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: "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.  

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?

What accounted for Reagan's win in '66?

A mere two years after conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater was decisively defeated by Lyndon "Great Society" Johnson in the presidential campaign, one of Goldwater's principal supporters, Ronald Reagan, buried a two term governor of California by over a million votes in the general election.  How are we to account for this? 

Some cite Reagan's charisma as a factor; But, of course, this is a difficult trait to quantify.  Some found Reagan charismatic...while others maintain to this day that he was a bumbling fool.  

Reagan himself emphasized the role of party unity in the 1966 race.  It was a major theme of his campaign from the beginning; And, by the summer of '66 California Senate GOP leader, John McCarthy noted, "I’ve never seen the Republican Party so united.” (Lewis, F. (1966, July 1). Washington report)

As important as party unity is, Republican kumbaya was hardly a ubiquitous goal in 1966.   After perusing the outcome of a number of races across the country, NY Times political reporter Tom Wicker concluded, "…the Republican Party is still a house divided and cannot yet look forward to waging a unified national campaign this year or in 1968” (Wicker,T. (1966, July 1). Republicans: Still a house divided)  Less than a week later, Governor George Romney of Michigan seized the opportunity afforded by a Reagan-sponsored reception for GOP governors to draw a distinct line between Reagan and himself.

Romney asked what the rest of the Republican Governors were wondering about Reagan...: what are his views on civil rights?  When Reagan replied that he…opposed the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, Romney voiced publicly what the other Republican Governors were saying privately:  Reagan’s civil rights stance might be just fine for California but it just wouldn’t wash in Michigan. (Evans, R. & Novak, R. (1966, July 8). Romney active at meetings and looks like no. 1 name.)

A third possible explanation--and one that seems to have more evidentiary backing--is to see Reagan's landslide as part of a larger (I would argue anti-Johnson) trend.  For example, though the Democrats remained in control of the U.S. Congress, Republicans took three Senate seats and 47 House seats.  (Wikipedia: United States Senate Elections, 1966; Wikipedia: United States House of Representatives Elections, 1966).  The Washington Post called it, "the [Democrats'] worst defeat in 20 years." (Divided Democrats skeptical of LBJ) And David Lawrence observed:

Republicans got 54 percent of the total vote in the 35 states where there were gubernatorial contests.  They won 23 of the 35 and now have 25 governorships, instead of 17.  The Republicans also apparently gained 677 seats in state legislatures, compared with a loss of 529 two years ago.  Republicans controlled both houses of only six state legislatures last year, but now will control 17. (Lawrence, D. (1966, November 16). Many Republicans in 1968 presidential field.)

Candidate charisma, party unity, and voter frustration...I suspect that each of these played a factor in the political downfall of "the giant slayer," but it seems that exasperation with the real world consequences of unchecked liberalism was the primary motivator.  We've seen it happen before.  Let's hope that come November 2012, we get to watch it happen again.

Is President Obama consulting the Pat Brown electoral playbook?

Drummond, R. (1966, July 12). Can Reagan beat Pat Brown? Youngstown Vindicator. Retrieved from http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=KwJJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-oIMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2698,3491894&dq=ronald+reagan&hl=en

In this even-handed piece, Roscoe Drummond opines that anyone purporting to predict the outcome of the 1966 California Governor’s race is either a fool or a liar.  Drummond held that both Pat Brown and Ronald Reagan would have serious hurdles to overcome in winning the general election.  

In Reagan’s case, Drummond repeated the frequently-heard (even today) complaint that Reagan had heretofore spoken “largely in attractive generalities.”  I’m skeptical, however, that the reality of the Reagan campaign was quite as vanilla as Drummond makes it sound. 

(I’ve read numerous books and articles over the years which emphasized Reagan’s use of town-hall style Q&A sessions in his primary campaign.  Indeed, Reagan himself contended that it was the citizens of California who kept bringing up the issue of student unrest at Berkeley—an issue which, even today, some contend Reagan inflamed for the purpose of winning the election.)

In any event, Drummond concluded:

[Reagan’s] potential supporters  may not feel they must agree with him on everything, but they will want a fuller disclosure of his convictions and his capacity to deal with the burgeoning problems of [California]

With regards to Governor Brown, Drummond candidly admitted the incumbent was vulnerable, in part, “because many feel that his administration has become weary and self-righteous.”  

Well…let’s just be thankful that we don’t have any Democrats like that running for re-election today.

No one "has" to unite behind a GOP candidate until November

In light of the recent calls to "unite behind a candidate" (i.e., unite behind Romney) I thought it might be timely to remind Republican primary voters of a little conservative movement history.  It wasn't until after the "too-conservative-to-win-a-general-election" Ronald Reagan defeated GOP moderate George Christopher in the summer of 1966 that real unity emerged amongst the California GOP.   In fact, for the first time since Earl Warren (a gap of a quarter century) the GOP nominees decided to run as a unified ticket led by Reagan, rather than running on the "every-candidate-for-himself" model.(The truce of Reagan)

The reason I point this out is to suggest that Republican primary voters nationally are just as savvy in 2012 as California's GOP voters were in 1966 when the dynamic political reporting duo of Evans and Novak observed:  "[GOP candidates and voters] know their only chance of success in a state where a divided, declining Democratic party still remains the majority party is a Reagan landslide victory…” (The truce of Reagan)

On the off-chance that the electoral angst being experienced by Jeb Bush and others is sincere, let me reassure the governor that the vast majority (if not all) of us conservative and libertarian voters are well aware of the risks.  We recognize (notwithstanding the ill-advised comments of Sen. Santorum) that Romney is faaaar preferable to a second Obama term.  However, we also recognize that there is absolutely no reason that "we need to get the primary over with."  On the contrary, many of us believe that even if our preferred candidate cannot win the nomination, carrying on the fight and making the Romney forces "sweat it out" holds the possibility of forcing some much-needed concessions from the camp of the Inevitable One.

