[page 100]
Chapter Twelve
The 1964 Republican Convention
and the Goldwater Campaign
Senator Barry Goldwater
press,
The political climate of 1964 was such that a capable conservative candidate had an
excellent chance of winning, and the Establishment knew it. Money and manpower was thrown
into the primaries and individual state organizations to try to stop Goldwater be
fore he ever got
to San Francisco but the Goldwater bandwagon continued rolling along. The next step was to try
to stop him at San Francisco.
The Establishment forces at the Republican National Convention were represented by the
Rockefeller-Scranton contingents. They used every political weapon in their well-furbished
arsenal to embarrass or discredit Goldwater. To veteran political observers i
strong the locked-in Goldwater delegates stood up under the pressure. Goldwater was nominated.
The Establishment then turned to its own locked-in sources of power. The media (press,
radio and TV) were turned on Goldwater with a blazing vengeance. In retrospect it was an
amazing demonstration of what a controlled press can do in a free republic. The
tactic was to
divert the attention of the people away from the real issues and use whatever circumstances
became available to
frighten
the American people away from Goldwater.
In Stephen Shadegg's book,
What Happened to Goldwater?
1(114)
there is a valuable
summary of the factors which determined the ultima
te outcome of the Goldwater campaign.
Shedegg points out that it was impossible for Goldwater to be heard on the issues when the
the magazines, the radio and TV were all pounding out a subtle (and sometimes blatant) message
of "Extremist," "Racist," "Atomic-bomber," "Trigger Happy,"
[page 101]
"War-monger,"
"Psychologically unfit," and "He will scrap Social Security."
Television advertising against Goldwater was also shrewdly prepared along the same
theme. It included two powerful little Madison Avenue gems, one showing an atomic explosion
and the other showing a social security card being torn in two.
Lyndon B. Johnson
Shadegg writes: "A part of the answer to the question "What happened to Goldwater?"
must be found in the violence of those who opposed him. The election did not hinge on the
popularity or ability of Lyndon Johnson. He was a secondary figure, and the 'grea
t mandate'
became his inheritance. It was not a testament to his wisdom or leadership, but rather an
indication of the violent dislike for Goldwater generated largely by the hundreds of magazine
articles, the derogatory remarks of the columnists, the unexp
example, if Senator Goldwater during his twelve years
lained errors (such as the UPI report
of Goldwater's statement on the Howard Smith ABC television appearance), and the scathing
attacks of people such as William Stringfellow, Ralph Ginsberg, and Fred Cook."
Dean Burch said:
"I think that most of the reporters, if they would ever let their defenses down, would agree
that taken as a whole the press was so violently antagonistic to Goldwater that even if they had
wanted to be honest about it, it was impossible for them to be ho
nest because they were so busy
looking for weaknesses. In other words, the press in this particular campaign performed the
function of the opposition. They took a look at what Goldwater advocated and then they looked
for whatever was the weakest link in th
at chain and that became the issue.
"On the other hand, with Johnson, anything that was against him they ignored. For
[page 102]
in the U.S. Senate had
accumulated $14 million as a personal fortune, I am sure that the press in a period o
f three
months could have made his name synonymous with Benedict Arnold, whereas with Johnson it
was just one of those 'Well boys will be boys things and everyone is entitled to make a living.'
"Secondly, if I or someone close to Senator Goldwater had been called before the Senate
Rules Committee and then taken the Fifth Amendment, that subject would never have been
dropped. At every press conference Goldwater would have been asked to explain in
detail what
my role was, what he planned to do about it, whereas the Bobby Baker case was stressed
only by
Goldwater. The press never discussed it with the President.
"Thirdly, if I had been picked up in the men's room of the YMCA, [like LBJ's man,
Jenkins] the stories that would have been written on it would have lasted for two or three months
and the conclusion would have been that obviously Goldwater knew about it a
nd obviously,
possibly, he was a little bit peculiar."
2(115)
In assessing the Goldwater campaign, some criticism must rest on certain members of the
Goldwater team. Unfortunately for the conservative cause he represented, Goldwater operated
under the special handicap of having two or three men immediately around hi
m who were
extremely inept. If Stephen Shadegg, who had run all of Goldwater's successful campaigns from
1952 to 1962, had been in charge, and Ronald Reagan had been presenting the Goldwater issues
at regular intervals on coast-to-coast TV (as John Kilroy
and his committee had the money and
begged for permission to do), the propaganda of the Establishment-controlled media
been overcome. As it was, a citizen had to be a strong independent thinker to survive the barrage
of frightening headlines and
slogans which the secret society and its power complex poured out
against Goldwater.
Nevertheless, some 27,000,000 stood up against the barrage.
might have
Huntley-Brinkley Admit Goldwater Could Have Won
A few months after the election, Huntley-Brinkley came out with an astonishing report.
