Reagan podržava Barryja Goldwatera

Reagan podržava Barryja Goldwatera


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Kada Ronald Reagan, kao glasnogovornik General Electric -a, drži govor "Vrijeme za izbor" u znak podrške predsjedničkoj kandidaturi Barryja Goldwatera 1964., on se etablira kao važan igrač u Republikanskoj stranci i započinje svoju političku karijeru.


Je li David Brooks ispričao cijelu priču o Reaganovoj posjeti okrugu Neshoba?

Gospodin Crespino je autor knjige U potrazi za drugom zemljom: Mississippi i konzervativna kontrarevolucija (Princeton, 2007). Predaje američku istoriju na Univerzitetu Emory.

U svojoj kolumni od 9. novembra 2007 New York Times, David Brooks je raspravljao o nastupu Ronalda Reagana na Sajmu okruga Neshoba 1980. i njegovoj upotrebi izraza "prava država". Brooks je oslobodio Reagana od rasizma, ali je zanemario širi značaj pojavljivanja Reaganove županije Neshoba.

Potpuni izvještaj o incidentu mora uzeti u obzir kako je nacionalna vlada pokušala ojačati svoje južne državne stranke i pridobiti podršku južnih bijelih demokrata. Razmotrimo pismo koje je Michael Retzer, nacionalni odbornik Mississippija, napisao u decembru 1979. Republičkom nacionalnom odboru. Mnogo prije nego što su republikanci nominirali Reagana, nacionalni komitet je anketirao državne čelnike da postave mjesta na kojima bi republikanski kandidat mogao govoriti. Retzer je istakao da je sajam okruga Neshoba idealan za osvajanje onoga što je nazvao „skloni glasači George Wallace“.

Ovaj republikanski vođa znao je da je segregacionistički guverner Alabame simbol južnog bijesa prema borbi za građanska prava. Richard Nixon pokušavao je osvojiti ove birače 1968. i 1972. Republikanci iz Mississippija znali su da će uspješni republikanski kandidat 1980. godine morati nastaviti napore.

31. jula, samo nekoliko dana prije nego što je Reagan otišao u okrug Neshoba, New York Times izvijestio da je Ku Klux Klan podržao Reagana. U svojim novinama, Klan je rekao da republikanska platforma "glasi kao da ju je napisao Klansman." Reagan je odbacio odobrenje, ali tek nakon što ga je zvaničnik Carterove vlade iznio u govoru u kampanji. Sumnjiva veza nije spriječila Reagana da koristi segregacijski jezik u okrugu Neshoba.

Iz drugih epizoda te kampanje bilo je jasno da je Reagan zadovoljan što je dopustio južnim republikancima da ga povežu sa segregacionističkom politikom u nedavnoj prošlosti Juga. Reaganova linija prava država bila je unaprijed pripremljena, a novinari koji prate događaj nisu se mogli sjetiti da je koristio taj izraz prije pojavljivanja u okrugu Neshoba. John Bell Williams, bivši guverner segregacije, koji je 1964. prešao partijske granice kako bi podržao Barryja Goldwatera, pridružio se Reaganu na pozornici na drugoj stanici kampanje u Mississippiju. Reaganov predsjedavajući u državi Trent Lott pohvalio je Stroma Thurmonda, bivšeg kandidata za segregaciju Dixiecrata 1948. godine, na Reaganovom skupu, rekavši da da je Thurmond izabran za predsjednika „ne bismo bili u neredu u kojem smo danas“.

Činilo se da je Brooksova odbrana Reagana bila odgovor na njegovog kolegu Times kolumnista Paul Krugman, koji je u svojoj knjizi, Savjest liberala,nekoliko puta spominje posjetu okrugu Neshoba. Krugmanov prikaz modernog konzervativizma nije bez problema. On svodi uspjeh modernog konzervativizma na činjenicu da su „južni bijelci počeli glasati za republikance“. Takva formulacija izdvaja samo bijele južnjake koji pružaju rasistički element u konzervativnoj politici. Zanemaruje složeno ukrštanje rasnih pitanja s kulturnim i vjerskim problemima na koje liberali nisu uvijek bili dovoljno osjetljivi. I zamagljuje činjenicu da su demokrate nastavile pobjeđivati ​​na izborima na jugu i nakon 1960 -ih apelirajući na populistička ekonomska pitanja - istoriju koju bi današnje demokrate trebale podsjetiti prije nego što počnu "zviždati pored Dixieja".

Brookova kolumna, međutim, dobar je primjer nelagode konzervativaca u njihovoj rasnoj povijesti. Reagan je prema modernom konzervativizmu ono što je Franklin Roosevelt bio prema liberalizmu, pa ne čudi što je Brooks osjetio potrebu da ga brani. No Brooksova opaska da je "očito istina da je utrka odigrala ulogu u usponu GOP -a" razumije šta se zapravo dogodilo.

Tokom svoje karijere, Reagan je imao koristi od suptilno podvojenih apela bijelaca koji su zamjerili pokušaje 1960 -ih i 70 -ih da preokrenu historijske obrasce rasne diskriminacije. Učinio je to 1966. godine kada je vodio kampanju za guvernerstvo Kalifornije osuđujući otvorene zakone o stanovanju i građanskim pravima. Učinio je to 1976. godine kada je pokušao pobijediti Geralda Forda za republikansku nominaciju napadajući blagostanje u suptilno rasističkim terminima. Učinio je to u okrugu Neshoba 1980. godine.

Reagan je znao da južni republikanci upućuju rasne pozive da pridobiju konzervativne južne demokrate, i bio je voljan sudionik. Uprkos onome što Brooks tvrdi, nije uvreda držati Reagana odgovornim za izbor koji je napravio. Nije ni samo partizanstvo pokušati ozbiljno razmišljati o složenim načinima na koje je bijeli rasizam oblikovao modernu konzervativnu politiku.


Na današnji dan prije 50 godina, Ronald Reagan održao je govor koji je ' zauvijek promijenio Ameriku '

"Vrijeme za odabir", Ronalda Reagana, iznimno uspješan i utjecajan polučasovni plaćeni oglas za Barryja Goldwatera, danas ima 50 godina. Kako je Stevens otkrio, govor se gotovo nije dogodio:

Nije iznenađujuće što su neki oko Barryja Goldwatera smatrali da je to loša ideja. & ldquoNekoliko dana prije nego što je govor trebao biti emitiran, & rdquo Reagan je kasnije napisao, & ldquozvao me Barry Goldwater. Zvučao je uznemireno i pomalo neugodno. Neki od njegovih savjetnika, rekao je Barry, htjeli su da iskoristi vrijeme koje je kupljeno za moj govor za reemitovanje videokasete sastanka koji je on i rsquod imao u Gettysburgu s Ikeom Eisenhowerom. & Rdquo

Reagan je znao da je govor djelovao pred republikanskom publikom i bio je dovoljno upućen u načine televizije da uvidi užasnost predložene zamjene. & ldquoI & rsquod je pogledao film koji prikazuje Barryja i rsquosa kako se sastaju s Eisenhowerom u Gettysburgu i nije mislio da je to sve tako impresivno, napisao je Reagan s lijepim potcjenjivanjem. Reagan je to dokazao svojim govorom, a Goldwater je bio ubijeđen.

