Reagan støtter Barry Goldwater

Reagan støtter Barry Goldwater


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Når Ronald Reagan, som talsmand for General Electric, holder sin "Time for Choosing" -tale til støtte for Barry Goldwaters præsidentkørsel fra 1964, etablerer han sig som en vigtig spiller i det republikanske parti og starter sin politiske karriere.


Fortalte David Brooks den fulde historie om Reagans messebesøg i Neshoba County?

Crespino er forfatter til In Search of Another Country: Mississippi and the Conservative Counterrevolution (Princeton, 2007). Han underviser i amerikansk historie ved Emory University.

I hans 9. november 2007 spalte i New York Times, Diskuterede David Brooks Ronald Reagans optræden på Neshoba County Fair i 1980 og hans brug af udtrykket "staters rettigheder." Brooks fritog Reagan for racisme, men han ignorerede den bredere betydning af Reagans udseende i Neshoba County.

En fuldstændig redegørelse for hændelsen skal overveje, hvordan den nationale GOP forsøgte at styrke sine sydlige statspartier og vinde støtte fra sydlige hvide demokrater. Overvej et brev, som Michael Retzer, Mississippis nationale komitémand, skrev i december 1979 til det republikanske nationale udvalg. Godt før republikanerne havde nomineret Reagan, stemte det nationale udvalg på statsledere for at stille op på steder, hvor den republikanske kandidat kunne tale. Retzer pegede på Neshoba County Fair som ideel til at vinde det, han kaldte "George Wallace tilbøjelige vælgere."

Denne republikanske leder vidste, at den segregerende guvernør i Alabama var symbolet på sydlig hvid harme mod borgerrettighedskampen. Richard Nixon havde vinklet for at vinde disse vælgere i 1968 og 1972. Mississippi -republikanerne vidste, at en vellykket republikansk kandidat i 1980 skulle fortsætte indsatsen.

Den 31. juli, få dage før Reagan tog til Neshoba County, New York Times rapporterede, at Ku Klux Klan havde godkendt Reagan. I sin avis sagde Klan, at den republikanske platform "læser som om den var skrevet af en Klansman." Reagan afviste godkendelsen, men først efter at en embedsmand fra Carter -kabinettet havde bragt det frem i en kampagnetale. Den tvivlsomme forbindelse forhindrede ikke Reagan i at bruge segregationistisk sprog i Neshoba County.

Det var klart fra andre afsnit i den kampagne, at Reagan var tilfreds med at lade sydlige republikanere knytte ham til segregationistisk politik i Sydens nylige fortid. Reagans staterettighedslinje blev udarbejdet på forhånd, og journalister, der dækkede begivenheden, kunne ikke huske, at han brugte udtrykket før optræden i Neshoba County. John Bell Williams, en tidligere erke-segregationistisk guvernør, der havde krydset partilinjer i 1964 for at støtte Barry Goldwater, sluttede sig til Reagan på scenen ved et andet kampagnestop i Mississippi. Reagans kampagnestol i staten, Trent Lott, roste Strom Thurmond, den tidligere segregationistiske Dixiecrat -kandidat i 1948, ved et Reagan -stævne og sagde, at hvis Thurmond var blevet valgt til præsident, "ville vi ikke være i det rod, vi er i dag."

Brooks forsvar af Reagan syntes at være et svar til sin kollega Gange klummeskribent Paul Krugman, der i sin bog, En liberals samvittighed,nævner besøget i Neshoba County flere gange. Krugmans beretning om moderne konservatisme er ikke uden problemer. Han reducerer succesen med moderne konservatisme til, at "sydlige hvide begyndte at stemme republikansk." En sådan formulering udpeger hvide sydlændere alene som værende det racistiske element i konservativ politik. Den ignorerer det komplekse skæringspunkt mellem racespørgsmål og kulturelle og religiøse bekymringer, som liberale ikke altid har været tilstrækkeligt følsomme over for. Og det skjuler det faktum, at demokraterne fortsatte med at vinde valg i syd efter 1960'erne ved at appellere til populistiske økonomiske spørgsmål - en historie, som demokraterne i dag burde huske, før de begynder at "fløjte forbi Dixie."

Brooks klumme er imidlertid et godt eksempel på konservatives ubehag med deres racehistorie. Reagan er for moderne konservatisme, hvad Franklin Roosevelt var for liberalismen, så det er ikke overraskende, at Brooks ville føle behov for at forsvare ham. Men Brooks bortkastede bemærkning om, at "det naturligvis er rigtigt, at race spillede en rolle i GOP -opstigningen" undervurderer, hvad der faktisk skete.

Gennem hele sin karriere havde Reagan fordel af subtilt splittende appeller til hvide, der ærgrede sig over bestræbelserne i 1960'erne og 70'erne på at vende historiske mønstre for racediskrimination. Han gjorde det i 1966, da han kæmpede for Californiens guvernørskab ved at fordømme åbne boliger og borgerrettighedslove. Han gjorde det i 1976, da han forsøgte at slå Gerald Ford for den republikanske nominering ved at angribe velfærd i subtilt racistiske vendinger. Og han gjorde det i Neshoba County i 1980.

Reagan vidste, at de sydlige republikanere appellerede til racer for at vinde over konservative sydlige demokrater, og han var en villig deltager. På trods af hvad Brooks påstår, er det ingen slurv at stille Reagan ansvarlig for det valg, han tog. Det er heller ikke blot partiskab at forsøge at tænke seriøst over de komplekse måder, hvide racisme har præget moderne konservativ politik.


For 50 år siden i dag holdt Ronald Reagan en tale, der 'ændrede Amerika for altid '

& quotA Tid til at vælge & quot; Ronald Reagans vildt succesrige og effektive halvtimes betalte annonce for Barry Goldwater, er 50 år i dag. Som Stevens opdagede, skete talen næsten ikke:

Ikke overraskende syntes nogle omkring Barry Goldwater, at det var en elendig idé. & ldquo Et par dage før talen var planlagt til at gå i luften, & rdquo Reagan skrev senere, & ldquoI fik et opkald fra Barry Goldwater. Han lød urolig og lidt ubehagelig. Nogle af hans rådgivere, sagde Barry, ønskede at han skulle bruge den sendetid, der var købt til min tale, til at genudsende et videobånd af et møde, han havde i Gettysburg med Ike Eisenhower. & Rdquo

Reagan vidste, at talen virkede foran et republikansk publikum og var klog nok på fjernsynets måder til at sætte pris på den frygtelige af den foreslåede udskiftning. & ldquoJeg har set filmen, der viser Barry & rsquos, der mødtes med Eisenhower i Gettysburg og syntes ikke, det var så imponerende, & rdquo Reagan skrev i en smule underdrivelse. Reagan fremførte sagen for sin tale, og Goldwater blev overtalt.

Reagans kraftfulde tale tappede et følelsesmæssigt kilde i alle amerikanere uanset fest. Og GOP -sværvægtere blev overrasket, da reaktionen på talen resulterede i en udgydelse af kontanter til Goldwater -kampagnen. Valgskrøniker Theodore H. White minder om i sin bog & quotAmerica in Search of Itself & quot; at ældre borgere havde underskrevet deres socialsikringstjek til kampagnen efter talen. Små donationer på $ 5 eller $ 10 overvældede de frivillige, der blev anklaget for at tælle pengene. Gipper havde ikke kun tilsluttet sig den amerikanske psyke, han havde åbnet deres tegnebøger. Det overbeviste mere end noget GOP -pengemændene om, at Reagan kunne vinde guvernørposten.

