Epic Moments in US History

[KC]

One of my favorites, as you can probably tell in my signature, is Barry Goldwater's 1964 acceptance speech. In this clip I enjoy the commentary afterwards. Apparently a report said "Good lord, he's going to run as Barry Goldwater." The significance to me is that Goldwater stuck to principles and didn't bend his rhetoric in the face of a media and political environment that called him too radical. He wound up having a profound impact on the Republican party as many argue that Goldwater was an important influence on Reagan.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--375PlwiCw

[Peter1469]

It was a shame the the religious right co-opted the Goldwater movement.

[KC]

It was a shame the the religious right co-opted the Goldwater movement.

It is too bad. He seemed to be a true believer. But then, the true believers are rarely all that effective in office.

[Peter1469]

It is too bad. He seemed to be a true believer. But then, the true believers are rarely all that effective in office.

True. Most people prefer to be saddled by the State.

[Mister D]

How did the "Religious Right" (assuming such a thing exists) co-opt the Goldwater movement?

[KC]

How did the "Religious Right" (assuming such a thing exists) co-opt the Goldwater movement?

If I'm not mistaken it's not so much that the right at the time denied him the Presidency (for many he was seen as too extreme), but Goldwater's style of conservatism was replaced soon after in the Republican party by the Falwell's and Pat Robertson's of the world.

[Mister D]

If I'm not mistaken it's not so much that the right at the time denied him the Presidency (for many he was seen as too extreme), but Goldwater's style of conservatism was replaced soon after in the Republican party by the Falwell's and Pat Robertson's of the world.

Was it? The GOP is a big tent. That's unavoidable when you have two parties. I think fiscals like to blame their defeats on socials and vice versa. In reality, they probably need one another.

[KC]

Was it? The GOP is a big tent. That's unavoidable when you have two parties. I think fiscals like to blame their defeats on socials and vice versa. In reality, they probably need one another.

I don't think the party leadership before Goldwater was as dependent on religious conservatism. That sort of conservatism translating to policy at the national level increased after Goldwater's style of conservatism went out of fashion (partly because of the Civil Rights Act, which put states rights advocates in an awkward position).

[KC]

The Supreme Court in Roe V. Wade also played a major role in post-Goldwater era. The abortion issue became a rallying cry.

[Mister D]

I don't think the party leadership before Goldwater was as dependent on religious conservatism. That sort of conservatism translating to policy at the national level increased after Goldwater's style of conservatism went out of fashion (partly because of the Civil Rights Act, which put states rights advocates in an awkward position).

If that kind of conservatism went out of style it's because conservatives surrendered on everything that was important. One can detect this simply in the way you phrased your last comment. An awkward position? That position would not have been the least bit awkward prior to the 1960s. The left has done a much better job of disseminating their ideas. They changed American culture and made the right merely an adjunct of the left.

I don't know...it seems to me that fiscals are trying to push socials away under the impression that fiscal conservatism would be more popular if those pesky social issues would stop cropping up. IMO, it is precisely the right's surrender on the cultural front that doomed it.

[Mister D]

The Supreme Court in Roe V. Wade also played a major role in post-Goldwater era. The abortion issue became a rallying cry.

For groups across the spectrum.