Reganov snažan govor izazvao je emocionalni izvor u svim Amerikancima bez obzira na partiju. I teškaši GOP -a bili su zapanjeni kada je reakcija na govor rezultirala izljevom novca za kampanju Goldwater. Izborni hroničar Theodore H. White se u svojoj knjizi "Amerika u potrazi za sobom" prisjeća da su stariji građani nakon govora potpisali svoje čekove za socijalno osiguranje u kampanji. Male donacije od 5 ili 10 dolara preplavile su volontere zadužene za prebrojavanje novca. Gipper se nije samo uključio u američku psihu, već im je otvorio novčanike. To je, više od svega, uvjerilo novčanike GOP -a da bi Reagan mogao osvojiti guvernerstvo.

Stevens se prisjeća nekih nezaboravnih citata:

Bio je to duboko suprotan govor kada je nada u & ldquo Veliko društvo & rdquo bila na vrhuncu, kada je još bilo moguće vjerovati da možemo odlučno pobijediti u Vijetnamu, a stambeni projekti bili su sigurna stepenica ka boljem životu.

& ldquoDa je vladino planiranje i socijalna skrb imali odgovor, ne bismo li trebali očekivati ​​da nam vlada povremeno pročita rezultat? & rdquo Reagan je upitao, "trebaju li nam oni svake godine govoriti o opadanju broja ljudi kojima je potrebna pomoć?" Ali obrnuto je tačno. Svake godine potreba raste, program postaje sve veći. & Rdquo

Svi dobri govori imaju konzistentnu temu, a Reagan & rsquos je bio nepovjerenje u vladu i vjera u pojedinca. Kako će kasnije dokazati u velikim pobjedama, to je poruka za koju vjeruje da nadilazi ideologiju i stranku.

& ldquoVjerujem da pitanja s kojima se suočavamo prelaze stranačke linije, & rdquo je rekao, podsjećajući publiku na njegovu istoriju kao demokrata. & ldquoTi i ja sve nam se više govori da moramo birati između lijeve ili desne strane. Pa, volio bih sugerirati da ne postoji nešto poput lijeve ili desne strane. Postoje samo gore ili dolje. & Rdquo

Pročitano danas, govor i dalje vibrira strastvenim intenzitetom koji se rijetko nalazi u bilo kojem savremenom političkom diskursu. Ovo nije bio fokusiran, proračunat apel različitim izbornim jedinicama. Bio je to glas jednog čovjeka, duboko uznemiren kursom svoje nacije. Baš kao što je Gettysburška adresa napisana bez očekivanja da će pronaći veličinu, Reaganov govor nije imao namjeru pokrenuti karijeru ili pokret. To je bila poruka iz srca.

Takođe, nekoliko dobrih komentara od Johna Fund -a u The Corner -u.

Ali ne želite znati šta ja ili bilo ko drugi misli o govoru. Odlučite se sami o tome.

Vrlo lijep počast u Daily Beast -u Stuart Stevens -a, bivšeg Romneyjevog savjetnika i republikanskog političkog savjetnika, govoru koji je Stevens rekao, & quot; promijenio Ameriku & quot

"Vrijeme za odabir", Ronalda Reagana, iznimno uspješan i utjecajan polučasovni plaćeni oglas za Barryja Goldwatera, danas ima 50 godina. Kako je Stevens otkrio, govor se gotovo nije dogodio:

Nije iznenađujuće što su neki oko Barryja Goldwatera smatrali da je to loša ideja. & ldquoNekoliko dana prije nego što je govor trebao biti emitiran, kasnije je napisao rdquo Reagan, & ldquozvao me Barry Goldwater. Zvučao je uznemireno i pomalo neugodno. Neki od njegovih savjetnika, rekao je Barry, htjeli su da iskoristi vrijeme koje je kupljeno za moj govor za reemitovanje videokasete sastanka koji je on i rsquod imao u Gettysburgu s Ikeom Eisenhowerom. & Rdquo

Reagan je znao da je govor djelovao pred republikanskom publikom i bio je dovoljno upućen u načine televizije da uvidi užasnost predložene zamjene. & ldquoI & rsquod je vidio film koji prikazuje Barryja i rsquosa kako se sastaju s Eisenhowerom u Gettysburgu i nije mislio da je sve to tako impresivno, napisao je Reagan s lijepim potcjenjivanjem. Reagan je to dokazao svojim govorom, a Goldwater je bio ubijeđen.

Reganov snažan govor izazvao je emocionalni izvor u svim Amerikancima bez obzira na partiju. I teškaši GOP -a bili su zapanjeni kada je reakcija na govor rezultirala izljevom novca za kampanju Goldwater. Hroničar izbora Theodore H. White se u svojoj knjizi „Amerika u potrazi za samim sobom“ sjeća da su stariji građani nakon govora potpisali svoje čekove za socijalno osiguranje u kampanji. Male donacije od 5 ili 10 dolara preplavile su volontere zadužene za prebrojavanje novca. Gipper se nije samo uključio u američku psihu, već im je otvorio novčanike. To je, više od svega, uvjerilo novčanike GOP -a da bi Reagan mogao osvojiti guvernerstvo.

Stevens se prisjeća nekih nezaboravnih citata:

Bio je to duboko suprotan govor kada je nada u & ldquo Veliko društvo & rdquo bila na vrhuncu, kada je još bilo moguće vjerovati da možemo odlučno pobijediti u Vijetnamu, a stambeni projekti bili su sigurna stepenica ka boljem životu.

& ldquoDa je vladino planiranje i socijalna skrb imali odgovor, ne bismo li trebali očekivati ​​da nam vlada povremeno pročita rezultat? & rdquo Reagan je upitao, "trebaju li nam oni svake godine govoriti o opadanju broja ljudi kojima je potrebna pomoć?" Ali obrnuto je tačno. Svake godine potreba raste, program postaje sve veći. & Rdquo

Svi dobri govori imaju konzistentnu temu, a Reagan & rsquos je bio nepovjerenje u vladu i vjera u pojedinca. Kako će kasnije dokazati u velikim pobjedama, to je poruka za koju vjeruje da nadilazi ideologiju i stranku.

& ldquoVjerujem da pitanja s kojima se suočavamo prelaze stranačke linije, & rdquo je rekao, podsjećajući publiku na njegovu istoriju kao demokrata. & ldquoTi i ja sve nam se više govori da moramo birati između lijeve ili desne strane. Pa, volio bih sugerirati da ne postoji nešto lijevo ili desno. Postoje samo gore ili dolje. & Rdquo

Pročitano danas, govor i dalje vibrira strastvenim intenzitetom koji se rijetko nalazi u bilo kojem savremenom političkom diskursu. Ovo nije bio fokusiran, proračunat apel različitim izbornim jedinicama. Bio je to glas jednog čovjeka, duboko uznemiren kursom svoje nacije. Baš kao što je Gettysburška adresa napisana bez očekivanja da će postići veličinu, Reaganov govor nije imao namjeru pokrenuti karijeru ili pokret. To je bila poruka iz srca.

Takođe, nekoliko dobrih komentara od Johna Fund -a u The Corner -u.

Ali ne želite znati šta ja ili bilo ko drugi misli o govoru. Odlučite se sami o tome.


Sadržaj

Sljedeći politički lideri bili su kandidati za republikansku predsjedničku nominaciju 1968. godine:

Glavni kandidati Uređivanje

Ovi kandidati su učestvovali na više državnih predizbora ili su bili uključeni u više velikih nacionalnih anketa.

Omiljeni sinovi Edit

Sledeći kandidati su se kandidovali samo na primarnim izborima, klubu poslanika ili konvenciji svoje matične države. Oni su se kandidovali u svrhu kontrole svojih delegata na nacionalnoj konvenciji i činilo se da ih mediji ne smatraju nacionalnim kandidatima.