Stevens minder om nogle af de mindeværdige citater:

Det var en dybt modstridende tale, da håbet om et & ldquoGreat Society & rdquo var på sit højeste, da det stadig var muligt at tro, at vi kunne vinde afgørende i Vietnam, og boligprojekter var en sikker springbræt til et bedre liv.

& ldquoHvis regeringens planlægning og velfærd havde svaret, skulle vi så ikke forvente, at regeringen læser partituret for os engang imellem? & rdquo spurgte Reagan, & ldquoBør de hvert år fortælle os om faldet i antallet af mennesker, der har brug for hjælp? Men det omvendte er sandt. Hvert år vokser behovet stort, programmet vokser sig større. & Rdquo

Alle gode taler har et konsekvent tema, og Reagan & rsquos var mistillid til regeringen og tro på den enkelte. Som han senere ville bevise ved fejrende sejre, var det et budskab, han mente, oversteg ideologi og parti.

& ldquoJeg mener, at de spørgsmål, vi står over for, krydser partigrænser, & rdquo sagde han og mindede publikum om hans historie som demokrat. & ldquoDu og jeg får i stigende grad at vide, at vi skal vælge mellem venstre eller højre. Jeg vil gerne foreslå, at der ikke er noget, der hedder venstre eller højre. Der er kun en op eller ned. & Rdquo

Læs i dag, vibrerer talen stadig med en lidenskabelig intensitet, der sjældent findes i nogen nutidig politisk diskurs. Dette var ikke en fokuseret grupperet, beregnet appel til forskellige valgkredse. Det var stemmen til en mand, dybt bekymret over sin nations forløb. Ligesom Gettysburg -adressen blev skrevet uden forventning om, at den ville finde storhed, var Reagan & rsquos tale ikke beregnet til at starte en karriere eller en bevægelse. Det var en besked fra hjertet.

Også nogle gode kommentarer fra John Fund på The Corner.

Men du vil ikke vide, hvad jeg eller nogen andre synes om talen. Beslut dig om det.

En meget flot hyldest i Daily Beast af Stuart Stevens, tidligere Romney -rådgiver og republikansk politisk konsulent, til en tale, som Stevens siger, & quotchanged America. & Quot

& quotA Tid til at vælge & quot; Ronald Reagans vildt succesrige og effektive halvtimes betalte annonce for Barry Goldwater, er 50 år i dag. Som Stevens opdagede, skete talen næsten ikke:

Ikke overraskende syntes nogle omkring Barry Goldwater, at det var en elendig idé. & ldquo Et par dage før talen var planlagt til at gå i luften, & rdquo Reagan skrev senere, & ldquoI fik et opkald fra Barry Goldwater. Han lød urolig og lidt ubehagelig. Nogle af hans rådgivere, sagde Barry, ønskede at han skulle bruge den sendetid, der var købt til min tale, til at genudsende et videobånd af et møde, han havde i Gettysburg med Ike Eisenhower. & Rdquo

Reagan vidste, at talen virkede foran et republikansk publikum og var klog nok på fjernsynets måder til at sætte pris på den frygtelige af den foreslåede udskiftning. & ldquoJeg har set filmen, der viser Barry & rsquos, der mødtes med Eisenhower i Gettysburg og syntes ikke, det var så imponerende, & rdquo Reagan skrev i en smule underdrivelse. Reagan fremførte sagen for sin tale, og Goldwater blev overtalt.

Reagans kraftfulde tale tappede et følelsesmæssigt kilde i alle amerikanere uanset fest. Og GOP -sværvægtere blev overrasket, da reaktionen på talen resulterede i en udgydelse af kontanter til Goldwater -kampagnen. Valgskrøniker Theodore H. White minder i sin bog & quotAmerica in Search of Itself & quot om, at ældre borgere havde underskrevet deres socialsikringscheck til kampagnen efter talen. Små donationer på $ 5 eller $ 10 overvældede de frivillige, der blev anklaget for at tælle pengene. Gipper havde ikke kun tilsluttet sig den amerikanske psyke, han havde åbnet deres tegnebøger. Det overbeviste mere end noget GOP -pengemændene om, at Reagan kunne vinde guvernørposten.

Stevens minder om nogle af de mindeværdige citater:

Det var en dybt modstridende tale, da håbet om et & ldquoGreat Society & rdquo var på sit højeste, da det stadig var muligt at tro, at vi kunne vinde afgørende i Vietnam, og boligprojekter var en sikker springbræt til et bedre liv.

& ldquoHvis regeringens planlægning og velfærd havde svaret, skulle vi så ikke forvente, at regeringen læser partituret for os engang imellem? & rdquo spurgte Reagan, & ldquoBør de hvert år fortælle os om faldet i antallet af mennesker, der har brug for hjælp? Men det omvendte er sandt. Hvert år vokser behovet stort, programmet vokser sig større. & Rdquo

Alle gode taler har et konsekvent tema, og Reagan & rsquos var mistillid til regeringen og tro på den enkelte. Som han senere ville bevise ved fejrende sejre, var det et budskab, han mente, oversteg ideologi og parti.

& ldquoJeg mener, at de problemer, vi står over for, krydser partigrænser, & rdquo sagde han og mindede publikum om hans historie som demokrat. & ldquoDu og jeg får i stigende grad at vide, at vi skal vælge mellem venstre eller højre. Jeg vil gerne foreslå, at der ikke er noget, der hedder venstre eller højre. Der er kun en op eller ned. & Rdquo

Læs i dag, talen vibrerer stadig med en lidenskabelig intensitet, der sjældent findes i nogen nutidig politisk diskurs. Dette var ikke en fokuseret grupperet, beregnet appel til forskellige valgkredse. Det var stemmen til en mand, dybt bekymret over sin nations forløb. Ligesom Gettysburg -adressen blev skrevet uden forventning om, at den ville finde storhed, var Reagan & rsquos tale ikke beregnet til at starte en karriere eller en bevægelse. Det var en besked fra hjertet.

Også nogle gode kommentarer fra John Fund på The Corner.

Men du vil ikke vide, hvad jeg eller nogen andre synes om talen. Beslut dig om det.


Indhold

Følgende politiske ledere var kandidater til republikanernes præsidentnominering i 1968:

Større kandidater Rediger

Disse kandidater deltog i flere statspræmier eller blev inkluderet i flere store nationale meningsmålinger.

Favorit sønner Rediger

Følgende kandidater stillede kun op i deres hjemlands primære, forsamlingsmøde eller konvention. De løb med det formål at kontrollere deres stats respektive delegerede skifer ved det nationale stævne og syntes ikke at blive betragtet som nationale kandidater af medierne.

