Moog Rogue: Mr. Conservative (2006) 'Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican National Convention'

Source:Mogg Rogue- the 1964 Republican National Convention, in hippie-leftist San Francisco. How times have changed.

Source:The FreeState

"From the documentary "Mr. Conservative: Goldwater On Goldwater" (2006)" 

From Moog Rogue

What sounded like an extreme statement in 1964 when America was still in the New Deal/Great Society Progressive Era of the Democratic Party, in a country that was just starting to move right, sounds like a very intelligent, logical, mainstream view today. Whether it was coming from the Right, because what Senator Goldwater was saying was what was called extremism back in the early and mid 1960s, was about individual freedom. And moving past the welfare state in America and giving more Americans individual freedom over their own lives.

And Senator Goldwater wasn’t just talking about economic freedom, but personal freedom as well. Which is why Ron Paul Libertarians like Barry Goldwater as well. And what he was also saying that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue, meaning that you are in favor justice and going to do what it takes to protect and advance justice in America. But you can’t get their with a half-hearted approach. That it has to be real and you have to go all the way.

The Republican Party certainly changed in 1964. They were still the civil rights party that President Johnson and the Democratic Leadership in Congress had to rely on their more progressive members in Congress for their votes. But you had this conservative libertarian faction in the party, that was already there, but now big enough where they became the mainstream faction of the party.

It would be nice to see the GOP today with there Northeastern Progressives and Conservative Libertarians in the Midwest and West without the Religious-Right. They would be a lot more competitive for The White House now.

NBC News: Meet The Press- U.S. Senator Robert Taft (1952)

Source:NBC News- U.S. Senator Robert Taft (Republican, Ohio) on NBC News Meet The Press, in 1952.

Source:The Daily Post 

"Meet The Press. January 20, 1952. NBC-TV net, WNBT-TV, New York City audio aircheck. Sponsored by: Revere Copper and Brass. The first question is, "You're enemies say that in spite of all your disclaimers, you're an isolationist at heart. Are you?" Robert Taft (Senator, Ohio), James Reston (The New York Times), Lawrence Spivak (Mercury Publications), Marshall McNeil (Scripps-Howard Newspapers), Ned Brooks (NBC commentator), Martha Rountree (moderator). 28:30. Audio condition: Excellent. Incomplete

"In the international field we have been victimized by such catch phrases as--"Making the world safe for democracy", "One world or none", "Freedom loving countries"' "the Four Freedoms", "Human Rights" and a dozen others. " - Frank E. Holman, 1953" 

From Guy John 

America’s role in the world post-World War II and where is our place in the world and what we needed to do to defend ourselves and work with our allies so that Russia wouldn’t try to invade Europe and expand their Communist empire, is what they're talking about here. 

Senator Taft who truly was a Conservative Republican perhaps the Barry Goldwater of his time and the Barry Goldwater in Congress of his time, made a really interesting point about NATO which is responsible for defending Europe for the most part. And a position that I hold today about who should defend Europe.

Senator Taft wasn’t taking an isolationist position on foreign policy as it related to Europe. He wasn’t saying that if Russia invades Europe, then that is Europe’s business and America shouldn’t get involved. He was saying that if America is going to be part of NATO, then the European states that get most of the security and benefits from NATO should pay for that defense. Instead of America essentially being responsible for the entire defense of the United States, which twice the size of the European Union in land and have to defend Europe as well. 

And Senator Taft was right then and he was right today. America is essentially responsible for the defense of both the United States and European Union. Canada can defend themselves and is now committing the resources to do that under the Harper Government. But while America is still at or around four-percent GDP as far as national defense, Europe is at around one-percent. With Britain, Germany and France being a bit higher than that. 

One of the reasons why these social democracies in Europe spend so little on their national defense, is because they’re social democracies. They spend a lot on infrastructure and education and very little on defense. Because America is responsible for their defense.

Guy John: U.S. Senator Robert Taft- On Meet The Press (1952)

Source:Guy John- U.S. Senator Robert Taft (Republican, Ohio ) & I believe former President Herbert Hoover.

Source:The Daily Post

“Meet The Press. January 20, 1952. NBC-TV net, WNBT-TV, New York City audio aircheck. Sponsored by: Revere Copper and Brass. The first question is, “You’re enemies say that in spite of all your disclaimers, you’re an isolationist at heart. Are you?” Robert Taft (Senator, Ohio), James Reston (The New York Times), Lawrence Spivak (Mercury Publications), Marshall McNeil (Scripps-Howard Newspapers), Ned Brooks (NBC commentator), Martha Rountree (moderator). 28:30. Audio condition: Excellent. Incomplete.”

From Guy John

Senator Taft not sounding like an isolationist at least in this interview, but more like a Barry Goldwater Conservative Republican, but from the 1940s and 50s.