They said that if the election had been run strictly on the issues, Goldwater could have won! The
program was narrated by Brinkley and he referred to a political survey
in which it had been
discovered that a good majority of the people agreed with
[page 103]
Goldwater in principle, but
had been "influenced" into voting against him because of specific fears that he would do away
with social security or get us involved in
had robbed the people of their legitimate choice.)
an atomic war. (In other words, the
fright
propaganda
As this reviewer watched this Huntley-Brinkley Special Report, it was difficult to
understand why these dedicated employees of the power-complex media would admit how
popular Goldwater had been and how he would have won the election if their propaganda efforts
had not been so effective. However, Brinkley explained toward the end of the program why it
was important for the "liberal, progressive" element of the country to appreciate that even though
they had won the election, they had not changed the "conser
him to the hilt and then abandon him before the next election. For three solid years the powers
vative mood" at the grass roots. He
said President Johnson would therefore have an uphill pull to get many of his "progressive" bills
passed through Congress (just as the Democratic Congress had initially bucked President
Kennedy's socialist legislation) u
nless all the liberal-progressive element firmly united to
overcome the conservative, grass-roots resistance. This "Report" was obviously designed to keep
the liberal minority from letting down as they usually do after a strenuous presidential campaign.
was essential that the Johnson administration be harnessed to the task which the central
power-complex had in mind for it.
Ironically, however, the new President was harnessed to a team which intended to exploit
behind the scenes pushed the President into policies and programs whic
h were bound to be
resisted and resented by the majority of the American people and were therefore political
dynamite. The most serious time-bomb which they planted on LBJ was getting him to follow a
commitment of peace-at-any-price and a soft-on-Communism
policy. This allowed the global
planners to escalate the Vietnam front into a full-scale war and have the President fight it on such
an unrealistic, no-win basis that it became the primary factor in making Lyndon Johnson a
one-term president.
Added to this was the devastating political erosion of the TFX scandal, the problem of
run-away inflation, the unprecedented skyrocketing in crime, the irrational policy of trying to get
integration by a series of provocative confrontations between blacks
and whites, the resulting
riots, burning, looting and killing, the indifference of the administration and its Supreme Court
toward the tidal backwash of pornography, filthy speech and flagrant obscenities, and last -- but
[page 104]
no means least -- t
he credibility gap which left both the press and the public
wondering when the administration was telling the truth and when it was telling calculated
falsehoods.
It
by
As the time drew near for the 1968 election it became painfully clear what the
master-planners had in mind for their erst-while leader, LBJ. Suddenly, and without the slightest
hint as to their motivation, the Left-wing swung their polemic clubs at Presid
on the trend toward socialism and actually longing again for the op
ent Johnson. He was
politically ripped to shreds by the very people who had originally pushed him into power. They
had used him to gain all the mileage possible from his good offices and then once he had
destroyed himself politically (by doing exactly what
they had told him to do), they prepared to
toss him aside for a far more radical candidate.
But the tragic ramifications of the Johnson story must wait to be told in detail on some
other occasion. We must now get back to Dr. Quigley and see what he had to say about the
Johnson-Goldwater election campaign.
Dr. Quigley's Amazing Reaction to the Goldwater Phenomenon
It will be recalled how hysterically Dr. Carroll Quigley reacted to the McCarthy situation.
Goldwater did the same thing to him. The possibility of the American people turning their backs
en fields and blue sky of a free
society, practically sent Dr. Quigley into a psychological frenzy. It is rather astonishing to see
him approach this type of problem as though he had received no training whatever as an
objective historian. Suddenly he shut
s his eyes and goes into imaginary flights of fanciful
day-dreaming. Note how he feels compelled to explain Goldwater support only in terms of
ignorance, stupidity and perfidy.
Dr. Quigley's Opinion of Those Seeking
to Preserve Traditional Americanism
"His [Goldwater's] most ardent supporters were of the extremist petty bourgeois mentality
driven to near hysteria
by the disintegration of the middle classes and the steady rise in
prominence of
everything they considered anathema: Catholics, Negroes, immigrants,
intellectuals, aristocrats (and near aristocrats), scientists, and educated men generally, people
from big cities or from the East, cosmopolitans and internationalists and, above all, liberals
who accept diversity as a virtue."
3(116)
Transliterated, Quigley is saying that the most ardent supporters of Barry Goldwater were
fanatical, small-time businessmen or clerical mentalities who had reached a state of hysteria over
the fact that "their" middle class society was "collapsing." The g
laring fact was that America's
middle class had not been collapsing but was its fastest growing segment! Nevertheless, in the
best tradition of Marx and Lenin, Quigley insists that the small property owner is a roadblock to
progress and must be eventually
eliminated.
4(117)
So Goldwater's supporters were from the collapsing middle class who hated Catholics
(this writer has a lot of Catholic friends who aren't going to like being called anti-Catholic just
because they voted for Goldwater!); against the Negroes (racists, you s
ee); against the foreign
105]
[page
born (actually these often make better conservatives and are more appreciative of America than
some of the mixed-up heirs of wealthy U.S. bankers and industrialists); against the well-educated
people from the big cities (because on
ly ignorant country bumpkins could vote for a man like
Goldwater, no doubt); against internationalists (on this point he is correct if he means
international socialism and international Communism); and above all against those "liberals who
accept diversity
as a virtue." It is not "diversity" to which Goldwater supporters objected but the
Left-wing insistence that we allow room for downright "subversion and treason" within our
So Goldwater's supporters were
petty bourgeoisie
sentence of the above quotation.) It makes one think he might be reading Karl Marx or V.I. Lenin
. (Note these key words in the first
again. To make certain nobody misses the point, Dr. Quigley shares with u
definition of this non-American term which comes straight out of Marxist propaganda.