  • Guvernør Spiro Agnew af Maryland (godkendt Nixon) [4]
  • Guvernør Dewey F. Bartlett af Oklahoma (godkendt Nixon) [5]
  • Senator Frank Carlson i Kansas [6]
  • Senator Clifford -sag i New Jersey [7]
  • Guvernør Daniel J. Evans fra Washington [8]
  • Senator Hiram Fong i Hawaii (godkendt Nixon) [9]
  • Guvernør Wally Hickel i Alaska (godkendt Nixon)
  • Guvernør James A. Rhodes fra Ohio (godkendt Rockefeller) [10]
  • Guvernør Raymond P. Shafer i Pennsylvania (godkendt Rockefeller) [11]
  • Senator John Tower i Texas (godkendt Nixon) [1]
  • Senator Strom Thurmond i South Carolina (godkendt Nixon) [12]
  • Guvernør John Volpe i Massachusetts (godkendt Nixon) [13]

Afviste at køre Rediger

Følgende personer blev opført i to eller flere store nationale meningsmålinger eller blev genstand for mediespekulation omkring deres potentielle kandidatur, men afviste aktivt at søge nomineringen.

  • Senator Everett Dirksen af Illinois
  • Pensioneret generalløjtnJames M. Gavin
  • Tidligere guvernør John Davis Lodge i Connecticut (godkendt Nixon)
  • Tidligere senator Barry Goldwater fra Arizona(Bemærk: Goldwater var allerede midt i, hvad der ville blive et vellykket comeback -bud til det amerikanske senat.)
  • Senator Mark Hatfield af Oregon
  • Guvernør Claude R. Kirk, Jr. i Florida (godkendt Rockefeller)
  • Borgmester i New York CityJohn Lindsay (godkendt Rockefeller)
  • Ambassadør Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. i Massachusetts (godkendt Reagan)
  • Senator Thruston Ballard Morton af Kentucky (godkendt Rockefeller)
  • Senator Charles H. Percy af Illinois (godkendt Rockefeller)
  • Tidligere guvernør William Scranton fra Pennsylvania
  • Repræsentant Robert Taft Jr. fra Ohio

National afstemning Rediger

Før november 1966 Edit

  1. ^ Nixons officielle bopælsstat var New York, fordi han flyttede dertil for at praktisere jura efter sit nederlag i guvernørvalget i Californien i 1962. I løbet af sin første periode som præsident genoprettede Nixon sit ophold i Californien. Derfor er de mest pålidelige opslagsbøger, herunder udgaven af ​​6. januar 1969 af Kongressens rekord, angiver sin hjemstat som New York.
  2. ^ Robert Taft Jr. med 4%, Mark Hatfield med 3%og Charles Percy med 2%
  3. ^ Robert Taft Jr. med 4%, Mark Hatfield og Charles Percy med 2% hver
  4. ^ John Lindsay med 5%, Robert Taft Jr. med 3%, Mark Hatfield med 2%og Charles Percy med 1%
  5. ^ John Lindsay med 3%, Robert Taft Jr. med 3%, Mark Hatfield med 2%og Charles Percy med 1%
  6. ^ John Lindsay med 2%, Robert Taft Jr. med 2%, Mark Hatfield og Charles Percy med 1%hver
  7. ^ John Lindsay med 4%, Robert Taft Jr. med 3%, Mark Hatfield med 2%og Charles Percy med 1%
  8. ^ John Lindsay med 4%, Robert Taft Jr. med 4%, Charles Percy med 2%og Mark Hatfield med 1%
  9. ^ John Lindsay med 2% og Mark Hatfield med 1%
  10. ^ John Lindsay med 11% og Mark Hatfield med 7%
  11. ^ John Lindsay med 6% og Mark Hatfield med 5%

Efter november 1966 Edit

  1. ^ Mark Hatfield med 3% og John Lindsay med 2%
  2. ^ Denne meningsmåling blev trukket tilbage fra nationale aviser af Gallup -organisationen efter påstande om inkonsekvent metode.
  3. ^ Mark Hatfield med 3% og John Lindsay med 2%
  4. ^ Mark Hatfield med 4% og John Lindsay med 2%
  5. ^ Mark Hatfield med 3% og John Lindsay med 2%
  6. ^ Mark Hatfield og John Lindsay med 2% hver
  7. ^ Charles Percy med 6%, John Lindsay med 3%og Mark Hatfield med 2%
  8. ^ Mark Hatfield og John Lindsay med 2% hver
  9. ^ Mark Hatfield og John Lindsay med 1% hver
  10. ^ Mark Hatfield og John Lindsay med 3% hver
  11. ^ Mark Hatfield med 2%, John Lindsay og James M. Gavin med 1% hver
  12. ^ Mark Hatfield med 2%, John Lindsay med 2%og James M. Gavin med 1%
  13. ^ John Lindsay med 4%, Mark Hatfield med 1%og Harold Stassen med 1%

Head-to-head polling Rediger

Afstemning i hele landet Rediger

New Hampshire Rediger

Nixon var frontløber for den republikanske nominering og i høj grad historien om den republikanske primære kampagne og nominering er historien om den ene Nixon-modstander efter den anden, der kom ind i løbet og derefter droppede ud.

Nixons første udfordrer var Michigan -guvernør George W. Romney. En Gallup-måling i midten af ​​1967 viste Nixon med 39%, efterfulgt af Romney med 25%. Imidlertid fortalte Romney i en smule af tungen til en nyhedsreporter, at han var blevet "hjernevasket" af militæret og det diplomatiske korps til at støtte Vietnamkrigen, bemærkningen førte til uger med latterliggørelse i de nationale nyhedsmedier. Da året 1968 åbnede, var Romney imod yderligere amerikansk intervention i Vietnam og havde besluttet at stille op som den republikanske version af Eugene McCarthy (New York Times 18/2/1968). Romneys støtte forsvandt langsomt, og han trak sig tilbage fra løbet den 28. februar 1968. (New York Times 2/29/1968).

Nixon vandt en rungende sejr i den vigtige New Hampshire primære den 12. marts og vandt 78% af stemmerne. Antikrigsrepublikanere skrev i navnet på New York-guvernør Nelson Rockefeller, lederen af ​​GOP's liberale fløj, der modtog 11% af stemmerne og blev Nixons nye udfordrer. Nixon ledede Rockefeller i meningsmålingerne under hele den primære kampagne. Rockefeller besejrede Nixon i primærvalget i Massachusetts 30. april, men klarede sig ellers dårligt i statens primærvalg og konventioner.

I det tidlige forår var Californiens guvernør Ronald Reagan, lederen af ​​GOP's konservative fløj, blevet Nixons hovedrival. I primærvalget i Nebraska den 14. maj vandt Nixon med 70% af stemmerne til 21% for Reagan og 5% for Rockefeller. Selvom dette var en stor margin for Nixon, forblev Reagan Nixons førende udfordrer. Nixon vandt den næste primære af betydning, Oregon, den 15. maj med 65% af stemmerne og vandt alle følgende primærvalg bortset fra Californien (4. juni), hvor kun Reagan optrådte på stemmesedlen. Reagans margen i Californien gav ham en flerhed af den landsdækkende primære afstemning, men da den republikanske nationale konvention blev samlet, havde Nixon 656 delegerede ifølge en UPI -meningsmåling (med 667 nødvendige til nomineringen).

