News Archive: Sen. Case sees end of "way-out" conservatives

n. a. (1965, June 27). Sen. Case sees end of way-out conservatives. Sarasota Herald-Tribune, p. 19.

This brief news item records New Jersey Republican Clifford Case's prognostication that anyone advocating the elimination of Social Security, public housing, federal aid to education, et. al. are "the voice of the past."  Case named Ronald Reagan specifically as a candidate whose appeal was based solely on nostalgia for an America that had passed. 

Leaving aside, for a moment, the point that I don't believe Reagan ever called for the elimination of Society Security or public housing (though he may have once advocated elimination of federal aid to education), it is somewhat ironic that 48 years ago an Establishment New Jersey Republican was critiquing upstarts representing a more Libertarian wing of the party.  Not at all like today, right?

   For further reading:  Jacobs, G. (2013, August 2). Liberty: a dangerous, 'esoteric' idea? The Daily Caller.

Donovan on Republican prospects in the wake of the Goldwater defeat

Donovan, R. (1965, February 14). Republicans overcoming ’64 defeat. The Spokesman-Review, p. 4.

In this article discussing the broad outlines of how the GOP sought to rebuild itself following the Goldwater defeat of November 1964, Robert Donovan mentioned Ronald Reagan in passing as a leader—alongside William F. Knowland, Walter Knott, and Joseph Shell--of “a new right wing group called Citizens for Constructive Action”

News Archive: Politics is bustin' out all over

Bell,J. (1965, February 15). Politics is bustin’ out all over. The Owosso Argus-Press, p. 18.

While taking a larger look at political trends across the nation in early 1965, Jack Bell reported on what may be interpreted as an early bit of evidence for the Republican Establishment’s attempts to marginalize Ronald Reagan.  

Bell’s take was that then-House Republican leader (and future presidential primary opponent, Gerald Ford) was essentially telling Reagan to stay in California if he had any serious political aspirations of his own.  While acknowledging that Reagan’s national speaking tour on behalf of 1964 GOP presidential nominee Barry Goldwater made a great impact in states such as Michigan and Illinois, Ford nevertheless told an assembled news conference, “We  Republicans don’t’ believe in carpet-bagging like the Democrats do.”

Could this be the first recorded instance of national-level "Reagan envy"?

News Archive: Goldwater returns Reagan's favor(s)

n.a. (1965, February 23). Barry boosts actor Reagan, asks Viet win. The Modesto Bee, p. A-12.

This brief reports on Barry Goldwater’s early support of a Reagan gubernatorial candidacy.  Goldwater told attendees of the Americanism Education League, “I’ve tried to beguile [Reagan] to run for office before and now the time is getting ripe.  You folks keep the pressure on him.”

Update: As of 8/31/2013, the link above returns a 404 error message (like all the Modesto Bee material hyperlinked on this blog).  It is unknown if the Bee ever plans to restore access to its archived papers.

UROC's Nagel backs Reagan

n. a. (1965, May 3). Reagan favored by United GOP leader. LodiNews-Sentinel, p. 1.

This short article covers the announcement by Sunsville, CA rancher, two-time Republican candidate for Congress, and chairman of the United Republicans of California, Frederic H. Nagel Jr., that Ronald Reagan would be “his choice for governor next year.”  

Nagel reflected his opinion that UROC had gone through “a settling period” which would result in the organization being a “solid, practical, common-sense, realistic, unhyphenated Republican organization.  But we’re not going to be a liberal organization.”

News Archives: Sen. Scott warns [CA] Republicans

n. a.(1965, December 4). Sen. Scott warns state Republicans. The Press Courier, p. 14.

As I’ve said before calling conservative candidates “unelectable” is a tired old canard that’s trotted out in almost every GOP primary.  As in today’s historical flashback, the charge is almost always made with great passion and sincerity…sometimes even with a twinge of “righteous anger.”  Such terms are never thrown around merely as a way of cementing one’s own power.  No, no, no!  It’s simply out of concern for the “good of the party.”  Case in point, listen to the words of PA senator Hugh Scott to California Republicans forty-six years ago:

“The only way to win is to offer candidates who are responsible and responsive to the late 20^th century aspirations of the American people…I believe the sentiment within the Republican Party today is more than 80 per cent against the viewpoint expressed by the 1964 candidate [i.e., Barry Goldwater] and perpetrated by some of the more horrid parts of the 1964 platform.” Scott…gave his plea for moderate candidates at a news conference Friday.  He wouldn’t back any of the contenders for the governorship, but warned that anyone espousing Goldwater’s views would lose. [emphasis added]

Remind me again, who won that ’66 governor’s race?  Oh yeah, the guy who campaigned for Goldwater.

Responding to Extremists: From Brown’s California in 1965 to Obama’s America in 2011

Chamberlain,J. (1965, November 30). Democratic extremists. The News and Courier, p. 8-A.

For all the talk of how “unprecedented” the Occupy Wall Street Movement is, a brief review of recent history demonstrates that the Left has been coddling actual extremists almost as long as they’ve been applying that label to people who favor smaller and less intrusive government.

