DU Old-Timers: A Question

[H2O Man]

HBO has a special on titled "Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater." It is a "family" documentary about Barry Goldwater, made by one of his granddaughters. I'm curious how many of the older participants on this forum have watched it (or will tonight)? If so, what you thought of it? I remember thinking he was dangerous in the '60s. It seemed like he believed that General Curtis LeMay was rational. But by the '80s, I thought Goldwater seemed rational when compared to the "new breed" of conservatives.

While I'm taking this stroll down Memory Lane .... the other day I was speaking to one of the college students who comes to this house from time to time to request money. In an effort that I believe was intended to make me believe a large donation would be money well spent, this student mentioned that one teacher had compared the war in Iraq to the Vietnam War. During my long and boring response (but well before emptying my wallet), I noted that I think interesting comparisons might be made to the French experience in Southeast Asia, post WW2. Your thoughts?

[EFerrari]

1. That is my memory, too, H2O Man. My Dem family thought

he was the devil incarnate.

Sigh.

I may have to check that out. ;)

[tsuki]

3. Yet, when it came to the question of the Constitution, he went to Nixon

and said you must resign.

[EFerrari]

5. That's right. I never thought I'd miss BOTH of them. lol

[H2O Man]

12. Ha!!!

If ANYONE told me in 1974 that there would come a day when I would think Nixon was far superior, both as a president and as a human being, than another American president, why I would have died laughing.

[EFerrari]

17. I would have asked for some of whatEVER they were smoking.

lol

[blm]

56. I have that same thought nearly every day since Jan 2001.

.

[H2O Man]

4. There was the

infamous "daisy" commercial, which while it only played one time in '64, remains perhaps the single most powerful ad in political history. I always thought it summed him up pretty well. It was strange to see how painful that was for his family.

[EFerrari]

8. Is this program on your local PBS? I can't seem to find it.

You know that the basis for John Dean's new book was a conversation they were having about the way the fundies were overrunning their party?

Edit: Sorry, misread. You wrote HBO

[mmonk]

59. When I saw your original post in this thread, that

political ad flashed immediately in mind. But I'm here to say Goldwater was sane especially when compared to today's "conservatives". The ones today are brainwashed extremist radicals that are trying to sack the constitutional system in broad daylight.

[Hangingon]

37. In the day...

he was AuH2O

[EFerrari]

47. Welcome to DU, Hangingon.

:hi:

[tsuki]

2. I have encouraged every RW'er that I know to watch the special.

I am not a Goldwater fan, but I can respect his viewpoint (so different from today.)

I was afraid of the nukes and the pro-war hawkishness, and I did not agree with his segregation stance, but he was coming from the standpoint of states rights, not out of a racist stance.

His beliefs are in direct contrast with today's conservative movement.

[H2O Man]

9. The segregation business,

as you point out, was clearly one of his weak points. And I understand the idea of "state's rights," but the simple fact is that no state has the right to deny basic Constitutional rights, and he was wrong. At the same time, it was interesting to watch the parts about his interaction with the Native American population in the southwest. The people he clearly admired were not looking to integrate into the US society. Perhaps that influenced his thinking in other areas.

I thought his relationship with JFK was fascinating. Their plans for debating in the '64 campaign held such promise for the country.

[tnlefty]

6. I don't receive HBO, nor did I think too much about Goldwater during

the 60's, but when the "newer" breed of republicans began trashing him, I did begin to pay attention (later, as you say in the late 70's and early 80's) and he seems rather tame in comparison to what we deal with today.

I do remember reading something that he wrote about being pushed out of the party because he believed in the separation of church and state, and that he thought that abortion should be between a woman, her doctor, etc., and that the government should have no business meddling.

I can't believe that your response would be long AND boring, but I'm a southerner and that is what we do on porches - hash things out!

[H2O Man]

21. Yes.

The parts that you mention about church and state, and abortion, were things I never would have associated with him in the 1960s. Even the Goldwater that is shown by a granddaughter who is clearly proud of him, isn't anyone I would ever vote for. But I think that he was willing to, and capable of, having a valuable discussion on important issues. And that is such a stark contrast to people like Cheney and Bush.

[EFerrari]

22. The present Cabal doesn't hold discussions. They control messages.

If you try to engage them, they don't hear you unless it is somehow convenient for them, i.e., unless they can use your words against you and stay on message.

[Old and In the Way]

7. He was fringe, no question.

It's relative, of course. He'd probably be considered a centrist in this WH. Shows what 40 years of TV will do to a society.

[JuniperLea]

10. Methinks you nailed it

I'm all for the real, old-school Republicans taking their party back.