  • Guverneru Spiro Agnew Merilenda (podržao Nixona) [4]
  • Guverner Dewey F. Bartlett iz Oklahome (podržao Nixona) [5]
  • Senatore Frank Carlson Kansasa [6]
  • Senatore Clifford Case New Jerseyja [7]
  • Guverneru Daniel J. Evans Washingtona [8]
  • Senatore Hiram Fong Havaja (podržao Nixona) [9]
  • Guverneru Wally Hickel Aljaske (podržao Nixona)
  • Guverneru James A. Rhodes iz Ohaja (podržao Rockefellera) [10]
  • Guverner Raymond P. Shafer Pensilvanije (odobren Rockefeller) [11]
  • Senatore John Tower iz Teksasa (podržao Nixona) [1]
  • Senatore Strom Thurmond Južne Karoline (podržao Nixona) [12]
  • Guverneru John Volpe iz Massachusettsa (podržao Nixona) [13]

Odbijeno pokretanje uređivanja

Sljedeće osobe bile su navedene na dvije ili više velikih nacionalnih anketa ili su bile predmet medijskih spekulacija o njihovoj potencijalnoj kandidaturi, ali su odbile aktivno tražiti nominaciju.

  • Senatore Everett Dirksen of Illinois
  • General -potpukovnik u penzijiJames M. Gavin
  • Bivši guverner John Davis Lodge iz Connecticuta (podržao Nixona)
  • Bivši senator Barry Goldwater Arizone(Napomena: Goldwater je već bio usred onoga što bi postalo uspješna ponuda za povratak za američki Senat.)
  • Senatore Mark Hatfield iz Oregona
  • Guverneru Claude R. Kirk, Jr. Floride (podržao Rockefellera)
  • Gradonačelnik New YorkaJohn Lindsay (odobren Rockefeller)
  • Ambasador Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. iz Massachusettsa (podržao Reagana)
  • Senatore Thruston Ballard Morton iz Kentuckyja (podržao Rockefellera)
  • Senatore Charles H. Percy Illinoisa (podržao Rockefeller)
  • Bivši guverner William Scranton of Pennsylvania
  • Predstavnik Robert Taft Jr. of Ohio

Nacionalno glasanje Uredi

Prije novembra 1966. Urediti

  1. ^ Nixonovo službeno prebivalište bilo je New York jer se tamo preselio kako bi se bavio advokaturom nakon poraza na izborima za guvernera Kalifornije 1962. godine. Tokom svog prvog predsjedničkog mandata, Nixon je ponovno uspostavio svoju rezidenciju u Kaliforniji. Shodno tome, najpouzdaniji priručnici, uključujući izdanje časopisa od 6. januara 1969. godine Rekord Kongresa, navodi svoju matičnu državu kao New York.
  2. ^ Robert Taft Jr. sa 4%, Mark Hatfield sa 3%i Charles Percy sa 2%
  3. ^ Robert Taft Jr. sa 4%, Mark Hatfield i Charles Percy sa po 2%
  4. ^ John Lindsay s 5%, Robert Taft Jr. s 3%, Mark Hatfield s 2%i Charles Percy s 1%
  5. ^ John Lindsay s 3%, Robert Taft Jr. s 3%, Mark Hatfield s 2%i Charles Percy s 1%
  6. ^ John Lindsay sa 2%, Robert Taft Jr. sa 2%, Mark Hatfield i Charles Percy sa po 1%
  7. ^ John Lindsay sa 4%, Robert Taft Jr. sa 3%, Mark Hatfield s 2%i Charles Percy s 1%
  8. ^ John Lindsay sa 4%, Robert Taft Jr. sa 4%, Charles Percy s 2%i Mark Hatfield s 1%
  9. ^ John Lindsay s 2% i Mark Hatfield s 1%
  10. ^ John Lindsay sa 11% i Mark Hatfield sa 7%
  11. ^ John Lindsay sa 6% i Mark Hatfield sa 5%

Nakon novembra 1966. Edit

  1. ^ Mark Hatfield sa 3% i John Lindsay sa 2%
  2. ^ Ovu anketu je organizacija Gallup povukla iz nacionalnih novina nakon navoda o nedosljednoj metodologiji.
  3. ^ Mark Hatfield sa 3% i John Lindsay sa 2%
  4. ^ Mark Hatfield sa 4% i John Lindsay sa 2%
  5. ^ Mark Hatfield sa 3% i John Lindsay sa 2%
  6. ^ Mark Hatfield i John Lindsay sa po 2%
  7. ^ Charles Percy sa 6%, John Lindsay sa 3%i Mark Hatfield sa 2%
  8. ^ Mark Hatfield i John Lindsay sa po 2%
  9. ^ Mark Hatfield i John Lindsay sa po 1%
  10. ^ Mark Hatfield i John Lindsay sa po 3%
  11. ^ Mark Hatfield sa 2%, John Lindsay i James M. Gavin sa po 1%
  12. ^ Mark Hatfield s 2%, John Lindsay s 2%i James M. Gavin s 1%
  13. ^ John Lindsay s 4%, Mark Hatfield s 1%i Harold Stassen s 1%

Direktno glasanje Uredi

Anketiranje za cijelu državu Uredi

New Hampshire Edit

Nixon je bio vodeći kandidat za republikansku nominaciju i u velikoj mjeri je priča o republikanskoj primarnoj kampanji i nominaciji priča o jednom Niksonovom protivniku koji je ušao u trku, a zatim odustao.

Nixonov prvi izazivač bio je guverner Michigana George W. Romney. Gallupova anketa sredinom 1967. pokazala je Nixona sa 39%, a slijedi Romney sa 25%. Međutim, Romney je u jednom trenutku rekao novinaru da mu je vojska i diplomatski kor "isprao mozak" da podrži Vijetnamski rat. Otvarajući se 1968., Romney se protivio daljnjoj američkoj intervenciji u Vijetnamu i odlučio se kandidirati kao republikanska verzija Eugena McCarthyja (The New York Times 18.2.1968). Romneyjeva podrška polako je nestajala i on se povukao iz utrke 28. februara 1968. (The New York Times 2/29/1968).

Nixon je osvojio važnu pobjedu na važnim primarnim izborima u New Hampshireu 12. marta, osvojivši 78% glasova. Antiratni republikanci pisali su u ime guvernera New Yorka Nelsona Rockefellera, vođe liberalnog krila GOP-a, koji je dobio 11% glasova i postao Nixonov novi izazivač. Nixon je predvodio Rockefellera na izborima tokom primarne kampanje. Rockefeller je 30. aprila pobijedio Nixona na izborima u Massachusettsu, ali je inače loše prošao na državnim predizborima i konvencijama.

Do ranog proljeća, guverner Kalifornije Ronald Reagan, vođa konzervativnog krila GOP -a, postao je Nixonov glavni rival. Na izborima u Nebraski 14. maja, Nixon je pobijedio sa 70% glasova na 21% za Reagana i 5% za Rockefellera. Iako je ovo bila velika razlika za Nixona, Reagan je ostao Nixonov vodeći izazivač. Nixon je osvojio sljedeću važnu predizbornu kampanju, Oregon, 15. maja sa 65% glasova i osvojio je sve sljedeće predizborne izbore osim u Kaliforniji (4. juna), gdje se na izborima pojavio samo Reagan. Reaganova margina u Kaliforniji dala mu je mnoštvo primarnih glasova u cijeloj zemlji, ali kada se okupila Republikanska nacionalna konvencija, Nixon je imao 656 delegata prema UPI anketi (sa 667 potrebnih za nominaciju).