A good way to look at Robert Taft at least when it came to foreign policy would be to look at Senator Barry Goldwater. Both men were strong anti-Communists and anti-authoritarians in general and wanted a strong American military and American economy. But to use those resources to defend America and our national interests. Not to try to police the world at least by ourselves. That our allies especially Europe needed to do their part as well.

What they were talking is here is how should the United States respond if the Soviet Union were to invade Europe. What is now the European Union. If they were to attack Germany, or some other country.

I believe what Senator Taft is saying here if that were to happen that the Europeans need to step up and defend themselves and not expect America to fight their war for them. Europe if it were a country, we would be talking about the second or third largest economy in the world even back then. As well as a wealthy developed country. So they should have done their part to defend themselves especially since they did border Russia.

I don’t believe what Senator Taft was saying here is that if Russia invaded Europe that America should say,:“Oh well, too bad and good luck to you.” And that we shouldn’t do anything and let the Russian take over Europe and expand their communist empire.

What Senator Taft was saying that we should help Europe and give them resources and perhaps even send them troops. But that Europe had to do their part as well. And not expect America to fight their wars and spend our money for them while Europe does nothing to defend themselves. Which I believe is a very mainstream position today and even back then.

Documentary Fan: 1952 Republican National Convention: U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen Defends Robert Taft

Source:Documentary Fan- U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen (Republican, Illinois) speaking in favor of Senator Robert Taft (Republican, Ohio) at the 1952 Republican National Convention, in Chicago, Illinois.

Source:The FreeState

“Republican National Convention 1952 Chicago, ILSen. Everett M. Dirksen gives his speech in support or Sen. Robert Taft for President against Dwight D. Eisenhower.”

From Documentary Fan

The political wave or tide that Senator Everett Dirksen is talking about in this speech is the 1952 Republican sweep. Other than holding Congress from 1947-48, they were completely shutout of power in Washington and the Federal Government, at least as far as being in charge of anything from 1933-53.

The Democratic Party, won five straight presidential elections during this period. And again except for 1947-48, held both the House and Senate in Congress during this whole period as well. That changed in 1952 thanks to Dwight Eisenhower as he won the presidency and Congressional Republicans won back the House and Senate in 1952.

Senator Dirksen, initially supported Mr. Conservative (at least during his time) Senator Robert Taft for president in 1952. They were both strong Conservative Republicans, from the Midwest, who served in Congress together for twelve-years. They knew each other and the other’s politics and character very well.

Dwight Eisenhower, hadn’t announced he was a Republican until he decided to run for president in 1952. He could he being a career U.S. Army officer. So it wasn’t very clear really until General Eisenhower became President of the United States where the General was politically and ideologically.

The Republican Party in 1952 whether they nominated General Dwight Eisenhower or Senator Robert Taft for president, felt this year was definitely their time. Of course they felt that way in 1948 when they barely lost that election as well with Tom Dewey. But 1952 was different for them because they had a great nominee and perhaps the most popular person in America at the time in Ike Eisenhower.

Democrats held the White House for twenty-years at this point and held both chambers of Congress for most of that time as well. President Harry Truman, had been president for eight years at this point and he and his administration were unpopular. So Republicans had a lot to feel good about in 1952.

ABC News: 'Everett Dirksen's Washington (1968)'

Source:ABC News- anchor Howard K. Smith, interviewing U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (Republican, Illinois)

Source:The Daily Post 

"Everett Dirksen's Washington

January 2, 1968

A tour of the U.S. Capitol with Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen and ABC's Howard K. Smith." 

From Documentary Fan

When was the last time that a Congressional leader was loved and respected by both parties? That is how much Congress has changed since Everett Dirksen was there because he was loved and respected by both parties when he was in Congress and when he was the Senate Republican Leader. But now Republicans and Democrats in Congress tend to look at each other as enemies and not colleagues or even opponents. 

Not many people being more familiar with how Congress worked than Everett Dirksen, who served a total of thirty-four years in Congress. Both in the House of Representatives and Senate. House from 1933-49 and the Senate from 1951-69. And was also Senate Minority Leader from 1959-69.

You might be able to say that Minority Leader Dirksen had all the power in the Republican Party in Washington in the 1960s. Excluding 1960 with President Dwight Eisenhower and 1969 with President Richard Nixon. You might be able to say that from 1961-69 Minority Leader Dirksen was the Washington power structure for the GOP. Because Democrats held the White House and both chambers of Congress from 1961-69 in this period. Huge majorities in both the House and Senate from 1961-67. Which meant for Congressional Republicans to get anything done in this period or to stop legislation that the Congressional Democratic Leadership was pushing, they needed both Leader Dirksen and the Southern Caucus of right-wing Democrats in Congress.

The 1960s was also a much different time as far as Washington politics and Congressional politics. Not all Democrats were liberal or progressive. (At least in the classic sense) The Democratic Party had the right-wing Southern Caucus in the House and Senate. The Democratic Party leaned Left, but had a large right-wing faction. 