[H2O Man]

11. I agree. n/t

[EFerrari]

15. He'd be considered a Liberal by the crew that's in there now.

He detested the rightwing "Christians" taking control of the Party.

Or, maybe I'm reading "Centrist" as someone who is willing to be whoooooshed along by the Right. He wouldn't sit with that.

[Just Me]

13. Passion turned inside-out into ideological pathology and total loss,...

,...of realism and balance,...let alone, strive for a better humanity.

That's all I can say.

[Patsy Stone]

14. I plan to watch, but haven't yet.

However, I have been thinking about the conservatives of the past, and how much I miss them. The subjects we argued about were all geared towards making America a better place. We had much different and divergent means, but the end was the same. And we could argue about it in a productive manner. This is not the way it is now. There is no civil discourse or friendly disagreement. There is only animosity, distrust, intimidation and, yes, plenty of hubris. Tip O'Neill would never go drinking with any of the NeoCons after a hard day of politicking.

The conservatives stood for everything opposite of the modern NeoCons, making the conservatives of the past seem like moderate Democrats of today. The conservatives always threatened the public by opining that if elected the Democrats' "radical left fringe" would be in charge.

Well, they really should have been worrying about their own neighborhood, not ours. The NeoCons are the "radical fringe" who have taken over the Republican party. Their fringe is much more insidious, hateful and dangerous than ours could ever be.

The fact that I agree with Pat Buchanan on a lot of issues about this administration shows me things are truly out of whack. I hope there are enough conservatives left to help take the party back.

[H2O Man]

33. I think it is on

at 9:30 est. I saw part of it earlier.

Buchanan is another interesting example. His ideas on social policy are from the Dark Ages. But he is a smart man when it comes to significant parts of foreign policy.

[Patsy Stone]

46. Thanks

I'm watching it now.

[aikoaiko]

16. he was the first neocon nt

still i'd rather have him than bush

[annabanana]

18. "Extremism, in the defense of Liberty is no crime"..

He was excoriated for that. An "extremist" was the worst thing you could pin on someone then. In the days of the liberal ascendancy he was evil incarnate.

In retrospect, and after all we have seen since. The man was principled and had honest differences in philosophy. He was no crook, nor a power hungry oligarch.

[EFerrari]

19. Well, he was no crook. : = )

[H2O Man]

23. I can remember that

at that time, he was the most sought after speaker on American college campuses -- with Minister Malcolm X being a close second. What's funny is that Goldwater quote sounds a heck of a lot like Malcolm! It sure did destroy any chance he had at making a respectful showing in the election.

[DURHAM D]

20. I was a Goldwater Girl - not yet old enough to vote

You had to be 21 back then.

LBJ scared really scared me - he seemed an over the top warmonger.

Honestly can't tell you that I liked Goldwater at that time - just knew that LBJ always seemed a little unhinged. Also, Dems were controlled by a southern block that was good ole boy racist. Nixon managed to switch that around "Silent Majority" blah, blah, blah.

[EFerrari]

25. We were still sulking over the Kennedys in those days.

I don't know if this was common, but both my grandmother and my mother disliked LBJ -- almost irrationally after the assasination. Maybe it was his accent, too, which they associated (as recent immigrants and women of color) with racism.

[FlaGranny]

26. I always admired Goldwater - he reminded me

of Harry Truman. He spoke his mind, and didn't give a damn what anyone thought. Of course, his politics scared me back then, too. I thought he would start a war. But personally, I did like him.

[KoKo]

24. Interesting...since John Dean's New Book speaks about his Goldwater

Background and there seems to be a "Revival of Goldwater's thoughts here and there for Conservatives looking back to "roots" that aren't tainted by the Bushofascists.

I have to say in all honesty that as an "Oldie DU'er" the thought of Goldwater's Philosophy never crossed my "voting path." I just am not a Republican..any way I try to look at it ...in the mirror, without a mirror or ANY WAY.

I'm one of those Dems who's like the BoSox fans. I'm always thinking my team will win...even with it's flaws, failures and roughness.

However, folks tell me I'm a Populist Democrat...whatever that means...I think of myself as someone rejecting all of the recent past since WWII.

I'm sure this doesn't address your post. I can't do a "critique" of Goldwater because he just wasn't on THIS DEM'S RADAR for anything that he said or anything about his philosophy that ever caught my imagination. He just never caught my IMAGINATION....John Kennedy DID catch my Imagination, with his Inauguration Speech with Robert Frost standing by his side.

I'm trying to be HONEST here.....with what you asked. :shrug:

[H2O Man]

27. Good point!

I forgot that Dean had been strongly influenced by Goldwater, and how that was expressed in the new book.