    -1,696,632 (37,93%)-1,679,443 (37,54%)-614,492 (13,74%)-164,340 (3,67%) (upis)-140,639 (3,14%) (upis)-44,520 (1,00%)-31,655 (0,71) %) - 31.465 (0,70%)
  • Ostali-21.456 (0,51%) (upis)-15.291 (0,34%) (upis)-14.524 (0,33%) (upis)-5.698 (0,13) (upis)-4.824 (0,11%) - 4.447 (0,10%) - 1.223 (0,03%) - 724 (0,02%) - 689 (0,02%) - 598 (0,01%) - 591 (0,01%)

Na republikanskoj nacionalnoj konvenciji 1968. u Miami Beachu, Florida, Reagan i Rockefeller planirali su ujediniti svoje snage u pokretu stop-Nixon, ali strategija se raspala kada se nijedan čovjek nije složio podržati drugog za nominaciju. Nixon je osvojio nominaciju na prvom glasanju. Nixon je tada izabrao guvernera Marylanda Spira Agnewa za svog potpredsjedničkog kandidata, unatoč pritužbama unutar GOP-a da je Agnew nepoznata veličina, te da je poznatiji i popularniji kandidat, poput Romneya, trebao biti potpredsjednik nominovani. Također je objavljeno da je Nixon -ov prvi izbor za drugog partnera bio njegov dugogodišnji prijatelj i saveznik, Robert Finch, koji je od 1967. bio potporučnik Kalifornije, a kasnije i njegov sekretar HEW -a, ali Finch je odbio ponudu.


Republikanci planiranog roditeljstva: decenija duga istorija

Trendovi unutar politike rijetko se javljaju u vakuumu. Umjesto toga, oni se razvijaju u širem ideološkom i povijesnom kontekstu, koji uzima u obzir pojedinačne izabrane zvaničnike i rsquo političke motive do danas. Planirano roditeljstvo, na primjer, uvijek je uživalo podršku značajne komponente Republikanske stranke, posebno njenog umjerenog ili Rokfelerovog krila, sastavljenog od uticajnih elitista establišmenta, internacionalista i ekologa.

Sedam republikanaca koji su glasali za zadržavanje saveznih sredstava za planirano roditeljstvo, pored senatorki Lise Murkowski, Susan Collins i Olympie Snowe, potječu iz ove tradicije. Osim njihove očigledne podrške ciljevima pro-izbora, ove pojedince karakteriše i posvećenost centrističkoj politici i fiskalnoj veličini, što sve ukazuje na njihovo protivljenje principima tradicionalne, ustavne vlasti.

Još od svojih prvih dana, Planirano roditeljstvo u svoje pristalice ubrajalo je istaknute članove Republikanske stranke. Još 1942. godine, senator iz Connecticuta Prescott Bush (slika, gore), djed predsjednika Georgea W. Busha, bio je pristalica američke Lige za kontrolu rađanja Margaret Sanger & rsquos, a 1947. služio je kao blagajnik u prvoj nacionalnoj kampanji za planirano roditeljstvo . Političke posljedice teško su pogodile. Prescott Bush izbačen je iz očekivane pobjede za mjesto u Senatu u Connecticutu 1950. nakon što je sindikalni kolumnist Drew Pearson izjavio da je "poznato" da je Bush lider u "Društvu za kontrolu rođenja" (originalni naziv Planiranog roditeljstva bio je Kontrola rađanja Američka federacija). Prescott Bush osvojio je mjesto u Senatu dvije godine kasnije, a njegov sin George i snaha Barbara nastavili su podržavati planirano roditeljstvo čak i nakon Georgeovog izbora za Kongres iz Teksasa. Zapravo, on je bio takav zagovornik planiranja porodice da su mu neke kolege iz Housea dali nadimak "Gumeni".

Osim toga, Prescott & rsquos sin George H.W. takođe je podržao napore u planiranju porodice dok je bio kongresmen u Teksasu. Predsjednik George H.W. Bush je bio najpoznatiji po protivljenju Ronaldu Reaganu i rsquosovoj ekonomiji opskrbe, ukorijenjenoj u idejama slobodnog tržišta Hayeka i Friedmana, rugajući se konzervativnom Reaganu kao zagovorniku & ldquovoodoo ekonomije. & Rdquo Napisao je ustav 1970. godine: & ldquoI je ranije uveo zakonodavstvo ove godine kojim bi se osigurala federalna sredstva za istraživanje uređaja za planiranje porodice i povećale usluge ljudima kojima su potrebni, ali si ih ne mogu priuštiti. Moramo pomoći našim mladim ljudima da postanu svjesni činjenice da se porodice mogu planirati i da postoje ekonomske i društvene koristi koje se mogu izvući iz malih porodica. & Rdquo (& quot; George Bush gospođi Jim Hunter, Jr., 23. oktobra 1970. & quot [ Virginia B. Whitehill Papers, DeGolyer Library, Southern Methodist University].)

Iako potječe iz suprotnog krila GOP -a, porodica Goldwater iz Arizone također je podržavala planirano roditeljstvo. U svom posljednjem mandatu u američkom Senatu, Barry Goldwater usvojio je stav o zalaganju, glasajući 1983. protiv ustavnog amandmana koji bi bio poništen Roe protiv Wadea i vratio zakonodavnu vlast nad pobačajem državama. Davne 1937. godine, njegova supruga Peggy postala je jedan od osnivača Planiranog roditeljstva u Arizoni, a par je ostao aktivan u organizaciji tokom cijele karijere u Senatu Goldwater -a. Iako je u početku odbacio stav planiranog roditeljstva o pobačaju, njegovo dugo druženje s grupom na kraju bi ga preobratilo, jer je i on lično odobrio nezakonit pobačaj njegove kćeri Joanne & rsquos 1955. godine, kako je opisano u dokumentarcu HBO -a Gospodine konzervativac.

Kad je imala 30 godina, Peggy Goldwater upoznala je Margaret Sanger i postala dio male grupe koja je organizirala prvu kliniku za kontrolu rađanja u Phoenixu, nazvanu Zdravstvena klinika Mothers '. Gospođa Goldwater razvila je vrlo snažnu posvećenost pokretu za kontrolu rađanja koji se nastavio tijekom njenog života. Kada je umrla 1985 Press za planirano roditeljstvo (Bilten Planirano roditeljstvo u Arizoni), pohvalio je zbog posvećenosti pristupu kontracepciji i razvio nagradu u njenu čast.

Još jedna ugledna republikanska porodica ima istoriju podržavanja planiranog roditeljstva. Bivši guverner Massachusettsa i sadašnji kandidat za predsjednika Mitt Romney imao je zamršenu i otkrivajuću istoriju o životnim pitanjima, kao i u svom odnosu sa planiranim roditeljstvom. Godine 1994., kada se Romney prvi put kandidirao za javnu funkciju, primijećen je kako prisustvuje prikupljanju sredstava za planirano roditeljstvo u Cohassetu, Massachusetts, sa suprugom Ann, koja je viđena kako predaje ček na 150 dolara sa zajedničkog bankovnog računa Nicki Nichols Gamble, bivšoj predsjednici Federacija planiranog roditeljstva u Massachusettsu.