In the 1960s, not all Congressional Republicans were conservative, but certainly leaned right. And they had a progressive faction in the Northeast. Which meant for either President Jack Kennedy or President Lyndon Johnson to get things done in Congress, especially in the Senate, they needed Minority Leader Dirksen’s help to cutoff filibusters from Conservative Republicans and right-wing Democrats. And to bring along some of his Progressive Senators.

Similar to Senator Robert Byrd and Everett Dirksen was sort of the Bob Byrd of him time, but if neither one of them weren’t in Congress for so long, they could’ve both been Congressional historians. And of course a lot of the knowledge they picked up about Congress had to do how long that they were in Congress. Both serving in the House and Senate, but also because they both served in the Congressional Leadership. 

So when you hear Everett Dirksen talk about Congress, you know you’re hearing from someone who actually knew what they were talking about. Someone who was not just respected, but loved by both Republicans and Democrats and someone who represents the best of our Congress and its two chambers.

Moog Rogue: Mr. Conservative- Barry Goldwater’s Opposition to The 1964 Civil Rights Act

Source:Moog Rogue- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona) 1964 Republican Party presidential nominee.

Source:The FreeState 

“Mr. Conservative: Barry Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. From the documentary “Mr. Conservative: Goldwater On Goldwater” (2006)”

From Moog Rogue

I have a lot of respect for Barry Goldwater, he’s probably my favorite Conservative. But as Julian Bond says in this video, Senator Goldwater was just plain wrong about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And what I would add to that is that because here’s a man a sitting United States Senator probably the most effective and intelligent Conservative spokesmen in Congress who was constantly speaking out in favor of individual freedom, saying that states rights trumps individual freedom and the constitutional rights of individuals.

Senator Goldwater was essentially arguing that states have the right to deny their residents the same constitutional rights as other residents of their state, even by race that somehow states rights trumps individual rights which is of course unconstitutional. These civil rights laws weren’t about telling states how they can govern themselves, but that they have a duty just like the Federal Government to comply with the United States Constitution. And have to enforce their own laws equally for all of their citizens.

What the 1964 Civil Rights Act is about, is that all Americans regardless of race or ethnicity should be treated equally when it comes to their race and ethnicity. Not be treated better or worst and when it comes to public accommodations including business’s open to the public, that the public is everybody. That business’s can’t deny people access to their business because they don’t like race or complexion. Americans don’t have to like each other and think well and be nice to each other. But that is different from denying people access simply because you don’t like their race or ethnicity.

Conel Rad: The Choice (1964) Barry Goldwater Campaign Film

Source:Conel Rad- from Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign film.

Source:The FreeState

“The entire controversial campaign film banned by Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964.”

From Conel Rad 

There’s a book that was written in 2005 or 2006 essentially called the The Choice: a Glorious Defeat For Conservatives. I’m paraphrasing, but that’s pretty close where the author argues that Barry Goldwater’s 1964 Presidential election landslide loss inspired so many young people. Especially Conservatives to join the American Conservative movement and get involved in American Conservative politics. And even work for Conservative Republicans, or become Conservative Republicans themselves.

And I agree with this because without 1964, Congressional Republicans do not pickup something like forty-five seats in the House in 1966. Still about thirty short of a majority, but put them in contention for 1968 to win back the majority in the House. And I believe they picked up 4-5 seats in the Senate, but they were in the low-thirties as far as Senators after 1964.

Barry Goldwater won ten states in 1964, but seven of them were in the South. Which was right-wing Democratic country. And what Senator Goldwater did in 1964 was expand the playing field for the Republican Party by bringing in new Conservatives to the Republican Party.

Without 1964 Richard Nixon doesn’t get elected President of the United States in 1968, because again Barry Goldwater expanded the playing field in 1964 and brought in more right-wingers to them Republican Party and out West. But in the South and brought in Libertarians from the West and Religious-Conservatives from the South, that use to back right-wing Democrats who were against things like civil rights. Barry Goldwater and Dick Nixon brought in right-wingers to the Republican Party as well especially from the South.

Pre 1964, the Republican Party was mostly a Midwest and Northeastern party, but Goldwater and Nixon changed that for the GOP. And all of these Southern right-wingers to the GOP kept moving along in the 1970s as well to the point that President Nixon is reelected in a landslide in 1972. More Southern and Western Republicans are elected Governor and to Congress (both House and Senate) in 1978. And of course go up until 1980 when Ronald Reagan is elected President and Senate Republicans win back the Senate for the first time since 1952.

I do not believe that Barry Goldwater ran for President in 1964 expecting to win. Even though I’m sure he would’ve taken the job had he won it. (He wasn’t William F. Buckley) But he ran against leftist big government basically from the New Deal to the Great Society. And to show Americans that there was another way to govern America and another competing vision of where to take America. And made conservatism mainstream in America.