    -1.696.632 (37,93%)-1,679,443 (37,54%)-614,492 (13,74%)-164,340 (3,67%) (indskrivning)-140,639 (3,14%) (indskrivning)-44,520 (1,00%)-31,655 (0,71 %) - 31.465 (0,70%)
  • Andet-21.456 (0,51%) (indskrivning)-15.291 (0,34%) (indskrivning)-14.524 (0,33%) (indskrivning)-5.698 (0,13) (indskrivning)-4.824 (0,11%) - 4.447 (0,10%) - 1.223 (0,03%) - 724 (0,02%) - 689 (0,02%) - 598 (0,01%) - 591 (0,01%)

Ved den republikanske nationale konvent i 1968 i Miami Beach, Florida, planlagde Reagan og Rockefeller at forene deres styrker i en stop-Nixon-bevægelse, men strategien faldt fra hinanden, da ingen af ​​parterne gik med til at støtte den anden til nomineringen. Nixon vandt nomineringen ved den første afstemning. Nixon valgte derefter Marylands guvernør Spiro Agnew til at være hans vicepræsidentkandidat, på trods af klager fra GOP om, at Agnew var en ukendt mængde, og at en bedre kendt og mere populær kandidat, såsom Romney, burde have været vicepræsidenten nomineret. Det blev også rapporteret, at Nixons første valg til løbekammerat var hans mangeårige ven og allierede, Robert Finch, der var lt.Guvernør i Californien siden 1967 og senere hans HEW -sekretær, men Finch afviste tilbuddet.


Planlagte forældresrepublikanere: En årtier lang historie

Tendenser inden for politik forekommer sjældent i et vakuum. I stedet udvikler de sig inden for en bredere ideologisk og historisk kontekst, der tegner sig for individuelle folkevalgte og rsquo -politiske motiver den dag i dag. Planlagt forældreskab har for eksempel altid nydt støtte fra en bemærkelsesværdig komponent i det republikanske parti, især dets moderate eller Rockefeller -fløj, der består af indflydelsesrige elitister i etablissementet, internationalister og miljøforkæmpere.

De syv republikanere, der stemte for at beholde føderal finansiering til Planned Parenthood, ud over senatorerne Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins og Olympia Snowe, stammer alle fra denne tradition. Ud over deres åbenlyse støtte til valgfrie årsager, er disse personer også kendetegnet ved en forpligtelse til centristisk politik og finanspolitisk storhed og mdash, der alle er tegn på deres modstand mod principperne om traditionel, forfatningsmæssig regering.

Lige siden de tidligste dage har Planned Parenthood talt blandt sine tilhængere fremtrædende medlemmer af det republikanske parti. Allerede i 1942 var Connecticut -senator Prescott Bush (billede ovenfor), bedstefar til præsident George W. Bush, tilhænger af Margaret Sanger & rsquos American Birth Control League, og i 1947 tjente han som kasserer for den første nationale kampagne for Planned Parenthood . De politiske konsekvenser rammer hårdt. Prescott Bush blev slået ud af en forventet sejr for et senatsæde i Connecticut i 1950, efter at den syndikerede klummeskribent Drew Pearson erklærede, at det var blevet gjort kendt, at Bush var en leder i & quotBirth Control Society & quot (det oprindelige navn på Planned Parenthood var Birth Control Federation of America). Prescott Bush vandt et senatsæde to år senere, og hans søn George og svigerdatter Barbara fortsatte med at støtte Planned Parenthood, selv efter George 's valg til kongressen fra Texas. Faktisk var han sådan en fortaler for familieplanlægning, at nogle huskolleger kaldte ham & quotRubbers. & Quot

Derudover har Prescott & rsquos søn George H.W. støttede også familieplanlægningsindsats, mens han fungerede som kongresmedlem i Texas. Præsident George H.W. Bush var bedst kendt for sin modstand mod Ronald Reagan & rsquos økonomi på forsyningssiden, der er forankret i Hayek og Friedmans frie markedsidéer, idet han spottede den konservative Reagan som tilhænger af & ldquovoodoo-økonomi. & Rdquo Han skrev en bestanddel i 1970: & ldquoI indførte lovgivning tidligere i år, hvilket ville give føderale midler til forskning i familieplanlægningsenheder og øgede tjenester til mennesker, der har brug for dem, men ikke har råd til dem. Vi skal hjælpe vores unge med at blive bevidste om, at familier kan planlægges, og at der økonomisk og socialt kan opnås fordele fra små familier. & Rdquo (& quotGeorge Bush til Mrs. Jim Hunter, Jr., 23. oktober 1970 & quot [ Virginia B. Whitehill Papers, DeGolyer Library, Southern Methodist University].)

Selvom Goldwater -familien i Arizona stammer fra den modsatte fløj af GOP, støttede den også Arizona Planned Parenthood. I sin sidste periode i det amerikanske senat indtog Barry Goldwater en valgfri holdning og stemte i 1983 imod en forfatningsændring, der ville have vendt Roe v. Wade og returnerede lovgivende myndighed over abort til staterne. Tilbage i 1937 var hans kone Peggy blevet et af grundlæggerne af Planned Parenthood of Arizona, og parret forblev aktive i organisationen gennem Goldwater's senatkarriere. Selvom han oprindeligt afviste Planned Parenthood 's holdning til abort, ville hans lange tilknytning til gruppen i sidste ende få en konvertit af ham, også da han personligt godkendte sin datter Joanne & rsquos ulovlig abort i 1955, som det blev omtalt i HBO -dokumentaren Hr. Konservative.

Da hun var i 30'erne, mødte Peggy Goldwater Margaret Sanger og blev en del af en lille gruppe, der organiserede Phoenix 's første præventionsklinik, kaldet Mothers ' Health Clinic. Fru Goldwater udviklede et meget stærkt engagement i prævention, der fortsatte gennem hendes liv. Da hun døde i 1985, blev Planlagt forældreskab (Planned Parenthood Arizona 's newsletter), roste hende for hendes engagement i prævention og udviklede en pris til hendes ære.

Endnu en fremtrædende republikansk familie har en historie om at støtte Planned Parenthood. Den tidligere Massachusetts -guvernør og nuværende præsidentkandidat Mitt Romney har haft en indviklet og afslørende historie om livsspørgsmål såvel som i sit forhold til Planned Parenthood. I 1994, da Romney første gang stillede op til offentligt embede, blev han observeret ved at deltage i en Planned Parenthood fundraiser i Cohasset, Massachusetts, sammen med sin kone Ann, som blev set aflevere en check på $ 150 fra en fælles bankkonto til Nicki Nichols Gamble, tidligere præsident for Massachusetts Planned Parenthood Federation.

Romney har flip-floppet voldsomt om spørgsmålet om abort. I 2002 meddelte han, at han støttede en & ldquowoman & rsquos ret til at vælge, & rdquo og i 1994 sagde han, at han støttede Roe v. Wade. Senere samme år, ifølge Boston Herald, han & quot kom stærkere ned i abortrettighedslejren, og rdquo erklærede sin støtte til & quot; morgen efter & quot; pille og en føderal lovforslag, der beskytter besøgende på sundhedsklinikker mod vold mod abort. I en debat senere samme år mod Ted Kennedy sagde Romney, at han havde støttet abortrettigheder konsekvent siden 1970, da hans mor Lenore stillede op som kandidat til abortrettigheder for det amerikanske senat i Michigan. Han knyttede sin støtte til abortrettigheder til dødsfaldet "for mange år siden" af en "kær, nær slægtning" efter en forkert illegal abort. "Du vil ikke se mig vakle over det," tilføjede han.

