Chamberlain, J. (1966, August 11). GOP conservatism rides rising tide. The Evening Independent, p. 12-A.

Chamberlain, J. (1966, August 11). GOP conservatism rides rising tide. TheEvening Independent, p. 12-A.

In a quote that sounds as if it could be pulled from the headlines in 2012, John Chamberlain noted in 1966 that:

The self-styled moderate Republicans who as often as not are characterized by the immoderation with which they denounce their opponents, keep on contending that their supporters constitute the mainstream of Republicanism.  But what they can’t explain is why the mainstream isn’t flowing through the voting booths in their direction in the primaries.

The article goes on to cite the primary defeats of incumbent Idaho governor Robert Smylie, as well as alleged shenanigans on the part of a Smylie protégé, Hope Kadling, with regards to the conservative Young Republicans.  

Chamberlain goes on to note:

The Republican tide, in virtually all states west of the Alleghenies and south of the Potomac, continues to flow in a conservative direction.

Chamberlain perceived Ronald Reagan’s impressive showing in the CA Republican primary as, “part of a general groundswell.”

In contrast to our current tendency to envision a bicameral Republican Party (i.e., conservatives and moderates/liberals, or Tea Party types and “establishment Republicans”), in his day Chamberlain saw an authentic middle between the factions represented by Reagan and Goldwater, and that led by Smylie, Scott, et al.  Chamberlain considered the middle ground to be occupied by the likes of Richard Nixon and George Romney.

In an excellent illustration of history’s cyclical nature, Chamberlain closed with comments that could be applied (with some minor tweaks) to our current presidential election:

Will all the little disaffections (strikes, the high cost of living, the failure of antipoverty programs, violence in the slums, the disappearance of investment capital, the collapse of the housing industry, and the uncertainties of the Vietnamese war) combining to plague the Democrats, 1966 could be a Republican year. 

Ya think?

News Archives: "Reagan writes us off"

n. a. (1966, August 9). Reagan writes us off. Washington Afro-American, p. 4. 

This article, appearing in the Washington edition of the Afro-American, charged Reagan with “[writing] off the support of colored Californians.”  In tones reminiscent of contemporary accusations that conservatives use "code language," the paper charged Reagan with failing to:

…come out candidly and state that he is aiming his appeal to the white backlash vote…Instead he keeps up a constant drumbeat about “a segment of our citizens who makes welfare a profession” thus planting in the minds of white suburbanites the false idea that it is their tax money which keeps people like ghetto residents of Watts living in idleness.

He also slyly insinuates the state’s increasing crime rate, illegitimacy and promiscuity must be charged to these same lazy, unproductive elements, leaving an impression that none of them have white skins…

Noticeably absent, is an explanation of precisely how decrying those who would make welfare a profession is tantamount to suggesting that the only people who abuse the welfare system are black.  

Ex-Actress Nancy Reagan plays her favorite role: Homemaker

Handsaker, G. (1966, August 7). Ex-actress Nancy Reagan plays her favorite role: Homemaker. Lewiston Morning Tribune, p. 8. 

This article provides a brief overview of Nancy Reagan's life pre-Ronnie (including her acting days) as well as discussing what roles she was filling in the primary.  The articles notes that Nancy voluntarily gave up her acting career when she married, and seemed thoroughly content with the domestic life.

Evans & Novak on the Brown campaign's racial calculus in 1966

As the strength of the Reagan candidacy and the power of the anti-Brown vote became more and more apparent, California Democrats were frantically scrambling for some way to preserve a third administration for the incumbent governor.  Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, reported in July '66 on some of the political brainstorming to save Brown:

As one small attempt to hold down the social temperature in the Negro ghetto of Watts this summer, several prominent Los Angeles citizens arranged for feature movies to be shown at a nominal admission price in school buildings to compensate for the absence of commercial theaters in Watts...This project might help prevent renewed Negro rioting, and its sponsors have a special reason for wanting Watts cool and calm this summer.  As backers of Democratic Gov. Edmund G. (Pat) Brown’s uphill bid for a third term, they know that more racial conflict will propel Republican Ronald Reagan into the Governor’s chair on white backlash...But Brown was not on hand for the opening of the makeshift movie theater.  Nor, indeed, was he in any way publicly connected with the project his supporters had conceived.  For to be publicly sympathetic to the Negroes of Watts is suicide in the backlash politics of California today...Noting Yorty’s awesome vote against him in the primary election among blue collar whites, Brown felt compelled to support the anti-riot bill.  Anything less would be conceding defeat to Reagan.(Evans, R. & Novak, R. (1966, July 18). Watts' problems in cement for Brown-Reagan battle.)

So discount movies were seen as a way to "buy off" the black community, which (it seems) was otherwise presumed to be on the verge of rioting.  Worse still, according to Evans and Novak, Brown's primary concern was not so much for the justice or injustice in the black community (else, why didn't he show up for the grand opening) as it was for his own re-election efforts.  

And yet the narrative for decades has been that Republicans are stereotyping racial minorities?  Republicans are the ones accused of trying to "buy off" minority votes?  Republicans are the ones said to have no core convictions about right and wrong?  Republicans are the ones seeking to "use" people for political advantage?