Raymond Massey: ‘Barry Goldwater 1964 Presidential TV Spot’

Source:Maryland Democrats- actor Raymond Massey endorsing U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona) for President in 1964.

“Barry Goldwater’s got Hollywood firepower in the form of Actor Raymond Massey, who wants us to get out of a meaningless war that’s costing us “a million dollars a day”. Maybe they could “Go Back to the Future” and stop this meaningless war.” 

From Maryland Democrats 

What apparently Raymond Massey wasn’t aware of is that Senator Goldwater was in favor of a full-out war against North Vietnam and doing what it took to win that war and secure that country for the democrats in the South to govern a United Democratic Vietnam.

President Lyndon Johnson was the so-called peace candidate in the 1964 presidential election. Even though President Johnson escalated the Vietnam War by getting America completely involved and in the war and doing a lot of the fighting and supplying the resources to South Vietnam and ourselves to fight and end this war, but after the 1964 election.

The so-called Tet Offensive of 1965 put America not only in this civil war in Vietnam but with a lot of if not most of the responsibility for winning this war. And trying to prevent Vietnam from going communist. Which it did anyway by 1975-76. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on WordPress.

CBS News: The Longine Chronoscope- U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen (1952)

Source:CBS News- U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen (Republican, Illinois) on The Longines Chronoscope in 1952.

Source:The FreeState 

“LONGINES CHRONOSCOPE WITH SEN. EVERETT M. DIRKSEN – National Archives and Records Administration 1952-05-07 – ARC Identifier 95971 / Local Identifier LW-LW-417 – TELEVISION INTERVIEW: William Bradford Huie and Donald I. Rogers talk with Sen. Dirksen on his Senate bill to limit the powers of the Wage Stabilization Board, government seizure of steel industry, credit controls, and the presidential campaign 1952. Copied by IASL Master Scanner Thomas Gideon.” 

From Public Resource

Members of Congress in both parties are always looking to weaken executive power (until they become President themselves) specially since President’s are always looking to increase executive power. Which is what this debate is about and what Senator Dirksen was trying to do to have the members of this board having to all be approved by the U.S. Senate.

During the 1930s the Roosevelt Administration under the New Deal, created all sorts of new programs, boards, agencies that had jurisdiction over the economy. And what Senator Dirksen wanted to do was to have these boards and board members have to be approved by the Senate. With both the Senate and House having Congressional oversight over these boards.

Many of these boards and agencies that were created by the New Deal were permanent boards and agencies. The President can put together short-term commissions and boards to study issues and come up with policy proposals and these things are put together all the time. But these commissions don’t have subpoena power generally and can’t issue new rules and regulations that business’s and individuals have to comply with.

What Senator Dirksen wanted to do here with this board since it was permanent with regulatory power was to have the members be approved by the Senate and have to report to Congress both the House and Senate.

This interview was done in 1952 when the country was at peace for the most part even though we were involved in the Korean Civil War. And the economy that was in depression for most of the 1930s and came out of that and recovered in the 1940s thanks to World War II.

Senator Dirksen’s line in this interview about “fake prosperity” had to do with the fact that the American economy was booming at this point, because we were at war and had so many me oversees and fighting. Which created millions of jobs at home with so many men out of the country. Plus with all the middle class jobs that were created at home to fight World War II and then later the Korean War. And I guess Senator Dirksen was saying that America wouldn’t have the prosperity at home if we weren’t fighting abroad.  

CSPAN: Barry Goldwater Speaks Out (1964)

Source:CSPAN- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona) running for President in 1964.

“Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater was shown in New Hampshire, campaigning for the 1964 Republican presidential nomination. Clips from speeches about foreign policy, the United Nations, Social Security, and economics were included. Also shown were video clips of New Hampshire residents being interviewed.

This film is titled Barry Goldwater Speaks Out and was produced by the Goldwater for President Committee.”

From CSPAN 

The Goldwater Presidential Campaign movies might of not have been the most professionally made movies. But they were somewhat ahead of their time, because they were made by the Goldwater Campaign and gave Senator Goldwater the opportunity, 15-20 minutes on network television to layout exactly where he was on the issues and what he wanted to do as President. And to show Americans that he wasn’t crazy. That he wasn’t the person that President Johnson and his campaign were trying to make him look like. As well as other Democrats that were trying to make Senator Goldwater look crazy.

Senator Goldwater believed in things like individual freedom and personal responsibility. If I was alive and old enough to vote in 1964, instead of being born eleven years later, I would’ve voted for President Johnson, because of Civil Rights. That he believed individual rights over states rights.

