them and how you conflated them in earlier posts. Young Earth creationism has not been replaced, there are still many adherents. You're just wrong on this.
I believe in God not because of ID, science can't prove or disprove His existance. God is super-natural, not natural or physical. The closest thing we have are miracles, but in the end faith is a gift from God Himself. Faith in Darwinism is a curse.
Nick| 2.25.09 @ 12:02AM
That should be- " The closest thing TO PROOF we have..."
Bingo Live | 2.25.09 @ 12:07AM
The moment is transformative for both conservatives and the shocked moderate establishment of the Republican Party, which watched two of its standard bearers (New York's Governor Nelson Rockefeller and Pennsylvania's Governor William Scranton) lose to Goldwater.
Nick| 2.25.09 @ 12:10AM
dcd,
By the way, do you believe in AGW or climate change?
ruth| 2.25.09 @ 1:37AM
Nick, you're cool. So are you, Mr. Lord. It's lovely to witness two good and decent men defend life. Gentlemen, both of you have got an admirer here. (And I'm sure I'm not the only one! ;)
Thomas| 2.25.09 @ 8:19AM
Two quick points here.
ID v. Darwinian Evolution. At base I see no conflict. The basis for the intelligent design theory is that some intelligence designed the various lifeforms that exist upon the Earth. Darwinian evolutionary theory does not address the origin of species, even though that was the title of his manuscript, but rather the evolution of existing species into different species. The only real difference in the two theories is that ID postulates that all existing, extinct and future species were planned ofr by an outside intelligence and DE postulates that evolutionary development is based solely upon chance. The point is that they are both theories.
As to the abortion issue, Frost and Nick will never agree on the issue. Because at bottom, it is all about timing. For Nick a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. Fotr Frost, a fetus does not become a human being until birth. Therefor, for Nick, abortion is murder and for Frost it is simply cosmetic surgery. Mr Lord is correct when he says that the issue will never be settled until there is a universal referendum upon it.
dcd| 2.25.09 @ 10:05AM
Nick, as expected you are not interested in evidence or even understanding of science.
"did the survivors evolve" demonstrates your lack of comprehension on the subject of evolution.
Evolution is based on the inheritance of traits. Therefore an organism does not evolve if survives. It's offspring will inherit traits from the parents, and with exposure to environmental stress (toxins, disease, etc) the traits will accumulate increasing the survival rate of said offspring.
The mice populations are known to have been introdyced to isolated island population, by early european ships, with documentation provided by ship's logs.
As for the fossil record critique, I can only wonder what level of completeness IDists want.
Young earth, old earth, intelegent design creationism all have there adherents; and none of them are science.
As for wikipedia, it's entries on the science of evolution and the psudoscience of ID are well cited. A skeptic like you should have no trouble tracking down the original sources.
Science requires evidence and experimentation. No evidence, experimental or otherwise, supports supernatural causes. One can have faith or not, but be honest and call it religion. Only those of weak faith demand proof of god (see doubting thomas).
bernardo| 2.25.09 @ 1:19PM
Libertarians and conservatives, religious and secular people, proponents and opponents of legal abortion, and supporters and critics of George Bush have important and sometimes fundamental disagreements that we should not and need not hide or gloss over. However, we should realize what we have in common and be aware that we will need each other in the coming struggles. Things are getting rough out there, and the leftists plan to make them rougher. To paraphrase a great man whom both conservatives and libertarians can claim as an intellectual forefather, we must all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately. He was speaking literally, while we, for now at least, have the luxury of meaning it only metaphorically. Nonetheless, we should take the advice.
Nick| 2.25.09 @ 1:33PM
dcd,
You're right, my question was flip and poorly written. Natural selection (or survival) doesn't result in new species. The ebola survivor's future generations are not going to evolve, are they? Observation of millions of generations of bacteria over decades have shown no evolution (i.e. turning into new species).
On the mice, again poorly worded. What I meant was we don't know EXACTLY how or when European mice were deposited on different islands. If you're referring to the Madeiran mice, again they don't know which specific species of mice were introduced or when. They're still testing the genetics as far as I know.
So you admit you were conflating the two views, that's progress.
A skeptic like me has checked, that is how I know how much garbage is on wiki.
Darwinianists start with a premise (or commandment), natural macro-evolution results in new species. And then they go looking for the evidence to prove their dogma. Some creationists do the same thing. Neither is science.
You didn't answer, do you believe in man-made global warming?
Nick| 2.25.09 @ 1:44PM
Ruth,
Thank you very much!
I'm a fan of yours as well. You constantly make me laugh putting trolls in their place. And you show no fear standing up for what is right.
God Bless You.
Nick| 2.25.09 @ 2:00PM
Thomas,
I agree with Mr. Lord.
Personally, I would love to outlaw abortion today in all 50 states and the territories. But the constitution doesn't allow for these sweeping edicts. So I'll settle for erasing the lame Roe v. Wade debacle, which even liberal scholars say is bad law.
Some have argued for using the "not depriving someone of life... without due process..." clause for outlawing abortion. I now find that tenuous. An amendment is the right way to go.
horseracing tips | 3.1.09 @ 1:49AM
To continue the speciation of a mouse population into distinct species after centuries of isolation on islands. Next the steady progression of the fossil record from archaic whale to modern type, accompanied by the gradual reduction of limbs and acquisition of traits useful in an aquatic environment.
ghjh| 11.25.09 @ 8:52PM
MOV Converter Mac,
MOV Converter Mac