For many, many years, the ideas that he had expressed about how to fight the war in Vietnam were the thing that I most associated him with. It's almost like he made LBJ's madness in Vietnam seem rational, at least for a couple years, for many Americans.

[Patsy Stone]

32. Goldwater

was going to collaborate on the book, IIRC.

[EFerrari]

48. Yes, that's what Dean says in his Preface. n/t

[Patsy Stone]

55. I haven't read it

but I thought I heard him say that during one of his interviews. Sometimes, I remember correctly. :hi:

[EFerrari]

57. I hear ya. John Dean is a very good writer. In the middle of the book

now but had to stop and read Joan Didion's pamphet "Fixed Ideas" re the immediate culteral aftermath of 9//1. :)

[KoKo]

35. I edited my post ...

so please re-read with edits and corrections and emphasis for my thoughts.

Thanks.

I still say...I didn't get any "Imagination/Dreams of what we could HOPE TO BE from Goldwater." I was young...maybe I was into "romanticism." Given what happened to Kennedy and the rest of my Political Dreams it would seem that Republican Ideals and Ideas RULE.

I was a Romantic. What happens to Romantics is that they become, too often, Cynics. Perhaps that's where I and many other Kennedy supporters are today.

[H2O Man]

39. I agree with

what you are saying. He was extreme -- extremely dangerous, at least at that time. Had JFK not been killed, he would have easily defeated Goldwater. The contrast between the two men would have been a good thing for the nation.

I believe that this country changed in a terible way in Dallas. I think that it has become even worse than what Goldwater at his worst would have done. People like Bush lack any of Goldwater's decent qualities.

[KoKo]

44. Yes....I respect John Dean...and I think he feels

that Goldwater wasn't the "worst" we could have had. The country died in Dallas and the conspiracy theories that abounded went on forever...until today.

Just like the Country gave it's last gasp of the death rattle in Bush vs. Gore in 2000. (I'm getting way to cynical here...)

[KoKo]

45. Perhaps rehashing this is not good. Ahmandinejad and Chavez are Voices

of the NEW WORLD. Who sees this? Because of the failures of all of our past and the terrible excesses....THEY who have read...are more forwardthinking than our Falwell, Dobsen and Hagee. Or, Bill Frist and the rest...

[KoKo]

28. BTW: Snip from Kennedy Inaugural Speech:

Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.
1
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God. 2
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. 3

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. 4

This much we pledge—and more. 5
To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do—for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder. 6
To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom—and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside. 7

To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. 8

To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge—to convert our good words into good deeds—in a new alliance for progress—to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house. 9

To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support—to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective—to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak—and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run. 10

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction. 11

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed. 12

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course—both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war. 13

So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate. 14

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us. 15

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms—and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations. 16
Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce. 17

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah—to "undo the heavy burdens ... and to let the oppressed go free." 18

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved. 19

All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin. 20

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe. 21

Now the trumpet summons us again—not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are—but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"—a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself. 22

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort? 23

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world. 24

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country. 25

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man. 26

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own. 27

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:m6uKlmSR4k0J:www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html+John+Kennedy,+Robert+Frost&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

[Historic NY]

29. I always think of Johnson's "daisy" commercial....

it was pretty clear that Goldwater would use all means necessary including getting us into a nuclear conflict. He was impulsive and Johnson used the media to show just how impulsive Goldwater could be. The little girl plucking a daisy pretty much summed up the feelings of the country, Democrats would avoid nuclear conflict while Republicans would embrace it.Goldwater had given a speech,
where he said “Extremism in fight of liberty is no vise”, that showed how impulsive he could be. I think LeMay's little red wagon went around the bend long before. He brought us the stragetic air command and embraced the theory that we should strike first. together both men represented a danger that the country wasn't willing to risk.

[KoKo]

31. Yes...although "revisionist history" says it was Johnson SPIN...that

commercial still stays in my mind. And, given what I know about ALL Republicans...I can't look at Goldwater any more favorably than I do Rush Limbaugh...given the Repugs "Lock Step" mentality since Nixon.

[TahitiNut]

34. Considering the fact that Democrats only aired that commercial once, ...

... a full two months before the 1964 general election, it sure did reach a lot of people. It was in the replays and commentary it attracted - lots of free air time. By far, the replay came mostly from the right's righteous indignation over what they perceived as 'dirty' campaigning by the Democrats.

[H2O Man]

42. Probably that was key ....

The fact it only played once was perhaps a big part of why it became so influential.