Romney se egipatski prevrnuo po pitanju pobačaja. 2002. godine najavio je da podržava & ldquowoman & rsquos pravo na izbor, & rdquo, a 1994. je rekao da podržava Roe protiv Wadea. Kasnije te godine, prema Boston Herald, "snažnije se spustio u kamp za prava pobačaja", & rdquo, izjavljujući svoju podršku tabletama za "jutro poslije" i saveznom zakonu koji štiti posjetitelje zdravstvenih klinika od nasilja protiv pobačaja. U raspravi kasnije te godine protiv Teda Kennedyja, Romney je rekao da je dosljedno podržavao prava na pobačaj od 1970. godine, kada se njegova majka Lenore kandidirala kao kandidatkinja za prava pobačaja u američkom Senatu u Michiganu. Svoju podršku pravima na pobačaj povezao je sa smrću prije & quot; prije mnogo godina & quot; srdačnog, bliskog rođaka & quot; nakon neuspjelog ilegalnog pobačaja. "Nećete me vidjeti kako se kolebam oko toga", dodao je.

Kasnije, 2002. godine, Romney je tvrdio da će "čuvati i štititi" prava na pobačaj u Massachusettsu, a aktivistima iz NARAL -a Pro Choice America rekao je da vam u Washingtonu treba "poput mene", citirao je član NARAL -a. Zvaničnici NARAL -a ovo su protumačili kao upućivanje na njegove nacionalne političke ambicije. Osim toga, odgovorio je na & quotees & quot u upitniku iz Planiranog roditeljstva 2002. godine o tome hoće li podržati i citirati napore za povećanje pristupa hitnoj kontracepciji. & Quot

U intervjuu za On The Issues, Romney je opkolio ogradu, rekavši: & quot; Vjerujem iz političke perspektive da život počinje začećem. Ne pretvaram se da znam, ako hoćete, s teološkog stajališta kada život počinje. Ja sam se ljudima u Massachusettsu obavezao na to Ne bih mijenjao zakone na ovaj ili onaj način, i ispoštovao sam tu obavezu. & quot (Naglasak dodat.)

Do danas Planned Parenthood sponzorira posebnu interesnu grupu, Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice, koja dodjeljuje godišnju nagradu Barry Goldwater izabranom republikancu izabranom po izboru. Zastupnica Judy Biggert (R-Ill.) Bila je primateljica 2009. godine, a sada Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) Bio je primalac 2008. godine. Zastupnik Bob Dold (R-Ill.), Kojeg je podržala grupa Republican Majority for Choice i bio je jedan od sedam republikanaca koji su glasali za financiranje PPFA-e, trenutno drži mjesto senatora Marka Kirka & rsquosa u bivšem domu u lijevom predgrađu Chicaga. Zanimljivo je da je kopredsjedavajući organizacije, Randy Moody, bio bivši glavni lobist i izvršni direktor u ultraliberalnom sindikatu nastavnika, National Education Association (NEA).

Planirano roditeljstvo Republikanci za izbor izdaju kontradiktornu nagradu Barry Goldwater od 1995. godine, a gotovo svi dobitnici dolaze iz stalnog, ali sve manje prisutnog takozvanog umjerenog unutar Republikanske stranke, koji je zagovornik & quotcentrizma & quot; istinska posvećenost principima ograničene, ustavne vlasti (koju je Barry Goldwater podržavao tokom cijelog svog života).

Uprkos njegovoj podršci & kvoproduktivnim pravima, & quot (pravo na abortus) Goldwater se ipak pamti kao pobornik ustavnog konzervativizma, postavljajući ga kao istorijskog i ideološkog protivnika onih koji se ironično časte u njegovo ime. Baš kao što je glavni protivnik Goldwater & rsquosa bio bivši guverner New Yorka Nelson D. Rockefeller, oni koji su dobili ovu nagradu bili bi politički neprijatelji Goldwater & rsquos u GOP -u, jer potječu iz stranačkog & rsquos & quotmoderate & quot (neokonzervativnog) krila, za razliku od Goldwater & rsquos Old Right , konstitucionalistička, slobodna tržišna, individualistička slobodarska tradicija. Tu tradiciju stare desnice podržavaju mnogi u današnjoj Čajanci, poput pro-life senatora Randa Paul (R-Ky.), Koji se zalagao za strožije suzbijanje pobačaja na zahtjev.

Istoriju Republikanske stranke donekle oblikuje dugačak zapis ikona GOP-a koje podržavaju pobačaj, društveno-liberalne uzroke grupa, uključujući planirano roditeljstvo. Uz jedinstveni izuzetak Barryja Goldwatera (čija je podrška Planiranom roditeljstvu bila motivirana slobodarskim uvjerenjem u neumiješanost vlade u reprodukciju ljudi), ovi republikanci Planiranog roditeljstva također su predani drugim lijevim uzrocima, poput podrške Mitta Romneya univerzalne zdravstvene zaštite, dok je bio guverner Massachusettsa, od milja zvan & quot; RomneyCare & quot & quot; Posvećenost neraskidivo povezanoj & quot; bešavnoj odjeći & quot; fiskalnog i društvenog konzervativizma, koju zastupaju ličnosti kao što je zastupnik Mike Pence (Indija) nije uvijek bila paradigma kod kuće u Republikanskoj stranci.


ZLATVODA POZIVA REAGAN U GREŠKI

VAŠINGTON, 2. maja - Senator Barry Goldwater, pojavljujući se sve zabrinutijim da će predsjednička potraga Ronalda Reagana nepopravljivo podijeliti Republikansku stranku, optužio je danas da gospodin Reagan nije u potpunosti razumio pitanje Panamskog kanala koji je pokrenuo i predložio je kalifornijskom da prestane govoriti o tome.

"Moram podržati Fordovu poziciju" za ponovne pregovore o sporazumu o kanalu, izjavio je republikanac iz Arizone, nakon što je gospodin Reagan porazio predsjednika Forda jučer na izborima u Teksasu. "Mislim da bi i Reagan znao da zna više o tome."

Senator Goldwater, republikanski predsjednički kandidat 1964. godine, prethodno je oslobodio bivšeg guvernera Reagana odgovornosti za taktiku “podjele” koja se koristila u njegovo ime. Njegovi današnji komentari dati su tokom pojavljivanja u programu NBC -TV „Meet the Press“.

G. Goldwater je rekao da nije iznenađen rezultatom u Teksasu, uprkos onome što mu se učinilo kasnim skokom zbog kojeg je predsjednik u četvrtak predvidio da će pobijediti.

"Za početak, predsjednik Ford nema organizaciju ni u jednoj državi u kojoj sam bio, a Reagan ima sjajnu organizaciju", rekao je senator.

Predviđanje nominacija

Ipak, rekao je da ne vidi kako bi predsjednik mogao biti pobijeđen za nominaciju, niti zna za bilo koji razlog zašto bi mu to trebalo odbiti.

Meanwhile, Vice President Rockefeller attributed the Ford defeat in Texas to his failure late last winter to veto a bill allowing only modest and gradual increases in the price of oil and gas.

Mr. Rockefeller recounted that when he was in Texas two months ago the chairman of the state Republican Party told him if the President did not veto the bill he would lose every delegate.

He said he reported this to the President, who replied that the bill was better than nothing and that he would sign it.

“And he did and he lost the election,” Mr. Rockefeller observed in an appearance on ABC's “Issues and Answers” program.

The Vice President, taking a cue from Mr. Ford's Texas stumping, accused Mr. Reagan of misrepresenting issues and relying on simplistic catch phrases.

“I think he is totally deceptive in the way he is raising the issues,” Mr. Rockefeller declared, adding later that Mr. Reagan was “a man who doesn't do his homework on key issues of national security.”

On the Panama Canal, “Mr. Reagan is telling the American people things that are not true,” he charged. “He says that we had the same sovereign rights over Panama that we had over Louisiana. That is a factual misrepresentation.”