In November 1965, John Chamberlain wrote a column on the internecine warfare facing California’s democratic governor Pat Brown.  The most glaring problem, according to Chamberlain, was Brown’s ineffectual handling of the abrasive California Democratic Council (CDC) and its firebrand president, Simon Casady.  Quoth Chamberlain:

Though the CDC was brought into being by National Committeeman Paul Ziffren, a Beverly Hills attorney, and other Democrats of “progressive” persuasion, it was babied along to success by Gov. Pat Brown through many a crisis of rather kooky leftist opinion-making. Brown passed lightly over CDC demands to abolish the House Committee on Un-American Activities, or to withdraw American soldiers from South Viet Nam, or to sanction trade with Red China, or to back teachers in the right to strike. His attitude could be summed up in the phrase, “This is dialogue.”

From the vantage point of 2011, of course, we can see that the CDC-types have been successful not only at fully coopting the Democratic Party, but have largely succeeded in leading America down the path to slow national suicide.  This should be a valuable lesson to any who would wish to claim the GOP mantle in 2012.  You cannot have “dialogue” with revoutionaries.  You must either defeat them, or be defeated by them.

Different take on Reagan’s transition to conservatism and Kuchel’s reasons for bowing out of the 1966 gubernatorial race.

Bacon, J.(1965, November 14). All the world’s a stage: More and more actors try politics. Toledo Blade, B3.

In an article largely focused on the then-emerging trend of actors seeking political office  James Bacon not only mentioned Reagan’s obvious-yet-still-undeclared campaign for CA Governor, he matter-of-factly dropped two other comments that I’ve not heard before and that may supply fodder for future research/writing.  

The first was that:

Public opinion polls among Republicans have put [Reagan ] out in front as a GOP candidate for governor.  A poor second in the polls was GOP Sen. Thomas Kuchel who since has announced he’s content to stay in the U.S. Senate.

If memory serves me correctly, I thought all the “smart money” was prognosticating that Kuchel would “surely” defeat Reagan if only he would run.  This makes it sound suspiciously like Kuchel may have decided not to run precisely because he already knew there was a good chance he couldn’t beat Reagan.  If that’s right, it’s got to make you wonder even more about all the Republican big wigs talking about how people like Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum “can’t” beat Obama…about how we’ve just got to run Gingrich or Romney because they’ve got that elusive quality of “electability, a trait which--curiously enough--often inheres in Republicans who fail to get elected (e.g., John McCain)

The second interesting insight from Bacon was his suggestion that Reagan credited actor-turned-senator George Murphy for his conversion to the Republican party.

The rise of Ronald Reagan in politics reads like a movie script.  First he was a liberal Democrat and a militant leader during his long tenure as head of the Screen Actors Guild.  Then he switched to Republicanism.  “George Murphy made me see the light,” he says.

I’ve heard some speculation that Loyal Davis, adoptive father of Reagan’s second wife Nancy, was instrumental in pulling Reagan into the conservative political fold…but I’ve never heard Murphy mentioned in this regard.  This might be an interesting rabbit trail to pursue.  Can anyone else out there shed light on the Murphy-Reagan connection?

Rearview Mirror: Reagan calls for facts on Viet Nam War.(October 22, 1965)

n. a.(1965, October 22). Reagan calls for facts on Viet Nam War. Lodi News-Sentinel, p. 16.

Perhaps surprisingly, in October of 1965 one of the most controversial issues in the Reagan campaign for California governor was his position on Vietnam.  It had been previously reported that Reagan proposed “an unqualified declaration of war,” though the Gipper denied this.  

It’s not entirely clear to me what the distinction supposedly was between calling for a declaration of war and for an unqualified declaration of war.  Apparently, Reagan quite publicly called upon President Johnson to present all the facts of the conflict to the American people and to the Congress and to ask for a declaration.  

Once we are committed to large scale warfare, if we are to abide by the constitution, I think the president should go before congress and let them decide for war or peace—unless there are factors that are not being told us…Once you ask young men to fight and die for our country, there is a moral obligation to achieve our object and lessen the chance for them to give their lives.

Rearview Mirror: Reagan affable, fluent and tactful politician. (October 6, 1965)

Chamberlain,J. (1965, October 6). Reagan affable, fluent and tactful politician. The Milwaukee Sentinel, p. 12.

John Chamberlain’s review of Reagan’s East Coast speaking tour in late 1965 prompted some revealing (and disappointing) contrasts with our current political campaign season.  First, Reagan labored mightily to foster unity among a Republican party bitterly divided between liberals and conservatives.  Indeed, Chamberlain considered that, “The most impressive thing about Reagan was his ability to project a pleasant, happy and unruffled image in the midst of the partisans.”

How different that is from some of the personal sniping even now taking place amongst various people who all claim that defeating Barack Obama is job number one.

Every time a reporter tried to pin a label on [him], Reagan answered in effect that he was against soliciting support from blocs or groups.  He insisted that he thought candidates should state their philosophies as individuals, and if other individuals wanted to follow, that was their business.