Golwater's Failing Legacy

The Republican party in 1964 was divided between the moderates (led by Govs. Nelson Rockefeller, William Scranton and George Romney) and the conservatives (led by Barry Goldwater and Richard 'Dick' Nixon). Rockefeller was the candidate of choice for the moderates in the 1964 election, but a clear conservative choice was not as apparent. The Draft Goldwater organization was created to persuaded Barry Goldwater (Senator from Arizona) to join the race and lead the Republican party back to its conservative roots. Goldwater easily won the nomination due to the efforts of the Draft Goldwater boys in locking up many delegates (primary elections were non-binding back then) to the Goldwater cause. However, as history tells us, Goldwater was creamed in the 1964 general election by President Lyndon Johnson. What happened? Bill Middendorf offers some explanations in his book, Glorious Disaster, that I will explore here:

Amateurs trying to beat a Professional
The simple reason that Goldwater won the Republican nomination, and even ran in the first place, was due to the Draft Goldwater. The Draft Goldwater organization, led by Peter O'Donnell and Clifton White, created a grassroots presence in every state due to local organizers (akin to Howard Dean's and Barack Obama's grassroots before national presence). Once Barry decided to "test the waters" and run for president, the hard work had already been done for him. All he had to do was lend his name.

With the Republican nomination lined up, it would seem prudent to hold over the effective bottom-up leadership that had sowed the seeds of his success. Barry Goldwater did no such thing. Fearful that O'Donnell and White were out to make a name for themselves, Barry turned the reigns over to two of his associates from Arizona, Denison Kitchel and William Baroody. Kitchel, a lawyer with no prior political experience, was made campaign manager and Baroody, an intellectual didn't need nobodies help, was hired to assist Kitchel in whatever capacity he saw fit.

Lyndon B. Johnson is often considered one of the greatest political minds of his generation. He wins and he wins dirty. Goldwater was fearful of opposing him for the presidency (JFK was originally going to be seeking a second term until his trip to Austin, Texas). One a side note LBJ is famed to have used his physical superiority (he was six foot three) to persuaded his friends and enemies alike. On another side note, LBJ was a hard worker and would often convene meetings in the bathroom because he didn't want to miss something important. Yes, LBJ fought dirty. And he was a professional.

"Professionalism" ultimately won the day. Middendorf is unapologetic for Kitchel and Baroody's actions (or lack thereof) in response to LBJ's attacks. Needless to say, Goldwater would have been better off if he had stuck with the team that garnered him success in the primaries, the Draft Goldwater team. At least then would have held together the grassroots campaign that could have undercut LBJ's attacks. While grassroots support is not enough to combat a national attack(see Howard Dean) it does lend your candidate credibility.

Image trumps Issues in the Eyes of the Public
Barry Goldwater lost because he did not maintain his image. He allowed himself to be defined by misquotes. Example one: Goldwater was asked about President Eisenhower's suggestion that the six American divisions in Europe could be reduced. Goldwater agreed that our forces could be cut as long as NATO commanders had the authority to use tactical nuclear weapons. Middendorf tells us, "He meant, the commander of NATO should continue to have the authority- which was the practice in the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations." The national media machine began running stories that Goldwater wanted any junior-level commander to have the power use nuclear weapons on a whim. Goldwater was officially the warmonger candidate with a loose trigger finger. Goldwater never attacked the issue head-on and lost his image and the election. Side note time, again: LBJ employed most, if not all, of Goldwater's suggestions for escalating the war in Vietnam. Ironically, LBJ labeled Goldwater was the pro-war candidate while asking the American people to vote for his moderate internationalism.

Example two: Asked if he would continue Social Security (a testy subject, then and now), Barry responded: "If a person can provide better for himself, let him do it." He then explained that he wished for Social Security to be voluntary. However, next days Concord Monitor read: "Goldwater sets goals: End Social Security, Hit Castro." This further was used to demonstrate his extremism. Viewed as a warmonger and an opponent of social programs, there was nowhere for a positive image to develop.

Example three: Even in the primaries Barry was labeled as an extremist who would steer the Republican Party hard right. Goldwater and his team knew this label well. Rockefeller had been throwing it at them for months, Kennedy had been saying it to reports (anticipating a second term run) and the media had been saying nothing else. Why then would you condone the use of extremism in your acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention? Hopefully, you know his now famous quote: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Again, the stuff about image comes back around. I like that Goldwater attacked the negative image head on; however, he did so by attempting to make a negative word appear positive. In politics some words will always be viewed as negative: "draft-dodger", "liar", and, of course, "extremism." While conservatives have had success in this tactic (liberal is now a negative term) this attempt was doomed from the onset. All Goldwater did was embrace the attributes that accompany one has been brandished as an extremist. He surrendered his image and lost the election.

Conclusion: Why should we care? Barry Goldwater has been banished to political obscurity; the proverbial footnote in American political history, but an important one. I could not help but think of John Kerry while reading Middendorf's account of Goldwater's defeat. Kerry lost his image from the moment George Bush started attacking and he never got it back. "I voted for it before I voted against it," does that ring a bell? Democrats have been losing the image battle for the past 13 years and Goldwater's run at the presidency can remind us (being Democrats) of the golden years of the Republic when Republicans were divided and had a problem maintain a positive image.