Southern Democrats as well as some Republicans in Congress like Barry Goldwater, believed in the opposite. And when President Johnson was against getting American Armed Forces involved in the Vietnam War, of course that changed later in 1965, but in 1964 President Johnson was the peace candidate, but Senator Goldwater wasn’t crazy. But a Classical Conservative who believed in individual freedom.

This film of course is a propaganda film by the Goldwater Campaign. An opportunity for them to layout where he is. Get out the message of what they want Americans to think about Barry Goldwater and not hear the other side. But this film does give people an idea of where Barry Goldwater was politically. That he believed in individual freedom and personal responsibility, peace through strength, that his foreign policy of course would’ve been different from President Johnson.

Senator Goldwater would’ve taken a much harder approach to the Vietnam War and would’ve not only had sent American troops there, but we would’ve been there to win the war, even for Vietnam itself. Which I believe would’ve been a very bad mistake, because that would’ve left us there to occupy that country, similar to Iraq. But with a President Goldwater we wouldn’t have seen the Great Society and perhaps more of a free market approach to solve those problems.

I would’ve love to of seen a presidential debate between President Johnson and Senator Goldwater. It wouldn’t have been an interesting as a presidential debate between Barry and President Kennedy. But it still would’ve been a very good debate, because we would’ve seen both men as they are. Rather than how the media portrays them and Americans would’ve had a clear choice in who to vote for. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.

Bill McCune: Barry Goldwater- 'An American Life'

Source:Bill McCune- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona) Mr. Conservative.

“Barry Goldwater – An American Life – The quintessential biography of Barry Goldwater. The life of a 20th century renaissance man: Explorer, world renown photographer, cinematographer, pilot, businessman, Air Force General, U.S. Senator, Presidential candidate. Includes forty years of Goldwater home movies. This 96 minute film features Barry Goldwater, brother Bob Goldwater; lifelong friend Harry Rosenzweig, and historian/friend Lester Budge Ruffner.”

From Bill McCune

Anyone whose not as familiar with American conservatism as much as they would like to be and would like to learn more about American conservatism, I have some suggestions on how to do that. Stop watching Fox News or using it as a main source of info, because it’s really mostly neoconservative and Tea Party populist commentary.

And don’t read publications that claim to be Conservative but are really Tea Party Nationalist, Big Government Republicanism, like Human Events. Unless you are interested in neoconservatism and Tea Party Nationalism.

But if you are really interested in learning about American conservatism, research Barry Goldwater because that’s what it’s about. Read the book Conscience of a Conservative that was written by Senator Goldwater in 1960. That book lays out the conservative vision for America.

American conservatism is about freedom and Americans being able to live independently of the state, especially the Federal Government, as far as being able to pay our own bills, our living expense and so-forth. And that Americans should be able to live their own lives as they see fit as long as we are not hurting innocent people with what we are doing.

Senator Goldwater even believed in the right to collectively bargain, just as long as workers weren’t forced to join labor unions. Barry Goldwater’s politics didn’t change as some Republicans and others have charged today. The Republican Party has changed to the point that Senator Goldwater couldn’t win the Republican nomination for President today. Thats how far to the Right the party has moved.

When Senator Goldwater left Congress in 1987, the Republican Party was still the Conservative Party in America. Now it’s probably the farthest right party that we have in America and that’s different. Barry probably could win the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. Even though they probably wouldn’t of liked his foreign policy views. Senator Goldwater wasn’t an isolationist, but other than that he would’ve fit in very well with the LP. And they would’ve taken him. But the Religious-Right would’ve tried to kick Senator Goldwater, Mr. Conservative out of the GOP.

Barry was a real Conservative. Senator Goldwater wasn’t interested in things like homosexuality and pornography, he had a gay grandson. And his famous line about gays in the military, was that he didn’t care if soldiers were gay or straight, but could they shoot straight. He also said that the religion doesn’t belong in politics as it relates to policy and that abortion isn’t a political issue. But freedom of choice issue. And that he didn’t want Big Government in his wallet or bedroom. All reasons why he wouldn’t fit into the Republican Party today. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.

CP Harding: U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen- 'The Difference Between a Democrat and Republican in (1967)'

Source:CP Harding- interviewing Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (Republican, Illinois) in 1967.

Source:The FreeState

“Everett McKinley Dirksen (January 4, 1896 September 7, 1969) was a Republican U.S. Congressman and Senator from Pekin, Illinois. As Republican Senate leader he played a highly visible and key role in the politics of the 1960s, including helping to write and pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Open Housing Act of 1968, both landmarks of Civil Rights legislation. Dirksen served in the Senate from 1951 to 1969 and was seen quite often on the evening television news shows. His banter with newsmen Walter Cronkite and Roger Mudd and his unmistakable “raspy” voice made him famous throughout the country and the world.

This video was shot in Southern Illinois in 1967 or 1968 and features a young reporter (CP Harding) from WSIU Television (Southern Illinois University) asking Senator Dirksen just one question for a proposed children’s news program. Toward the end of the interview the reporter becomes concerned because he was getting a signal that they were almost out of film….and Senator Dirksen just kept talking.” 