In another political comment. Senator Goldwater was asked about the race for the Democratic nomination. He said he did not think Jimmy Carter, the former Georgia Governor, would be the choice. It will go instead to Senator Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota, he said.

“I listened to his statement of refusal the other day, and if that wasn't filled with handengraved invitations I have never seen one,” the Senator said.

On a third interview program today, CBS's “Face the Nation,” Muhammad Ali, the heavyweight champion, was asked if any of the Presidential candidates had sought his support or if he had any favorites.

No, he said, nobody has sought support from him and he did not intend to vote be cause he did not know enough about politics.

He denied that he previously had meant to endorse Mr. Carter when he said, “There's a certain fellow, I just like his smile.”

Mr. Ali said today, “The only Administration that I really have liked is Ford's.”


Other Pieces You Might Be Interested In

Tuviah Friedman

Tuviah Friedman - Renowned Nazi Hunter and Yad Vashem Director: His Personal, Signed Account of His Audacious Letter to Adolf Eichmann.

James Monroe

From James Monroe, Advice on Life, Philosophy, Personal Habits, Career, and Success

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson Declares the Desired Legacy of His Administration And Wants His Secretary of War to "watch with me to the end"

Thomas Jefferson

A Great Moment in American History The European Wars Reach American Shores

Abraham Lincoln

Just One Week After His Second Election, President Abraham Lincoln Writes of a Loyal, Young Soldier Work: “I shall be very glad if this.

Abraham Lincoln

President Abraham Lincoln Appoints One of Grant and Sherman’s Earliest Stalwarts, Who Was With Them Throughout the Vicksburg and.

Queen Elizabeth I

The Queen Mother Celebrates the "strong and serene character" of the New Queen - Her Daughter Elizabeth - After the Very First Public.


Planned Parenthood Republicans: A Decades-Long History

Trends within politics rarely occur in a vacuum. Instead, they develop within a broader ideological and historical context, which accounts for individual elected officials&rsquo political motivations to this very day. Planned Parenthood, for instance, has always enjoyed the support of a notable component of the Republican Party, especially its moderate or Rockefeller wing, comprised of influential Establishment elitists, internationalists, and environmentalists.

The seven Republicans who voted in favor of retaining federal funding for Planned Parenthood, in addition to Senators Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe, all hail from this tradition. Beyond their obvious support for pro-choice causes, these individuals are also characterized by a commitment to centrist policies and fiscal largesse &mdash all indicative of their opposition to the principles of traditional, constitutional government.

Ever since its earliest days, Planned Parenthood has counted among its supporters prominent members of the Republican Party. As early as 1942, Connecticut Senator Prescott Bush (picture, above), grandfather of President George W. Bush, was a supporter of Margaret Sanger&rsquos American Birth Control League, and in 1947, served as the treasurer for the first national campaign for Planned Parenthood. The political repercussions hit hard. Prescott Bush was knocked out of an expected victory for a Senate seat in Connecticut in 1950 after syndicated columnist Drew Pearson declared that it "has been made known" that Bush was a leader in the "Birth Control Society" (the original name of Planned Parenthood was the Birth Control Federation of America). Prescott Bush won a Senate seat two years later, and his son George and daughter-in-law Barbara continued to support Planned Parenthood even after George's election to Congress from Texas. In fact, he was such an advocate for family planning that some House colleagues nicknamed him "Rubbers."

In addition, Prescott&rsquos son George H.W. also supported family planning efforts while serving as a Texas congressman. President George H.W. Bush was best known for his opposition to Ronald Reagan&rsquos supply-side economics, rooted in the free-market ideas of Hayek and Friedman, deriding the conservative Reagan as a proponent of &ldquovoodoo economics.&rdquo He wrote a constituent in 1970: &ldquoI introduced legislation earlier this year which would provide federal funds for research in family planning devices and increased services to people who need them but cannot afford them. We must help our young people become aware of the fact that families can be planned and that there are benefits economically and socially to be derived from small families.&rdquo ("George Bush to Mrs. Jim Hunter, Jr., Oct. 23, 1970" [Virginia B. Whitehill Papers, DeGolyer Library, Southern Methodist University].)

Although stemming from the opposite wing of the GOP, the Goldwater family of Arizona also supported Planned Parenthood. In his final term in the U.S. Senate, Barry Goldwater adopted a pro-choice position, voting in 1983 against a constitutional amendment that would have reversed Roe protiv Wadea and returned legislative authority over abortion to the states. Back in 1937, his wife Peggy had become a founding member of Planned Parenthood of Arizona, and the couple remained active in the organization throughout Goldwater's Senate career. Though he initially rejected Planned Parenthood's position on abortion, his long association with the group would ultimately make a convert of him, also as he personally approved of his daughter Joanne&rsquos illegal abortion in 1955, as recounted in the HBO documentary Mr. Conservative.

When she was in her 30s, Peggy Goldwater met Margaret Sanger and became part of a small group organizing Phoenix's first birth control clinic, called the Mothers' Health Clinic. Mrs. Goldwater developed a very strong commitment to the birth control movement which continued throughout her life. When she died in 1985, the Planned Parenthood Press (Planned Parenthood Arizona's newsletter), lauded her for her commitment to contraceptive access and developed an award in her honor.

Yet another prominent Republican family has a history of supporting Planned Parenthood. Former Massachusetts Governor and current Presidential contender Mitt Romney has had a convoluted and revealing history on life issues, as well as in his relationship with Planned Parenthood. In 1994, when Romney first ran for public office, he was observed attending a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in Cohasset, Massachusetts, with his wife Ann, who was seen handing a check for $150 from a joint bank account to Nicki Nichols Gamble, former president of the Massachusetts Planned Parenthood Federation.

Romney has flip-flopped egregiously on the question of abortion. In 2002, he announced that he supported a &ldquowoman&rsquos right to choose,&rdquo and in 1994, said he supported Roe protiv Wadea. Later that year, according to the Boston Herald, he "came down more firmly in the abortion rights camp,&rdquo declaring his support for the "morning after" pill and a federal bill protecting visitors to health clinics from anti-abortion violence. In a debate later that year against Ted Kennedy, Romney said that he had supported abortion rights consistently since 1970 when his mother Lenore ran as a pro-abortion rights candidate for the U.S. Senate in Michigan. He linked his support for abortion rights to the death "many years ago" of a "dear, close family relative" following a botched illegal abortion. "You will not see me wavering on that," he added.

Later in 2002, Romney claimed he would "preserve and protect" abortion rights in Massachusetts, and told activists from NARAL Pro Choice America that &ldquoyou need someone like me in Washington," according to notes taken by a member of NARAL. NARAL officials interpreted this as a reference to his national political ambitions. In addition, he answered "yes" in a questionnaire from Planned Parenthood in 2002 on whether he would support "efforts to increase access to emergency contraception."

In an interview with On The Issues, Romney straddled the fence, saying: "I believe from a political perspective that life begins at conception. I don't pretend to know, if you will, from a theological standpoint when life begins. I'd committed to the people of Massachusetts that I would not change the laws one way or the other, and I honored that commitment." (Emphasis added.)

To this day, Planned Parenthood sponsors a special interest group, Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice, which gives the annual Barry Goldwater Award to a pro-choice Republican elected official of its choosing. Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.) was the 2009 recipient, and now-Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) was the 2008 recipient. Rep. Bob Dold (R-Ill.), who was endorsed by the group Republican Majority for Choice and was one of seven Republicans to vote for PPFA funding, currently holds Senator Mark Kirk&rsquos former House seat in a left-leaning Chicago suburb. Interestingly, the co-chair of the organization, Randy Moody, was a former chief lobbyist and executive within the ultra-liberal teachers union, the National Education Association (NEA).

Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice has been issuing the self-contradictory Barry Goldwater Award since 1995, and almost all of the awardees come from the steady, yet dwindling presence of so-called moderates within the Republican Party, who are proponents of "centrism" and lack a genuine commitment to the principles of limited, constitutional government (which Barry Goldwater upheld throughout his entire life).

Despite his support for "reproductive rights," (the right to have an abortion) Goldwater is nonetheless remembered as a proponent of constitutional conservatism, placing him as an historical and ideological opponent of those who are ironically being honored in his name. Just as Goldwater&rsquos principal adversary was former New York Governor Nelson D. Rockefeller, those who are recipients of this award would have been Goldwater&rsquos political foes in the GOP, as they stem from the party&rsquos "moderate" (neoconservative) wing, as opposed to Goldwater&rsquos Old Right, constitutionalist, free-market, individualist libertarian tradition. That Old Right tradition is espoused by many in the Tea Party today, such as pro-life Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has advocated stricter crackdowns on abortion-on-demand.

The history of the Republican Party, to a degree, is shaped by a long record of GOP icons supporting the pro-abortion, socially-liberal causes of groups including Planned Parenthood. With the unitary exception of Barry Goldwater (whose support of Planned Parenthood was motivated by a libertarian belief in governmental non-involvement in human reproduction), these Planned Parenthood Republicans are also committed to other left-wing causes, such as Mitt Romney's support of universal health carewhen he was Massachusetts governor, affectionately called "RomneyCare." The commitment to the inexorably-linked "seamless garment" of fiscal and social conservatism, championed by figures such as Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) has not always been a paradigm at home in the Republican Party.


How the “Daisy” Ad Changed Everything About Political Advertising

On September 7, 1964, a 60-second TV ad changed American politics forever. A 3-year-old girl in a simple dress counted as she plucked daisy petals in a sun-dappled field. Her words were supplanted by a mission-control countdown followed by a massive nuclear blast in a classic mushroom shape. The message was clear if only implicit: Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater was a genocidal maniac who threatened the world’s future. Two months later, President Lyndon Johnson won easily, and the emotional political attack ad—visceral, terrifying, and risky—was made.

Srodni sadržaj

Half a century later, we live in the world of negative political advertising that Daisy Girl pioneered, but there are some curious aspects to the story. First, though it is a famous ad, Daisy Girl, as the ad is known, only ran once. Secondly, it didn’t even mention Goldwater’s name. And finally, by the time the ad ran, Goldwater’s chances against LBJ were slim, even though the ad is often falsely credited with assuring the win. And there were two dozen other ads from LBJ’s camp—humorous, informative, dark, and neurotic. Daisy became the iconic spot of its era not because it was the first Johnson ran in 1964 we remember it primarily because of its brilliant, innovative approach to negative advertising. 

Daisy and the other ads were made by Doyle Dane Bernbach (DDB), an eclectic group of ad men at a medium-sized Madison Avenue firm with a stellar reputation for groundbreaking campaigns for Volkswagen and Avis. They didn’t set out to revolutionize political advertising what they wanted to do was to break the established rules of political ads—then dominated by stodgy 30-minute speeches mixed with shorter policy-focused spots—by injecting creativity and emotion.

Bill Bernbach, the firm’s principal founder, had long maintained advertising was an art, not a science. He favored intuition. He often reminded his employees, “Playing it safe can be the most dangerous thing in the world, because you’re presenting people with an idea they’ve seen before, and you won’t have an impact.”

Famously dismissive of advertising driven purely by research, Bernbach had written a revolutionary memo in 1947 that laid out the philosophy that would eventually characterize his firm’s work. “Advertising is fundamentally persuasion and persuasion happens to be not a science, but an art,” he brashly told his then-employer, Grey Advertising. “It’s that creative spark that I’m so jealous of for our agency and that I am so desperately fearful of losing. I don’t want academicians. I don’t want scientists. I don’t want people who do the right things. I want people who do inspiring things.”

Inspired by Bernbach’s philosophy of relying upon instinct as much or more than research, DDB produced an extraordinary and memorable series of spots for Johnson. The firm capitalized upon Goldwater’s reckless statements by providing viewers with indelible images. DDB mocked Goldwater’s vote against the nuclear test ban treaty with a spot showing nothing but a girl licking an ice cream cone as a female announcer spoke ominously about the fallout from atmospheric nuclear testing and how it might enter the food supply.

Goldwater had once bragged that the nation might be “better off if we could just saw off the Eastern Seaboard and let it float out to sea.” So, DBB served up a humorous 60-second spot of a saw slicing the East Coast from a Styrofoam model of the United States. In another spot, DDB mocked Goldwater's statement about privatizing Social Security by showing a pair of hands ripping up a Social Security card.

Viewers had never seen anything like this. It’s not that previous presidential campaigns had only been polite affairs. Dwight Eisenhower ran negative TV spots against his Democratic opponent, Adlai Stevenson, in 1952, subtly tying him to alleged corruption in Truman administration officials. Stevenson’s spots attacked Eisenhower in 1956. John F. Kennedy attacked Richard Nixon’s record as vice president in the 1960 campaign. Goldwater’s attacks against Johnson in 1964 were unrelenting. In almost every case, however, the attacks were rational, fact-based arguments. DDB’s innovation was not negative advertising, per se. It was, rather, to help make emotions (primarily, fear) a staple of political spots. By 1968, political ads—by other agencies—were also transformed.

Even the spot itself was something of a DDB innovation. Before 1964, political campaigns had used 30- and 60-second spots, but not exclusively. Instead, campaigns, including Goldwater’s, pre-empted regular programming with dry, 30-minute speeches or campaign documentaries by candidates. Under DDB’s direction, Johnson’s campaign aired nothing but 30- or 60-second spots, with the exception of two four-minute commercials, including the “Confessions of a Republican” ad (which went viral recently) purporting to show that even Republicans found Goldwater uncomfortably extreme.

DDB broke another rule by recognizing that Goldwater was such a widely known figure that voters needed no education about him. They didn’t have to remind viewers that Goldwater himself had joked about lobbing a missile into the men’s room of the Kremlin. Or that he had written that the U.S. should not fear war with the Soviets. Or that he would give NATO commanders authority to use nuclear weapons without prior presidential authorization. Or that he had declared the nuclear bomb “merely another weapon.” America knew he voted against the Civil Right Act and that, at the GOP convention in July 1964, Goldwater even branded himself an “extremist.” So DDB never once had to mention Goldwater’s name in Daisy. It only had to find viewers’ emotional trigger.

Put another way, the firm believed that viewers should not be given too much information to put their minds and emotions to work. And Daisy Girl’s DNA has continued to provide instructions for today’s political advertising: Ronald Reagan’s famous 1984 “Bear” spot  used the animal to symbolize the Soviet Union without explicitly making the association. In 2004, Bush’s campaign skillfully employed the same technique with a spot that used wolves to symbolize al Qaeda.

Voting is not a purely rational act. As the late journalist Joe McGinnis observed, it’s a “psychological purchase” of a candidate. It’s often no less rational than buying a car or a house. DDB understood that arguing with voters would be a losing proposition. To persuade someone, especially in the political realm, a campaign must target emotions. Voters don’t oppose a candidate because they dislike his or her policies they often oppose the policies because they dislike the candidate.