Senere i 2002 hævdede Romney, at han ville "bevare og beskytte" abortrettigheder i Massachusetts og fortalte aktivister fra NARAL Pro Choice America, at & ldquoyou har brug for en som mig i Washington, & quot ifølge noter taget af et medlem af NARAL. NARAL -embedsmænd fortolkede dette som en henvisning til hans nationale politiske ambitioner. Derudover besvarede han & quotyes & quot i et spørgeskema fra Planned Parenthood i 2002 om, hvorvidt han ville støtte & quotefforts for at øge adgangen til nødprævention. & Quot

I et interview med On The Issues gik Romney over hegnet og sagde: & quotJeg tror fra et politisk perspektiv, at livet begynder ved undfangelsen. Jeg foregiver ikke at vide, hvis du vil, fra et teologisk synspunkt, når livet begynder. Det forpligtede jeg mig til i Massachusetts Jeg ville ikke ændre lovene på den ene eller den anden måde, og jeg indfriede denne forpligtelse. & quot (Fremhævelse tilføjet.)

Til denne dag sponsorerer Planned Parenthood en særlig interessegruppe, Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice, som giver den årlige Barry Goldwater Award til en valgfri republikansk valgt embedsmand efter eget valg. Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.) Var modtager i 2009 og nu sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) Var modtager i 2008. Rep. Bob Dold (R-Ill.), Der blev godkendt af gruppen Republican Majority for Choice og var en af ​​syv republikanere, der stemte for PPFA-finansiering, har i øjeblikket senator Mark Kirk & rsquos tidligere hussæde i en venstreorienteret forstad til Chicago. Interessant nok var medformanden for organisationen, Randy Moody, en tidligere cheflobbyist og direktør inden for den ultra-liberale lærerforening, National Education Association (NEA).

Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice har udstedt den selvmodsigende Barry Goldwater Award siden 1995, og næsten alle præmierne kommer fra den stadige, men svindende tilstedeværelse af såkaldte moderater i det republikanske parti, som er tilhængere af & quotcentrism & quot og mangler en ægte engagement i principperne om begrænset, forfatningsmæssig regering (som Barry Goldwater opretholdt gennem hele sit liv).

På trods af hans støtte til "produktive rettigheder" er Goldwater ikke desto mindre husket som en fortaler for forfatningskonservatisme, hvilket placerer ham som en historisk og ideologisk modstander af dem, der ironisk nok bliver hædret i hans navn. Ligesom Goldwater & rsquos hovedmodstander var tidligere New York -guvernør Nelson D. Rockefeller, ville dem, der er modtager af denne pris, have været Goldwater & rsquos politiske fjender i GOP, da de stammer fra parti & rsquos & quotmoderate & quot (neokonservative) fløj, i modsætning til Goldwater & rsquos Old Right , konstitutionalistisk, frit marked, individualistisk libertarisk tradition. Den Old Right-tradition går ind for mange i Tea Party i dag, f.eks. Pro-life senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Der har forfægtet strengere nedslag i abort efter anmodning.

Det republikanske partis historie er til en vis grad formet af en lang rekord af GOP-ikoner, der understøtter pro-abort, social-liberale årsager til grupper, herunder Planned Parenthood. Med undtagelse af Barry Goldwater (hvis støtte til Planned Parenthood var motiveret af en libertarian tro på statslige ikke-involvering i menneskelig reproduktion), er disse Planned Parenthood Republikanere også forpligtet til andre venstreorienterede årsager, såsom Mitt Romney's støtte af universel sundhedspleje, da han var Massachusetts-guvernør, kærligt kaldet & quotRomneyCare. & quot hjemme i det republikanske parti.


GULDVAND KALDER REAGAN I FEJL

WASHINGTON, 2. maj - Senator Barry Goldwater, der stadig synes mere og mere bekymret for, at Ronald Reagans præsidentjagt vil uopretteligt splitte det republikanske parti, anklagede i dag for, at Mr. om det.

"Jeg er nødt til at støtte Ford 's holdning" med at genforhandle kanalaftalen, erklærede republikaneren i Arizona efter Mr. Reagans nederlag af præsident Ford i primærvalget i Texas i går. "Jeg tror, ​​at Reagan også ville gøre det, hvis han vidste mere om det."

Senator Goldwater, den republikanske præsidentkandidat i 1964, havde tidligere fritaget tidligere guvernør Reagan for ansvaret for "splittende" taktik, der blev brugt på hans vegne. Hans kommentarer i dag blev fremsat under en optræden i NBC -TV -programmet "Meet the Press."

Mr. Goldwater sagde, at han ikke var overrasket over Texas -resultatet, på trods af hvad der syntes for ham en sen stigning, der fik præsidenten til at forudsige torsdag, at han ville vinde.

"Til at begynde med har præsident Ford ingen organisation i nogen tilstand, hvor jeg har været, og Reagan har en fabelagtig organisation," sagde senatoren.

Nomineringsprognose

Ikke desto mindre sagde han, at han ikke så, hvordan præsidenten kunne blive slået for nomineringen, og han vidste heller ikke nogen grund til, at det skulle nægtes ham.

Meanwhile, Vice President Rockefeller attributed the Ford defeat in Texas to his failure late last winter to veto a bill allowing only modest and gradual increases in the price of oil and gas.

Mr. Rockefeller recounted that when he was in Texas two months ago the chairman of the state Republican Party told him if the President did not veto the bill he would lose every delegate.

He said he reported this to the President, who replied that the bill was better than nothing and that he would sign it.

“And he did and he lost the election,” Mr. Rockefeller observed in an appearance on ABC's “Issues and Answers” program.

The Vice President, taking a cue from Mr. Ford's Texas stumping, accused Mr. Reagan of misrepresenting issues and relying on simplistic catch phrases.

“I think he is totally deceptive in the way he is raising the issues,” Mr. Rockefeller declared, adding later that Mr. Reagan was “a man who doesn't do his homework on key issues of national security.”

On the Panama Canal, “Mr. Reagan is telling the American people things that are not true,” he charged. “He says that we had the same sovereign rights over Panama that we had over Louisiana. That is a factual misrepresentation.”

In another political comment. Senator Goldwater was asked about the race for the Democratic nomination. He said he did not think Jimmy Carter, the former Georgia Governor, would be the choice. It will go instead to Senator Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota, he said.

“I listened to his statement of refusal the other day, and if that wasn't filled with handengraved invitations I have never seen one,” the Senator said.

On a third interview program today, CBS's “Face the Nation,” Muhammad Ali, the heavyweight champion, was asked if any of the Presidential candidates had sought his support or if he had any favorites.

No, he said, nobody has sought support from him and he did not intend to vote be cause he did not know enough about politics.

He denied that he previously had meant to endorse Mr. Carter when he said, “There's a certain fellow, I just like his smile.”

Mr. Ali said today, “The only Administration that I really have liked is Ford's.”


Other Pieces You Might Be Interested In

Tuviah Friedman

Tuviah Friedman - Renowned Nazi Hunter and Yad Vashem Director: His Personal, Signed Account of His Audacious Letter to Adolf Eichmann.