From CP Harding

Former U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (1959-69) explained it perfectly what it means to be a Conservative and what conservatism is (or as perfectly as it can be explained in a three-minute video) when he said a Conservative is someone who believes in conserving freedom and our values.

Conservatism, is about fiscal responsibility. Not spending more than you take in and not spending money on things that you shouldn’t be funding.

Conservatism when it comes to politics, the government not spending money on things that could be spent and run better by others. Conserving constitutional rights and individual freedom and individualism.

Without Minority Leader Dirksen, the 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 Voting Rights Acts as well as the 1968 Fair Housing Law ,doesn’t become law, because he convinced several Republican Senators to vote for those laws and not to block them. But voting for cloture which is a Senate term and how the Senate cuts off debate and votes on legislation.

Minority Leader Dirksen, didn’t believe in civil and constitutional rights for some, but for all. Actually, more Congressional Republicans voted for the civil rights laws than Congressional Democrats.

Minority Leader Dirksen was a big part of the passage of the civil rights laws on the 1960s, because he was a Republican that would work with Senate Leader Mike Mansfield (1961-77) and President Lyndon Johnson. (1963-69) They had to work with the Senate Minority Leader on civil rights issues, because of the Southern Caucus, which was a Far-Right voting block in Congress that would block and vote against civil rights legislation. Those Democrats would probably be Neo-Confederate or Tea Party Republicans today, like Senator Jim DeMint and others.

Because even Minority Leader Dirksen was the leader of a small minority in the Senate in the 1960s, because of the Southern Caucus he had leverage to use against the Senate Democratic Leadership and the Johnson Administration, conservatism, on foreign policy is about, yes a strong defense that can not only protect our country, but vulnerable allies who can’t defend themselves against large aggressors, but only using our military to protect our national interest not force democracy around the world. Which is what Neoconservatives believe in, or abusing constitutional rights to protect the country. But protecting those rights to keep the country safe.

There are still some Classical Conservatives in the Republican Party today: Senator Rand Paul, Senator John McCain, Representative Jeff Flake and a few others. But in a lot of ways Everett Dirksen represents what the Republican Party used to be before religious conservatism and neoconservatism came onto the scene in the Republican Party in the late 1970s.

But before that the Republican Party was almost purely a classical conservative party, with a progressive Northern wing. That until Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan came onto the scene wasn’t able to convince enough voters to put them in power. But when those people and others came in, they’ve been a pretty powerful party ever since. 

Conel Rad: Barry Goldwater- '1964 Campaign Film: Sleaze Montage'

Source:Conel Rad- Barry Goldwater For President, in 1964.

Source:The FreeState

"The closing segment of the controversial 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign film, "Choice." 

From Conel Rad 

Entertaining movie, or an entertaining clip from a movie and in this sense as well as others, during Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign.

This movie, was probably 12-20 years ahead of its time by using short films instead of just campaign ads to broadcast his political message. And bringing in the film industry. My problem with this film is that it sort of contradicts Senator Goldwater’s political message of individual freedom. And suggests that part of the problem with American society is pornography and sex. And that we have too much sexual freedom and perhaps government should do something about it.

And since Senator Goldwater was running for President, perhaps the Federal Government should do something about it. And he mentions that people who are in favor of sexual freedom, do it under the protection of the First Amendment. And that perhaps the First Amendment doesn’t protect Freedom of Expression. Which is course is a big part of what the adult entertainment industry is about, expressing how people feel about sex.

This film would’ve been better suited for a Christian-Right theocratic candidate. Like Pat Robertson or Michele Bachmann or Mike Huckabee or a Rick Santorum.

Someone who believes that part of America’s problems are that our morals have declined and as former U.S. Senate and presidential candidate Alan Keyes said: “The problem with America is that we have a moral crisis and that the Federal Government should try to fix it.” Part of what Mr. Keyes meant about our “moral crisis” was the adult entertainment industry. A movie like this is not for a political candidate who preaches the message of individual liberty and freedom.

Someone whose anti-Big Government and pro-limited government, because individual Liberty is more than just low taxes and regulations and economic freedom. But the freedom for individuals to live their own lives and not for government to try to run their lives for them. Someone who believes that government should be used to protect people from themselves as well as others, is not a big fan of individual liberty. Except when people are living their lives exactly as they want them too.

Entertaining film and worth watching, but I’m disappointed it comes from someone who preaches the message of individual liberty and freedom. This film is better suited for Theocrats not Classical Conservatives which is what Barry Goldwater was and even if he made this film to appeal to Christian Conservatives back then, who weren’t very powerful in American politics yet, then this film was designed to make Senator Goldwater look like something he’s not. Which is a big problem with American politics and still is. 