[KoKo]

43. The "Three Networks" at that time Played and Played it.....

just the way the Cables Play and Play the Repug Commercials over and over and over.

It's interesting "whose ox is being gored...isn't it?" :-(

[TahitiNut]

49. I remember it well. It was my 1st Presidential election - voted for LBJ.

Nonetheless, I too felt the commercial was "over the edge." :shrug:

I wasn't too fond of LBJ, though ... having a very bad taste in my mouth about southern Dems after over a year living in Mobile. Goldwater was a son of affluence and far, far too conservative - the very thing I disliked about southern Dems even though, in those days, social conservatives and political conservatives were two different things.

[karlrschneider]

30. We don't do HBO so I won't see it but I will (again) confess I voted for

Mr. Goldwater...for 2 reasons neither of which pass rational muster: I was still a 'conservative'
(which didn't really mean then what it does now), and I "sort of" knew him, having talked with him
over ham radio on several occasions in the very early 60s - I was in the Air Force and voted by absentee ballot (my first eligibility) and was a complete tyro at politics. Maybe he was dangerous...we obviously will never know what sort of President he may have been but it's awfully hard for me to imagine him embracing what passes for conservatism these days. It's all conjecture at this point anyway...

[H2O Man]

36. The program

has some information about his communicating with people over the ham radio. I found that interesting.

[karlrschneider]

38. I suppose I could upgrade the Dish account for HBO...and pay a bunch

more. No, I think I'll pass. :D

I may still have his QSL card (postcards to acknowledge 'contacts' we used to exchange) around here someplace. I will never forget his callsign, K7UGO. ;-)

[H2O Man]

41. I have it

for the boxing.

[Homer Wells]

40. I recall when Au H20 was running in 64

the slogan he promoted in his campaign was "In Your Heart You Know He's Right", and I got such a kick out of the Dem's response:
"In Your Guts You Know He's Nuts"

:spray: :woohoo:

[EFerrari]

50. Haha! I never'd heard the comeback.

:rofl:

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

58. I remember that! We used to shout it at cars with Goldwater stickers

We'd sit on the curb and yell it at passing cars. We also peeled AuH20 stickers off of parked cars. Hee hee. It was fun being a kid.

[EFerrari]

51. Goldwater's advice to J Dean: "John, that SOB was always a liar,

so go out and get him."

Goldwater was the dad of Dean's best friend. That's how that relationship started, apparently. Dean was only 13 when he met him.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

52. In our house we weren't as much anti AuH2O as we were pro-LBJ

Ours was a Democratic, union household. My parents campaigned for JFK. I was still a kid but my parents made sure we understood early on why they supported some politicians and not others. One of my early memories is Dad thundering over the GOP bias of our hometown newspaper and canceling his subscription because of their support of Nixon's 1960 presidential bid.

We were buoyed by Johnson's selection of Hubert Humphrey for a running mate because of his excellent labor record. We believed in the promise of the Great Society. And yes, we thought Goldwater was a dangerous kook.

Dad died early in the Reagan years, literally disheartened, I will always believe, by Ronnie's union-busting that made his life's work ever more difficult and less rewarding. Mom passed on before the 2000 election. I am grateful they did not live to see how their populist ideals have been ripped to shreds by this administration.

BTW, I wish Mr. Humphrey's heirs would come forward and rehabilitate his image in the same way CC Goldwater has done for her grandfather. Humphrey was considered a loose-cannon leftist early on in his career. He toned it down once he got in the Senate, but he initiated or supported much important legislation that benefitted millions of people, here and around the world. Johnson's war policy put Humphrey in an awkward and frustrating position that had tainted his reputation by '68. Even my parents, who were so proud of meeting Humphrey (as proud as they were when Everett Dirksen gave my father the finger while Dad was lobbying against Taft-Hartley), could not reconcile Humphrey's good works with his apparent cave-in to LBJ, and would probably have voted for RFK had he lived. But Humphrey respected the Presidency, no matter how much he chafed under the President, and would not withdraw his support. Free of LBJ he would have handled the war differently, and been a much better leader than Nixon - or Goldwater.

[EFerrari]

53. Your father was flipped off by Everett Dirksen? That's so cool!. lol

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

54. An enduring source of pride within our family

Dad was in DC lobbying with other Machinists. I don't recall if they were demonstrating in front of the Capitol or what. But they spotted Dirksen climbing the steps and started cat-calling. Dad yelled something - and I wish I could remember what, but he had a pretty choice vocabulary - that made Dirksen turn around and flip him off.

We hated that evil old fuck. Thank god IL has great senators now. (And RIP, dear Paul Simon.)