James Monroe

From James Monroe, Advice on Life, Philosophy, Personal Habits, Career, and Success

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson Declares the Desired Legacy of His Administration And Wants His Secretary of War to "watch with me to the end"

Thomas Jefferson

A Great Moment in American History The European Wars Reach American Shores

Abraham Lincoln

Just One Week After His Second Election, President Abraham Lincoln Writes of a Loyal, Young Soldier Work: “I shall be very glad if this.

Abraham Lincoln

President Abraham Lincoln Appoints One of Grant and Sherman’s Earliest Stalwarts, Who Was With Them Throughout the Vicksburg and.

Queen Elizabeth I

The Queen Mother Celebrates the "strong and serene character" of the New Queen - Her Daughter Elizabeth - After the Very First Public.


Planned Parenthood Republicans: A Decades-Long History

Trends within politics rarely occur in a vacuum. Instead, they develop within a broader ideological and historical context, which accounts for individual elected officials&rsquo political motivations to this very day. Planned Parenthood, for instance, has always enjoyed the support of a notable component of the Republican Party, especially its moderate or Rockefeller wing, comprised of influential Establishment elitists, internationalists, and environmentalists.

The seven Republicans who voted in favor of retaining federal funding for Planned Parenthood, in addition to Senators Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe, all hail from this tradition. Beyond their obvious support for pro-choice causes, these individuals are also characterized by a commitment to centrist policies and fiscal largesse &mdash all indicative of their opposition to the principles of traditional, constitutional government.

Ever since its earliest days, Planned Parenthood has counted among its supporters prominent members of the Republican Party. As early as 1942, Connecticut Senator Prescott Bush (picture, above), grandfather of President George W. Bush, was a supporter of Margaret Sanger&rsquos American Birth Control League, and in 1947, served as the treasurer for the first national campaign for Planned Parenthood. The political repercussions hit hard. Prescott Bush was knocked out of an expected victory for a Senate seat in Connecticut in 1950 after syndicated columnist Drew Pearson declared that it "has been made known" that Bush was a leader in the "Birth Control Society" (the original name of Planned Parenthood was the Birth Control Federation of America). Prescott Bush won a Senate seat two years later, and his son George and daughter-in-law Barbara continued to support Planned Parenthood even after George's election to Congress from Texas. In fact, he was such an advocate for family planning that some House colleagues nicknamed him "Rubbers."

In addition, Prescott&rsquos son George H.W. also supported family planning efforts while serving as a Texas congressman. President George H.W. Bush was best known for his opposition to Ronald Reagan&rsquos supply-side economics, rooted in the free-market ideas of Hayek and Friedman, deriding the conservative Reagan as a proponent of &ldquovoodoo economics.&rdquo He wrote a constituent in 1970: &ldquoI introduced legislation earlier this year which would provide federal funds for research in family planning devices and increased services to people who need them but cannot afford them. We must help our young people become aware of the fact that families can be planned and that there are benefits economically and socially to be derived from small families.&rdquo ("George Bush to Mrs. Jim Hunter, Jr., Oct. 23, 1970" [Virginia B. Whitehill Papers, DeGolyer Library, Southern Methodist University].)

Although stemming from the opposite wing of the GOP, the Goldwater family of Arizona also supported Planned Parenthood. In his final term in the U.S. Senate, Barry Goldwater adopted a pro-choice position, voting in 1983 against a constitutional amendment that would have reversed Roe v. Wade and returned legislative authority over abortion to the states. Back in 1937, his wife Peggy had become a founding member of Planned Parenthood of Arizona, and the couple remained active in the organization throughout Goldwater's Senate career. Though he initially rejected Planned Parenthood's position on abortion, his long association with the group would ultimately make a convert of him, also as he personally approved of his daughter Joanne&rsquos illegal abortion in 1955, as recounted in the HBO documentary Mr. Conservative.

When she was in her 30s, Peggy Goldwater met Margaret Sanger and became part of a small group organizing Phoenix's first birth control clinic, called the Mothers' Health Clinic. Mrs. Goldwater developed a very strong commitment to the birth control movement which continued throughout her life. When she died in 1985, the Planned Parenthood Press (Planned Parenthood Arizona's newsletter), lauded her for her commitment to contraceptive access and developed an award in her honor.

Yet another prominent Republican family has a history of supporting Planned Parenthood. Former Massachusetts Governor and current Presidential contender Mitt Romney has had a convoluted and revealing history on life issues, as well as in his relationship with Planned Parenthood. In 1994, when Romney first ran for public office, he was observed attending a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in Cohasset, Massachusetts, with his wife Ann, who was seen handing a check for $150 from a joint bank account to Nicki Nichols Gamble, former president of the Massachusetts Planned Parenthood Federation.

Romney has flip-flopped egregiously on the question of abortion. In 2002, he announced that he supported a &ldquowoman&rsquos right to choose,&rdquo and in 1994, said he supported Roe v. Wade. Later that year, according to the Boston Herald, he "came down more firmly in the abortion rights camp,&rdquo declaring his support for the "morning after" pill and a federal bill protecting visitors to health clinics from anti-abortion violence. In a debate later that year against Ted Kennedy, Romney said that he had supported abortion rights consistently since 1970 when his mother Lenore ran as a pro-abortion rights candidate for the U.S. Senate in Michigan. He linked his support for abortion rights to the death "many years ago" of a "dear, close family relative" following a botched illegal abortion. "You will not see me wavering on that," he added.

Later in 2002, Romney claimed he would "preserve and protect" abortion rights in Massachusetts, and told activists from NARAL Pro Choice America that &ldquoyou need someone like me in Washington," according to notes taken by a member of NARAL. NARAL officials interpreted this as a reference to his national political ambitions. In addition, he answered "yes" in a questionnaire from Planned Parenthood in 2002 on whether he would support "efforts to increase access to emergency contraception."

In an interview with On The Issues, Romney straddled the fence, saying: "I believe from a political perspective that life begins at conception. I don't pretend to know, if you will, from a theological standpoint when life begins. I'd committed to the people of Massachusetts that I would not change the laws one way or the other, and I honored that commitment." (Emphasis added.)

To this day, Planned Parenthood sponsors a special interest group, Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice, which gives the annual Barry Goldwater Award to a pro-choice Republican elected official of its choosing. Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.) was the 2009 recipient, and now-Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) was the 2008 recipient. Rep. Bob Dold (R-Ill.), who was endorsed by the group Republican Majority for Choice and was one of seven Republicans to vote for PPFA funding, currently holds Senator Mark Kirk&rsquos former House seat in a left-leaning Chicago suburb. Interestingly, the co-chair of the organization, Randy Moody, was a former chief lobbyist and executive within the ultra-liberal teachers union, the National Education Association (NEA).

Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice has been issuing the self-contradictory Barry Goldwater Award since 1995, and almost all of the awardees come from the steady, yet dwindling presence of so-called moderates within the Republican Party, who are proponents of "centrism" and lack a genuine commitment to the principles of limited, constitutional government (which Barry Goldwater upheld throughout his entire life).

Despite his support for "reproductive rights," (the right to have an abortion) Goldwater is nonetheless remembered as a proponent of constitutional conservatism, placing him as an historical and ideological opponent of those who are ironically being honored in his name. Just as Goldwater&rsquos principal adversary was former New York Governor Nelson D. Rockefeller, those who are recipients of this award would have been Goldwater&rsquos political foes in the GOP, as they stem from the party&rsquos "moderate" (neoconservative) wing, as opposed to Goldwater&rsquos Old Right, constitutionalist, free-market, individualist libertarian tradition. That Old Right tradition is espoused by many in the Tea Party today, such as pro-life Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has advocated stricter crackdowns on abortion-on-demand.