Krazy Kraz: Barry Goldwater 1964 Speech- Freedom vs. Communism

Source:Krazy Kraz- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona)

Source:The FreeState 

"Many thanks to all librivox and other readers and public speakers."  

From Krazy Kraz

One of the things that I believe America had going for us over Russia in the Cold War was that we essentially had a country united behind freedom. With several variations an ideology’s to achieve exactly how we get there. Liberals who wanted a liberal democracy, conservatives who want a democratic republic, Socialists who wanted a social democracy. Libertarians who wanted to stay true to be a democratic constitutional republic. And we tried to push democracy around the world and also said to these other countries that were sort of on the fringe and could go one way or the other.

That freedom is the best form of government and that you should decide for yourself if you agree. But then figure out what type of democracy you should have on your own. Where in Russia when it was the Soviet Union, people didn’t have a choice. They got authoritarianism in a communist form. Where we had different sources and a variety of ideas we could go to in how best to protect American freedom. Where Russia just had the state to look after its people and govern the entire country.

The Soviet theory being if you give people freedom, they won’t know what to do with it and will become a threat to the state. Not the country exactly, but the State. The people in charged of the people essentially. Where in America we believe at least Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians, that the less freedom the people have, the more powerful the state is meaning the state becomes more powerful and the people have less.

Less freedom for the people to live their own lives. One of the reasons why I believe the Soviet Union collapsed, to go along with its faltering socialist Marxist economy, but also because the people saw through foreign TV and other sources, the freedom that people had in Europe and North America and what they could do with it. Liked what they saw and decided that they wanted a taste of that themselves. And told Moscow, “that you let us have or we’ll go somewhere else and get it.”

Moscow could see the breakup of the Soviet Union essentially coming and let these break away republics take off. Now not all these break aways are perfect examples of democracy. But many these countries now have more freedom than they ever had before. One of the beauty’s of freedom is that its an idea not an ideology. That several different ideology’s share. With a lot of different approaches to achieving and protecting it. And they are all against authoritarianism whatever the form. Whether its communist, theocratic or another type like in a monarchy or something. Freedom maybe the only idea that these different democratic ideology’s have in common. 

Conel Rad: The Choice (1964) ‘Decay of American Morality’

Source:Comel Rad- from a 1964 Barry Goldwater Campaign film.

Source:The FreeState  

"The "Two Americas" segment of the controversial 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign film, "Choice."  

From Conel Rad

There’s a book that was written by Lee Edwards that’s essentially called the 1964 Election a Glorious Defeat for the Conservative Movement. (I’m paraphrasing the title) It came out in 2005 or 2006. I was working at a book store part-time then and being the political junky that I am and not just interested in my politics and people who think like me. 

I saw the book on a table in the store and bought it. I think I still have it somewhere. The premise of it was that even though Senator Barry Goldwater only won something like 40% of the popular vote in that presidential election and won like ten states.

Barry Goldwater inspired Conservative-Libertarians young and from the Baby Boom Generation like Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott and other young Conservatives when. Like John McCain who I believe was in Vietnam when and Alan Simpson and many more. 

All these people who I mentioned by the way served in Congress at least at one level and all served in Congressional Leadership, which gets to my point. All these people consider Barry Goldwater to be a hero at least to some degree and agree with him on a lot of issues. And weren’t involved in politics at least at the Federal level at the time.

And all of these young Conservatives ended up getting involved in politics, running and getting elected to Congress and then serving there for a long time. Senator John McCain obviously is still in Congress and was originally elected to the House in 1982. 

Some might say that Senator Goldwater’s presidential campaign was badly run because of how badly he lost electorally. But I don’t believe that’s the main reason he ran for President at the time. Going into 1964 the chances of any Republican beating Lyndon Johnson weren’t very good. Because of President Kennedy being assassinated and the country pretty much saw President Johnson’s role to carry out President Kennedy’s agenda which he agreed to do. And I believe a lot more successfully as well.

Plus America is still in the Progressive Era of the New Deal and later the Great Society. Which is another reason why the Goldwater Campaign was important for classical conservatism. 

Without the 1964 Goldwater Campaign, Richard Nixon doesn’t become President in 1968 or get reelected in 1972. Ron Reagan doesn’t get elected President in 1980 or reelected in 1984. Senate Republicans don’t win control on the Senate in 1980 for the first time in 28 years and hold it for two more elections after that. Republicans don’t win control of Congress for the first time in 42 years in 1994.

All of these things happened because of Barry Goldwater, who inspired generations of Conservatives to get involved in conservative politics and run for office. At the local, state and federal levels. Despite losing forty states in 1964, Senator Goldwater managed to win states that democrats use to own. Like Alabama and Mississippi and today the Republican Party now owns the Sun Belt and the rest of the Bible Belt. A region that the Democratic Party use to own. Which is a reason why Richard Nixon won some of those States just four years later. Today’s right-winger conservative classical, theocratic and neo, owe a lot of their success to Barry Goldwater. 