Furthermore, I would encourage each GOP candidate's camp to realize that we in the grassroots are finished carrying the water for "our President, right or wrong."  Any Republican president who is tempted to go off the reservation by embracing Big Government, uber-regulation, or the rolling back of individual liberties can expect just as much protest and activism against him, as President Obama has received. 

It's probably best if all Republican voters go into this November recognizing the blunt truth that Evans and Novak saw so clearly nearly 50 years ago:

What is called unity is really a truce dictated by Reagan’s landslide primary win over moderate George Christopher. ‘If Reagan had won by 50,000 or 60,000 votes, we’d be scratching each other’s eyes out,’ one prominent liberal Republican here told us. ‘But with the size of his win, we have no choice but to accept him. That still doesn’t mean we buy his ideology or him.’ (The truce of Reagan)

Sen. Thomas Kuchel and his regrettable war on California conservatives

Senator Thomas Kuchel was in the center of the political maelstrom threatening to engulf the California Republican Party in the 1960s.  Appointed to fill Richard Nixon's vacancy in 1952, Kuchel quickly made enemies on the political Right when he labelled John Birch Society members, "fright peddlers, from the simple simpletons to the wretched racists." (Political chickens coming home to roost)

Sen. Thomas Kuchel

In the 1962 governor's race between former Vice-President Richard Nixon and Democratic incumbent Pat Brown, Kuchel was accused of failing to fully-support Nixon.  In Kuchel's defense, however, that might have been a two-way street.  When asked about supporting Kuchel's re-election effort, Nixon replied, "[I am running] independently of candidates for national office." (Political chickens coming home to roost)

Anti-Kuchel feelings were exponentially inflamed in 1964, when Kuchel (erstwhile chairman of California campaign for Goldwater's primary foe Nelson Rockefeller), refused to support Sen. Goldwater--even after he had secured the Republican nomination!  The same year, Republican senatorial candidate George Murphy received similar treatment from Kuchel on the the grounds that Murphy would not repudiate the John Birch Society.

While Kuchel was cold-shouldering Murphy and campaigning against Goldwater, four men (Francis Capell, Norman Krause, Jack Clemmons, & John Fergus) with ties to the right were putting together their own hit job.  What purported to be an affidavit signed by an L.A. police officer began to circulate claiming that Kuchel was arrested in 1949 in the midst of a sex act.  This prompted a libel suit, which the senator won.(Kuchel receives accusers' apologies)


In the 1966 gubernatorial primary, Kuchel broke with custom (and perhaps formal rule) by endorsing, pre-primary, the liberal former mayor of San Francisco, George Christopher.  The Christopher endorsement itself might not have been that big of a deal, had Kuchel not taken the extra step of attempting to slander Reagan's campaign and supporters by warning:

...within our California Republican Party is a fanatical, neo-fascist, political cult, overcome with a strange mixture of corrosive hatred and sickening fear, recklessly determined to overcome our party or destroy it. (Demos hail Kuchel decision not to run)

The senator's impolitic (and perhaps envious) public stabs at the Reagan camp prompted Robert M. Smith, national chairman of Republicans for Ronald Reagan to sound off with a public statement of his own:

On behalf of our membership and supporters, I wish to strenuously object to your statement...which you have directed to the conservative Republicans in California.

If you are to look for a destroyer of the Republican Party you have but to look to your own voting record in the Senate to see who is in the mainstream of the party.

We resent your use of the office of U.S. senator as a platform from which to blacken the name of loyal Americans and fellow Republicans. (Local group raps Kuchel)

Things finally came to a head following Reagan's primary victory in June, when Kuchel seemed...less-than-congratulatory.  State GOP chairman Gaylord Parkinson had had enough. He fired off the following open letter to Kuchel:

As you are aware, there is a widespread anti-Kuchel feeling as the result of your lack of support for the Nixon ticket, the Murphy ticket, the Goldwater ticket and now your pre-primary endorsement in the gubernatorial race…Frankly, Tommy, it is my candid opinion that you have a lot of fences to mend in this state…I am concerned about this and am doing everything I can do to bring all elements of the party together…We have invited you to attend every State Central Committee meeting and you have attended none…In the Navy, when general quarters are sounded, every man is expected to go to his battle station, whether he likes the war or the direction the vessel is going.  To me, a general election is a call to arms for the hole [sic] party to stand behind the candidates freely and openly chosen by the party.  Your failure to endorse the California Republican ticket in the face of a preprimary endorsement of one of the candidates will be a disappointment to me and all loyal Republicans.  I hope you will see fit to change your mind. (Parkinson warns Kuchel: Board GOP bandwagon)

Kuchel's reply to this missive?  "Who the hell is Parkinson?"(Political chickens coming home to roost)

Well, Kuchel may not have known who the hell Parkinson was, but I suspect he found out in 1968 when he was successfully primaried by the conservative candidate Max Rafferty.  Rafferty, unfortunately, lost to Alan Cranston in the general election; And Thomas Kuchel went back to practicing law until his retirement in 1981.