The history of the Republican Party, to a degree, is shaped by a long record of GOP icons supporting the pro-abortion, socially-liberal causes of groups including Planned Parenthood. With the unitary exception of Barry Goldwater (whose support of Planned Parenthood was motivated by a libertarian belief in governmental non-involvement in human reproduction), these Planned Parenthood Republicans are also committed to other left-wing causes, such as Mitt Romney's support of universal health carewhen he was Massachusetts governor, affectionately called "RomneyCare." The commitment to the inexorably-linked "seamless garment" of fiscal and social conservatism, championed by figures such as Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) has not always been a paradigm at home in the Republican Party.


How the “Daisy” Ad Changed Everything About Political Advertising

On September 7, 1964, a 60-second TV ad changed American politics forever. A 3-year-old girl in a simple dress counted as she plucked daisy petals in a sun-dappled field. Her words were supplanted by a mission-control countdown followed by a massive nuclear blast in a classic mushroom shape. The message was clear if only implicit: Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater was a genocidal maniac who threatened the world’s future. Two months later, President Lyndon Johnson won easily, and the emotional political attack ad—visceral, terrifying, and risky—was made.

Relateret indhold

Half a century later, we live in the world of negative political advertising that Daisy Girl pioneered, but there are some curious aspects to the story. First, though it is a famous ad, Daisy Girl, as the ad is known, only ran once. Secondly, it didn’t even mention Goldwater’s name. And finally, by the time the ad ran, Goldwater’s chances against LBJ were slim, even though the ad is often falsely credited with assuring the win. And there were two dozen other ads from LBJ’s camp—humorous, informative, dark, and neurotic. Daisy became the iconic spot of its era not because it was the first Johnson ran in 1964 we remember it primarily because of its brilliant, innovative approach to negative advertising. 

Daisy and the other ads were made by Doyle Dane Bernbach (DDB), an eclectic group of ad men at a medium-sized Madison Avenue firm with a stellar reputation for groundbreaking campaigns for Volkswagen and Avis. They didn’t set out to revolutionize political advertising what they wanted to do was to break the established rules of political ads—then dominated by stodgy 30-minute speeches mixed with shorter policy-focused spots—by injecting creativity and emotion.

Bill Bernbach, the firm’s principal founder, had long maintained advertising was an art, not a science. He favored intuition. He often reminded his employees, “Playing it safe can be the most dangerous thing in the world, because you’re presenting people with an idea they’ve seen before, and you won’t have an impact.”

Famously dismissive of advertising driven purely by research, Bernbach had written a revolutionary memo in 1947 that laid out the philosophy that would eventually characterize his firm’s work. “Advertising is fundamentally persuasion and persuasion happens to be not a science, but an art,” he brashly told his then-employer, Grey Advertising. “It’s that creative spark that I’m so jealous of for our agency and that I am so desperately fearful of losing. I don’t want academicians. I don’t want scientists. I don’t want people who do the right things. I want people who do inspiring things.”

Inspired by Bernbach’s philosophy of relying upon instinct as much or more than research, DDB produced an extraordinary and memorable series of spots for Johnson. The firm capitalized upon Goldwater’s reckless statements by providing viewers with indelible images. DDB mocked Goldwater’s vote against the nuclear test ban treaty with a spot showing nothing but a girl licking an ice cream cone as a female announcer spoke ominously about the fallout from atmospheric nuclear testing and how it might enter the food supply.

Goldwater had once bragged that the nation might be “better off if we could just saw off the Eastern Seaboard and let it float out to sea.” So, DBB served up a humorous 60-second spot of a saw slicing the East Coast from a Styrofoam model of the United States. In another spot, DDB mocked Goldwater's statement about privatizing Social Security by showing a pair of hands ripping up a Social Security card.

Viewers had never seen anything like this. It’s not that previous presidential campaigns had only been polite affairs. Dwight Eisenhower ran negative TV spots against his Democratic opponent, Adlai Stevenson, in 1952, subtly tying him to alleged corruption in Truman administration officials. Stevenson’s spots attacked Eisenhower in 1956. John F. Kennedy attacked Richard Nixon’s record as vice president in the 1960 campaign. Goldwater’s attacks against Johnson in 1964 were unrelenting. In almost every case, however, the attacks were rational, fact-based arguments. DDB’s innovation was not negative advertising, per se. It was, rather, to help make emotions (primarily, fear) a staple of political spots. By 1968, political ads—by other agencies—were also transformed.

Even the spot itself was something of a DDB innovation. Before 1964, political campaigns had used 30- and 60-second spots, but not exclusively. Instead, campaigns, including Goldwater’s, pre-empted regular programming with dry, 30-minute speeches or campaign documentaries by candidates. Under DDB’s direction, Johnson’s campaign aired nothing but 30- or 60-second spots, with the exception of two four-minute commercials, including the “Confessions of a Republican” ad (which went viral recently) purporting to show that even Republicans found Goldwater uncomfortably extreme.

DDB broke another rule by recognizing that Goldwater was such a widely known figure that voters needed no education about him. They didn’t have to remind viewers that Goldwater himself had joked about lobbing a missile into the men’s room of the Kremlin. Or that he had written that the U.S. should not fear war with the Soviets. Or that he would give NATO commanders authority to use nuclear weapons without prior presidential authorization. Or that he had declared the nuclear bomb “merely another weapon.” America knew he voted against the Civil Right Act and that, at the GOP convention in July 1964, Goldwater even branded himself an “extremist.” So DDB never once had to mention Goldwater’s name in Daisy. It only had to find viewers’ emotional trigger.

Put another way, the firm believed that viewers should not be given too much information to put their minds and emotions to work. And Daisy Girl’s DNA has continued to provide instructions for today’s political advertising: Ronald Reagan’s famous 1984 “Bear” spot  used the animal to symbolize the Soviet Union without explicitly making the association. In 2004, Bush’s campaign skillfully employed the same technique with a spot that used wolves to symbolize al Qaeda.

Voting is not a purely rational act. As the late journalist Joe McGinnis observed, it’s a “psychological purchase” of a candidate. It’s often no less rational than buying a car or a house. DDB understood that arguing with voters would be a losing proposition. To persuade someone, especially in the political realm, a campaign must target emotions. Voters don’t oppose a candidate because they dislike his or her policies they often oppose the policies because they dislike the candidate.

Reagan’s optimistic 1984 “Morning in America” spot was a good example of this kind of appeal. So was George H.W. Bush’s dark, fear-inducing “Revolving Door” spot in 1988 that exploited the controversy over a prison furlough program of his Democratic opponent, Michael Dukakis. Bernie Sanders’ “America” spot is a current example. They are all very different ads, but are aimed at generating a non-rational, emotional response.

DDB also believed that giving data and facts was less persuasive than telling a story. The best spots provide an experience. In addition to evoking emotions and not repeating what the viewer already knew, many of the DDB spots from 1964 had a narrative arc to them. A good example in 1964 was a Johnson spot reminding viewers of the many harsh attacks on Goldwater by his former GOP opponents. The gold standard for subsequent spots in this genre may be Bill Clinton’s 60-second “Journey” spot from 1992, in which he touted his small-town American values by recounting his childhood in Hope, Arkansas.