Moog Rogue: Mr. Conservative- 'Barry Goldwater vs The Religious Right'

Source:Moog Rogue- Mr. Conservative U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona)

Source:The FreeState 

"From the documentary "Mr. Conservative: Goldwater On Goldwater" (2006)"  

From Moog Rogue

Barry Goldwater and Pat Robertson to me represent the two competing factions in the Republican Party today. Which unfortunately from my perspective as a Liberal the Pat Robertson faction of the party winning today, because they clearly have more influence. 

Barry Goldwater came from the classical conservative faction of the Republican Party that dominated the party. Probably from the 1930s all the way up to the 1980s, all of their presidential nominees came from that faction. 

Pat Robertson of course comes from the Christian-Right faction of the Republican Party. Or as I prefer to call them the Theocratic-Right, America’s version of people who would like to see a Christian Theocracy in America. As oppose to a Islāmic Theocracy that’s in the Middle East.

As Barry Goldwater said, Classical Conservatives believe government should be out of people’s wallets and bedrooms. Let free people be free in a free society like America. Keep our taxes and regulations down, don’t try to run our lives, defend the country, protect the streets and be responsible with our tax revenue. 

Use free market principles to help people in need, instead of new government programs and reform our current social insurance programs in a way to make them more cost-effective and efficient. Theocratic Conservatives, tend to be in line with the Classical Conservatives on economic and foreign policy, but take a different approach when it comes to social issues.

Christian-Conservatives, believe in a certain type of authoritarianism, a theocratic authoritarianism. And believe that government should be used to tell people how to live their own lives and prohibit activities that they find offensive. Even if they aren’t hurting anyone else in what they are doing. 

Things like abortion, homosexuality, pornography, prostitution, marijuana, sex before marriage, women in combat, etc. (Hopefully you get the idea) And if people engage in these activities, even if willingly and on their own and they are not hurting anyone innocent people in what they are doing, that these activities should be illegal and punishable by law and these people should face jail and prison time for engaging in these activities.

Classical conservatism and Christian-Fundamentalist authoritarianism, are the two competing ideology’s in the Republican Party. With unfortunately from my perspective theocratic authoritarianism, is currently winning out. With Republican candidates not being able to get nominated or elected without at least pledging a certain amount of faith in religion. (And of course the right religion) But it wasn’t always this way, the Republican Party used to be an anti-big government party that believed that free people should be allowed to be free.

Chad Reiser: U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater- 1964 Republican National Convention: 'Freedom is The Only Solution'

Source:Chad Reiser- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater: accepting the 1964 Republican Party nomination for President, in San Francisco. Hardly a utopia for conservative libertarianism.

Source:The FreeState 

"The only true solution to our current economic and national security situation is true Liberty and Freedom! This is a video compilation of some of my heroes: Ronald Reagan, Ezra Taft Benson, Milton Friedman, Margaret Thatcher, and Barry Goldwater." 

From Chad Reiser

If there's one thing that Liberals such a myself and Conservatives like the late Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan's can agree on, is that freedom is the answer and statism, whether it comes from the left or right is the problem.

That free adults have the constitutional right to live their own lives without government interfering with how we live our lives, as long as we are not abusing innocent people or hurting them. That use to be what conservatism and liberalism were about in America and to me at they still are. I don't buy terms like "Modern Conservatism", which is basically Christian-Nationalism a form of right-wing statism that today dominates the Republican Party.

Conservatism and liberalism are both about freedom. How to protect it for the people who already have it and how to expand it for the people who don't have it but deserve it. Which gets to economic opportunity, how to empower low-income people take the next step up and get themselves out of poverty.

This is what freedom is about which is what today's Christian-Nationalist Republicans and Social Democrats don't understand. Christian-Nationalists want to take America back to the 1950s and protect what they see as the American Way of Life, where we weren't as free and where American democracy didn't work a well for all Americans, just the special few.

Christian-Nationalists don't tend to speak in terms like freedom, except when it comes to economic freedom and religious freedom for Christians. Christian-Nationalists and Socialists tend to speak in terms of Europe: "This is how its done in Europe." they don't seem to have a problem with less freedom over there. And it seems to work, which is why we should be like them, which is neither conservatism or liberalism.

Barry Goldwater is the father of the conservative movement in America: he is called Mr. Conservative, because he wrote the literal blueprint on what it means to be an American Conservative (The Conscience of a Conservative) and he's one of the original Constitutional Conservatives, because he actually believed in the U.S. Constitution and believed that it needed to be conserving. Unlike the so-called Conservatives (Christian-Conservatives) who only talk about the Constitution when it benefits their Far-Right, anti-conservative, partisan, political objectives.