Reagan’s optimistic 1984 “Morning in America” spot was a good example of this kind of appeal. So was George H.W. Bush’s dark, fear-inducing “Revolving Door” spot in 1988 that exploited the controversy over a prison furlough program of his Democratic opponent, Michael Dukakis. Bernie Sanders’ “America” spot is a current example. They are all very different ads, but are aimed at generating a non-rational, emotional response.

DDB also believed that giving data and facts was less persuasive than telling a story. The best spots provide an experience. In addition to evoking emotions and not repeating what the viewer already knew, many of the DDB spots from 1964 had a narrative arc to them. A good example in 1964 was a Johnson spot reminding viewers of the many harsh attacks on Goldwater by his former GOP opponents. The gold standard for subsequent spots in this genre may be Bill Clinton’s 60-second “Journey” spot from 1992, in which he touted his small-town American values by recounting his childhood in Hope, Arkansas.

Early in his career Bernbach perceived that although research had its place in persuasion, there was something more—something completely unquantifiable: “The truth isn’t the truth until people believe you and they can’t believe you if they don’t know what you’re saying and they can’t know what you’re saying if they don’t listen to you and they won’t listen to you if you’re not interesting. And you won’t be interesting unless you say things freshly, originally, imaginatively.”

For better or worse, the Daisy ad made emotions a much more potent weapon in our political campaigns, employing techniques that had previously only been applied to selling cars and soap. The next innovation, already with us to some degree, is nano-targeted TV spots, which will resemble the ads we see on the web but will be on TV. Soon, working with cable providers, candidates will offer up messages specially crafted for certain viewers. Five different people watching the same program might each see a different spot from the same candidate.

Meanwhile, social media has injected campaigns’ storytelling into communication between friends. Without Daisy, would the Facebook flame wars of Trump and Bernie fans have the same raucous fervor? But as campaigning moves further into the virtual world of computers and algorithms, it must overcome a paradox: Now, as then, the best ad campaign has a soul—and that’s something a computer or a poll can’t create for any candidate.


Ronald Reagan and 'A Time for Choosing'

Times reporter Maeve Reston noted that Reagan gave the televised speech in October 1964 on behalf of Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater and I thought it would be interesting to explore some of the details. The Times was a stalwart Republican paper in this era and endorsed Goldwater for president, so it seemed likely that there might be some coverage of Reagan’s speech.

My research found that if the address has become one the landmarks of Reagan’s political career, it certainly didn’t start out that way.

In fact, The Times’ clips and other news sources show that for nearly two years before his televised address, Reagan had been delivering a speech on the theme of “A Time for Choosing” to business and political groups.   Given the time references in the televised version (“Senator Humphrey last week…”) , it’s evident that Reagan revised the work and I will defer to Reagan scholars to compare drafts of the speech, although I imagine it would be a fascinating project.

The earliest reference I found in The Times was a July 7, 1963, story which noted that Reagan was to deliver an address titled “A Time for Choosing” to local Realtors at the Long Beach Arena.

A March 16, 1964, item said that Reagan would give “A Time for Choosing” at a meeting of the San Marino Republican Women’s Club. And on Aug. 5, 1964, Reagan gave "A Time for Choosing" at the Sunset Young Republican Club, which was meeting at the Smith Bros. Fish Shanty in Beverly Hills. Although we must assume the speech had not yet assumed its final form, none of these Reagan appearances resulted in a story in The Times. 

Looking beyond The Times' clips, a search of Google’s news archive shows that according to the Deseret News and Telegram, Reagan delivered a speech referring to “a time for choosing” to a convention of the American National Cattlemen's Assn. in January 1963 and a speech by Reagan bearing that title was published in the Savings and Loan Annals of 1963.

All of this would firmly establish that Reagan began formulating this speech in the John F. Kennedy era rather than the Lyndon Johnson administration.  This should not come as a complete surprise as Reagan, although a Democrat, supported Richard Nixon in the 1960 presidential race (The Times, Nov. 4, 1960). 

When Reagan stepped before the camera to deliver “A Time for Choosing,” the polls showed Johnson holding a strong lead over Goldwater (a post-election poll found that Republican voters considered Goldwater “as much a radical as a genuine conservative”).

The Times TV section for the week of Oct. 25, 1964, was more focused on Mr. Magoo’s Halloween than on what was to become Reagan’s legendary speech. Indeed, the Sunday listings show that the time slot was originally scheduled for “That Was the Week That Was,” or TW3,  a satire on the week’s events from the BBC featuring David Frost.

But late on Monday, Oct. 26, KNBC-TV Channel 4 announced that the show was being preempted by a half-hour political ad for the Goldwater campaign: “A Time for Choosing” by Ronald Reagan. 

The day after the address was broadcast, Reagan went back to his regular life, scheduled for an appearance at the West Coast premiere of “My Fair Lady” and hosting “Death Valley Days,” a TV show about tales of the old West sponsored by Boraxo, a soap company.

The only recognition in The Times of Reagan’s televised speech was by Hedda Hopper, who mentioned it near the end of her column on Oct. 30, 1964.

On Nov. 3, 1964, Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater lost in a landslide. Despite the prevailing gloom, Reagan found a reason to be optimistic: "Sure, we didn't expect this . but take a look at the figure on our side and remember every one (vote) represents a conservative we didn't have when we started out."

Reagan said shortly after the election that his experience with the Goldwater campaign had not whetted his appetite for public office. Running as a Republican candidate "has never appealed to me," he said. Asked if he could spurn a strong Republican request to run, Reagan replied, "I hope I could turn it down."

“A Time for Choosing” was published as a pamphlet in 1964. Worldcat lists it as being in two libraries.

The polls in late October 1964 showed Lyndon Johnson holding a strong lead over Goldwater (a post-election poll found that Republican voters considered Goldwater “as much a radical as a genuine conservative”).

Oct. 25, 1964: It’s certain that The Times TV section was more focused on Mr. Magoo’s Halloween than on Reagan’s speech. The Sunday listings show that the time slot was originally scheduled for “That Was the Week That Was,” or TW3,  a satire on the week’s events from the BBC that featured David Frost. But late on Monday, Oct. 26, KNBC announced that the show was being preempted by a half-hour political ad for the Goldwater campaign.

On Oct. 27, 1964, at 9:30 p.m., Los Angeles viewers had the choice of “Petticoat Junction,” “Peyton Place,” “Expedition -- Man's First Winter at the South Pole," Ansel Adams, bullfights … or “A Time for Choosing.”

The next day, Reagan went back to his regular life, scheduled for an appearance at the West Coast premiere of “My Fair Lady” and hosting “Death Valley Days,” a TV show about tales of the old West sponsored by Boraxo, a soap company.

The only recognition in The Times of Reagan’s televised speech was by Hedda Hopper, who mentioned it near the end of her column on Oct. 30, 1964.

Nov. 2, 1964: Reagan delivers “A Time for Choosing” once more, on the radio, before the election.

Nov. 4, 1964: A somber mood at the Cocoanut Grove, where Republicans gathered to watch election results and saw Goldwater defeated in a landslide. 

Despite the prevailing gloom, Reagan found a reason to be optimistic: "Sure, we didn't expect this . but take a look at the figure on our side and remember every one (vote) represents a conservative we didn't have when we started out."

Reagan said shortly after the election that his experience with the Goldwater campaign left him with no desire for politics. Running as a Republican candidate for office "has never appealed to me," he said. Asked if he could spurn a strong Republican request to run for office, Reagan replied, "I hope I could turn it down."


Pogledajte video: Ronald Reagan Support of Barry Goldwater 10271964