"The second most numerous group in the United States is the petty bourgeoisie, including
s his personal
Dr. Quigley Defines Petty Bourgeoisie
millions of persons who regard themselves as middle class and are under all the middle class
anxieties and pressures, but often earn less money than unionized laborer
s. As a result of these
things, they are often
very insecure, envious, filled with hatreds, and are generally the chief
recruits for any radical right, fascist, or hate campaigns
against any group that is different or
which refuses to conform to middle-cla
ss values. Made up of clerks, shopkeepers, and vast
numbers of office
[page 106]
workers in business, government, finance, and education, these
tend to regard their white collar status as the chief value in life, and live in an atmosphere of
envy, pettines
s, insecurity, and frustration. They form the major portion of the Republican Party's
supporters in the towns of America, as they did for the Nazis in Germany thirty years ago."
A lot of people will now know exactly what Dr. Quigley thinks of
them
! Incipient Nazis,
no less.
Of course, he does admit that there were some rather substantial people (financially
speaking) who supported Goldwater, but he
assures us that they were primarily the "new rich"
who were "unbelievably ignorant and misinformed."
6(119)
In fact, Dr. Quigley has
some
interesting things to say about the contest between the "new rich" and the "old wealth" who
represent the Establishment. Note how Dr. Quigley finds it impossible to discuss any opposition
to his favorite global collectivist friends without putting it
on a basis of angels vs. the devils.
Quigley's Theory That the Goldwater Campaign Was a Struggle Between
the "Old Rich" and the "New Rich"
"At issue here was the whole future face of America, for the older wealth stood for values
and aims close to the Western traditions of diversity, tolerance, human rights and values,
freedom, and the rest of it, while the newer wealth stood for the narrow
and fear-racked aims of
ranks.
5(118)
petty-bourgeois insecurity and egocentricity." 7(120)
Dr. Quigley assures us that such a ragtag assortment of country bumpkins, petty
bourgeoisie and ignorant "new rich" could never win over the city slickers of the Global
Establishment. He equates this low-bred contingent of Americans as the "neo-isolationi
during the early 1950's.
sts" who
constitute a threat to the modern world. They are modern man's cultural enemy and therefore his
political enemy. In other words, the global collectivists offer modern man his only hope. Anyone
who stands in the way is an evil omen of tragedy.
Dr. Quigley is certain, however, that the Global Establishment has the brains and the
resources to put down any Americans like McCarthy or Goldwater who have the audacity to
suggest that America restore the basic Constitutional concepts on which she was b
eliminate from public life those who have been subverting them. Dr. Quigley says it is a contest
uilt and
between the amateurs and the professionals. Note the air of disdain and smug superiority in the
following quotation concerning the success of the Esta
blishment in suppressing opposition
[page 107]
Quigley Feels Middle Class "Neo-Isolationist" Americans Can
or
Always Be Beaten By Establishment Forces
"On the whole, the neo-isolationist discontent [another of Dr. Quigley's epithets for
ordinary Americans who object to what the Establishment has been doing to them was a revolt of
the ignorant against the informed or educated, of the nineteenth century a
gainst the insoluble
problems of the twentieth, of the Midwest of Tom Sawyer against the cosmopolitan East of J.P.
Morgan and Company, of old Siwash against Harvard, of the
Chicago Tribune
against the
Washington Post
The New York Times
, of simple absolu
tes against complex relativisms, of
immediate final solutions against long-range partial alleviations, of frontier activism against
European thought, a rejection out of hand, of all the complexities of life which had arisen since
1915 in favor of a nostalg
ic return to the simplicities of 1905, and above all a desire to get back
to the inexpensive, thoughtless, and irresponsible international security of 1880."
In this quotation Dr. Quigley clearly sets the stage for the coming conflict between
8(121)
traditional Americans and the powerful secret combination of the Global Establishment. Dr.
Quigley has no doubt in his mind as to the final outcome. He equates hope and p
Of course, if you go to Washington, New York, the United Nations Headquarters, or to
rogress with the
Establishment, tragedy and horse-and-buggy backwardness with traditional Americanism.
the capitals of any major nation in the world you will find massive evidence that Dr. Quigley has
a basis for his bias. His people are everywhere. And they ARE running th
ings.
Let's take a look at one or two of these groups in action.
----------------------------------------
Chapter Thirteen
The Bilderberg Group -- An Example of Dr. Quigley's
Global Establishment in Action
Every once in awhile, the network lets down its guard long enough for us to get a slight
but alarming peek into the inward parts of the mammoth machine which Dr. Quigley believes is
now too big to stop. When one contemplates the interlocking global ramifi
confident about its ultimate and irrevocable victory. Nevertheless, we shall have something to
cations which this
power structure had developed, it is little wonder that Dr. Quigley feels so tremendously
say about this in a moment.
No comments:
Post a Comment