Early in his career Bernbach perceived that although research had its place in persuasion, there was something more—something completely unquantifiable: “The truth isn’t the truth until people believe you and they can’t believe you if they don’t know what you’re saying and they can’t know what you’re saying if they don’t listen to you and they won’t listen to you if you’re not interesting. And you won’t be interesting unless you say things freshly, originally, imaginatively.”

For better or worse, the Daisy ad made emotions a much more potent weapon in our political campaigns, employing techniques that had previously only been applied to selling cars and soap. The next innovation, already with us to some degree, is nano-targeted TV spots, which will resemble the ads we see on the web but will be on TV. Soon, working with cable providers, candidates will offer up messages specially crafted for certain viewers. Five different people watching the same program might each see a different spot from the same candidate.

Meanwhile, social media has injected campaigns’ storytelling into communication between friends. Without Daisy, would the Facebook flame wars of Trump and Bernie fans have the same raucous fervor? But as campaigning moves further into the virtual world of computers and algorithms, it must overcome a paradox: Now, as then, the best ad campaign has a soul—and that’s something a computer or a poll can’t create for any candidate.


Ronald Reagan and 'A Time for Choosing'

Times reporter Maeve Reston noted that Reagan gave the televised speech in October 1964 on behalf of Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater and I thought it would be interesting to explore some of the details. The Times was a stalwart Republican paper in this era and endorsed Goldwater for president, so it seemed likely that there might be some coverage of Reagan’s speech.

My research found that if the address has become one the landmarks of Reagan’s political career, it certainly didn’t start out that way.

In fact, The Times’ clips and other news sources show that for nearly two years before his televised address, Reagan had been delivering a speech on the theme of “A Time for Choosing” to business and political groups.   Given the time references in the televised version (“Senator Humphrey last week…”) , it’s evident that Reagan revised the work and I will defer to Reagan scholars to compare drafts of the speech, although I imagine it would be a fascinating project.

The earliest reference I found in The Times was a July 7, 1963, story which noted that Reagan was to deliver an address titled “A Time for Choosing” to local Realtors at the Long Beach Arena.

A March 16, 1964, item said that Reagan would give “A Time for Choosing” at a meeting of the San Marino Republican Women’s Club. And on Aug. 5, 1964, Reagan gave "A Time for Choosing" at the Sunset Young Republican Club, which was meeting at the Smith Bros. Fish Shanty in Beverly Hills. Although we must assume the speech had not yet assumed its final form, none of these Reagan appearances resulted in a story in The Times. 

Looking beyond The Times' clips, a search of Google’s news archive shows that according to the Deseret News and Telegram, Reagan delivered a speech referring to “a time for choosing” to a convention of the American National Cattlemen's Assn. in January 1963 and a speech by Reagan bearing that title was published in the Savings and Loan Annals of 1963.

All of this would firmly establish that Reagan began formulating this speech in the John F. Kennedy era rather than the Lyndon Johnson administration.  This should not come as a complete surprise as Reagan, although a Democrat, supported Richard Nixon in the 1960 presidential race (The Times, Nov. 4, 1960). 

When Reagan stepped before the camera to deliver “A Time for Choosing,” the polls showed Johnson holding a strong lead over Goldwater (a post-election poll found that Republican voters considered Goldwater “as much a radical as a genuine conservative”).

The Times TV section for the week of Oct. 25, 1964, was more focused on Mr. Magoo’s Halloween than on what was to become Reagan’s legendary speech. Indeed, the Sunday listings show that the time slot was originally scheduled for “That Was the Week That Was,” or TW3,  a satire on the week’s events from the BBC featuring David Frost.

But late on Monday, Oct. 26, KNBC-TV Channel 4 announced that the show was being preempted by a half-hour political ad for the Goldwater campaign: “A Time for Choosing” by Ronald Reagan. 

The day after the address was broadcast, Reagan went back to his regular life, scheduled for an appearance at the West Coast premiere of “My Fair Lady” and hosting “Death Valley Days,” a TV show about tales of the old West sponsored by Boraxo, a soap company.

The only recognition in The Times of Reagan’s televised speech was by Hedda Hopper, who mentioned it near the end of her column on Oct. 30, 1964.

On Nov. 3, 1964, Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater lost in a landslide. Despite the prevailing gloom, Reagan found a reason to be optimistic: "Sure, we didn't expect this . but take a look at the figure on our side and remember every one (vote) represents a conservative we didn't have when we started out."

Reagan said shortly after the election that his experience with the Goldwater campaign had not whetted his appetite for public office. Running as a Republican candidate "has never appealed to me," he said. Asked if he could spurn a strong Republican request to run, Reagan replied, "I hope I could turn it down."

“A Time for Choosing” was published as a pamphlet in 1964. Worldcat lists it as being in two libraries.

The polls in late October 1964 showed Lyndon Johnson holding a strong lead over Goldwater (a post-election poll found that Republican voters considered Goldwater “as much a radical as a genuine conservative”).

Oct. 25, 1964: It’s certain that The Times TV section was more focused on Mr. Magoo’s Halloween than on Reagan’s speech. The Sunday listings show that the time slot was originally scheduled for “That Was the Week That Was,” or TW3,  a satire on the week’s events from the BBC that featured David Frost. But late on Monday, Oct. 26, KNBC announced that the show was being preempted by a half-hour political ad for the Goldwater campaign.

On Oct. 27, 1964, at 9:30 p.m., Los Angeles viewers had the choice of “Petticoat Junction,” “Peyton Place,” “Expedition -- Man's First Winter at the South Pole," Ansel Adams, bullfights … or “A Time for Choosing.”

The next day, Reagan went back to his regular life, scheduled for an appearance at the West Coast premiere of “My Fair Lady” and hosting “Death Valley Days,” a TV show about tales of the old West sponsored by Boraxo, a soap company.

The only recognition in The Times of Reagan’s televised speech was by Hedda Hopper, who mentioned it near the end of her column on Oct. 30, 1964.

Nov. 2, 1964: Reagan delivers “A Time for Choosing” once more, on the radio, before the election.

Nov. 4, 1964: A somber mood at the Cocoanut Grove, where Republicans gathered to watch election results and saw Goldwater defeated in a landslide. 

Despite the prevailing gloom, Reagan found a reason to be optimistic: "Sure, we didn't expect this . but take a look at the figure on our side and remember every one (vote) represents a conservative we didn't have when we started out."

Reagan said shortly after the election that his experience with the Goldwater campaign left him with no desire for politics. Running as a Republican candidate for office "has never appealed to me," he said. Asked if he could spurn a strong Republican request to run for office, Reagan replied, "I hope I could turn it down."


Se videoen: Lyndon Johnson delivers the Johnson Treatment


Kommentarer:

  1. Bragal

    Regarding your thoughts, I feel complete solidarity with you, I really want to see your more expanded opinion about this.

  2. Patrido

    Jeg mener, at du begår en fejl. Jeg kan forsvare stillingen. Skriv til mig i PM, så snakker vi.

  3. Harailt

    Der er et websted om emnet, der interesserer dig.



Skriv en besked