This brief wire reports on Reagan’s pledge to serve out his
full-term as Governor of California if elected.
When asked if he would make a “flat statement” about his potential as a
presidential candidate in 1968, Reagan said, “I have. What more flat statement could I make?”
If memory serves me, however, Reagan did indeed allow his
name to be put forward during the 1968 GOP convention. Though Reagan has always maintained that he
allowed this only in order to preserve unity among the California delegation
(i.e., everyone from CA could vote for their “favorite son” and avoid a
fractious division such as plagued California Republicans during the 1964
Goldwater-Rockefeller shoot-out). While
I think the bulk of evidence demonstrates that Reagan was being sincere in
1966, I can only imagine how the 1968 nomination was spun by Reagan critics.
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)
Much has been written about the fractured state of the California Republican party during Ronald Reagan's initial run for governor. One aspect of this was the patchwork of feuding volunteer organizations, the result of electoral reforms pushed through by Progressive Republican governorHiram Johnson at the beginning of the 20th century. Through the 1966 primary, Reagan and his chief rival George Christopher would wage battle for the support of these organizations. Perhaps most challenging of all, both men knew (or, should have known) that they would have to campaign in such a way that the victor in the June primary could effectively unite all the Republican faction to himself, if he was to have any chance of overcoming the Democrats who, even then, could lay claim to three of every five voters in California. (Campaign in California bitter fight)
Christopher drew first blood when the Republican Council of California, an invitation-only organization, made him their top pick for governor.(Conservative group in California gives support to Reagan) This victory was rather meaningless, however, since the organization was so small (only 75 members) and elitist.
Reagan scored his own victory on April 3rd, when the 11,500 member conservative-leaning California Republican Assembly endorsed him.(Conservative group in California gives support to Reagan) There was no particular surprise that the far more conservative CRA would select Reagan. One suspects, however, that Christopher needlessly poisoned the well by announcing that he "would not be seeking" a CRA endorsement.
Perhaps in an attempt to reach out the CRA crowd, Christopher had appeared at the convention the day before to call for the rejection of “the radical right as well as the
radical left.”(Reagan is endorsed) Either it didn't occur to the mayor that it might sound just a little hubristic to stand before the people you've already said you won't seek an endorsement from and lecture them in verbiage suggesting that you, personally represent the golden mean of political virtue, and all lesser beings fall to your left or right; Or else it did occur to him...and he simply didn't care. Christopher was booed off the stage and left without a single vote.
Fifteen days later, the political seesaw again shifted in Christopher's favor when the California Republican League chose to back him, while "snubbing" the Gipper. According to the Toledo Blade, the CRL convention had refused Reagan's request to:
...make a brief, unscheduled talk on
the grounds that he passed up his chance the day before, when other candidates
spoke. Mr. Reagon [sic] said he had
previous commitments.
“Well, that’s big
of them,” he said when told he could appear for a moment, if he didn’t say
anything. “If they don’t know what I
look like now, it’s a little late.” Mr.
Regan’s [sic] name wasn’t placed before the convention and he received no
votes. (Reagan rival wins support)
Given the rather catty treatment doled out to a former state co-chairman of Goldwater for President, it is not too surprising that May saw Reagan win the endorsement of the United Republicans of California (UROC), a group originally founded for the specific purpose of promoting Barry Goldwater for President.(History of UROC ; UROC sweepingly votes to back Reagan) As if the CRL's treatment of Reagan were not reason enough to raise the ire of UROC members, tensions were ratcheted up when a former paid UROC director, Russ Walton predicted, "a group of extremists are going
to attempt to take over and move UROC even further to the right." Choosing to disregard the common sense that would suggest one keep one's nose out of others' business, the CRL chose to issue a warning about John Birch Society infiltration of UROC.
Michael Kahl issued a press statement from the CRL president William P.
Gray expressing ‘dismay’ at the reports JBS support was ‘significant’ in the
election of Crosby…(UROC sweeping votes to back Reagan)
In the end, Reagan not only won the UROC endorsement...he ran away with it. Reagan received 761 votes. The only other candidate to secure votes, William Penn Patrick, got a measly 28. Again, Christopher received a goose egg.
The story of the volunteer organizations serves as an illustration of what Gaylord Parkinson said of California GOP politics:
You
have every candidate running on his own. He can run as long as he can
get in the primary; then he turns to the party and says, "Okay, help
me. Well, he looks around and there's no party. He's alienated half of
them to begin with and there isn't any party--no Republican finance--no
nothing...It's the most screwed-up system I ever saw in my life."
(2004). The Right Moment, p. 178.
The very presence of this many different groups representing
(primarily) the bitter divide between conservative and moderate
Republicans perhaps help give one a sense of just how divided
Republicans were, and just how big a deal it was that Reagan was able to
unite them. In the midst of one of the most contested (and increasingly vicious) presidential primaries in decades, Republican candidates need to learn from the example of Reagan. It was not a fait accompli that Ronald Reagan would win the governorship. Before he was able to do so, he had to unite the warring Republican tribes. The fact that he was so successful in doing so is an indication of just how remarkable his political skills and personal integrity were.
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.
On September 29, 1965,
candidate Reagan addressed the New England Federation of Republican Women in Boston. Reagan sounded his already-familiar theme of
smaller government, reporting that when asked if he is afraid of his own
government, he now replied, “…to tell you the truth, I am.”
Reagan attacked President
Johnson’s poverty program as, “a $1.8 billion campaign fund for the
[Democratic] party” and called on Republicans to “wage a thousand wars on
poverty, all fought within the framework of our free economy.”
Whether due to the fact that he was speaking in
a state that voted for Lyndon Johnson by a margin of more than one million
votes, or out of a desire to cultivate intraparty unity amongst the California
GOP, Reagan rejected the label of being a “Goldwater Republican,” noting, “I
did nothing for Sen. Goldwater in 1964 that I didn’t do in 1960 for Mr. Nixon.”
