Quote of the day

posted at 10:15 pm on February 28, 2009 by Allahpundit

“The Goldwater myth shuts down all attempts to reform and renew our conservative message for modern times. And it offers a handy justification for nominating a 2012 presidential candidate who might otherwise seem disastrously unelectable. Altogether, the myth invites dangerous and self-destructive behavior by a party that cannot afford either.

What happened in 1964 was an unredeemed and unmitigated catastrophe for Republicans and conservatives. The success that followed 16 years later was a matter of happenstance, not of strategy. That’s the real lesson of 1964, and it is the lesson that conservatives need most to take to heart today…

True, the liberal triumph of 1964 set in motion the train of disasters that laid liberalism low in the 1980s. But those disasters followed from choices and decisions that liberals made – not from some multiyear conservative grand strategy for success in 1980. It was not Goldwater who made Reagan possible. It was Carter. Had Carter governed more successfully, the Goldwater disaster would have been just a disaster, with no silver lining. And there was nothing about the Goldwater disaster that made the Carter failure more necessary, more inevitable.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

He forgot the /sarc tag.

Ted Torgerson on February 28, 2009 at 10:20 PM

But those disasters followed from choices and decisions that liberals made – not from some multiyear conservative grand strategy for success in 1980.

Conservative’s grand strategy is letting liberals make decisions. The more Americans watch it happen, the more they miss people who don’t operate on policy carved out of chocolate bars and fairy dust imported from Imaginationland.

MadisonConservative on February 28, 2009 at 10:22 PM

This Frum is prolific. Twice in one night he writes an article worthy of being put on HA.

JiangxiDad on February 28, 2009 at 10:23 PM

PARTIAL LIST OF DOCUMENTS THAT BARACK OBAMA REFUSES TO RELEASE -. OBAMA’S SECRECY AND “CLOSED RECORDS” POLICY
Indonesian Passport – Not released
Application for U.S. Citizenship (as former citizen of Indonesia) – Not released
Immigration Records – Not released
Original Vault Copy Birth Certificate – Not released
Certificate of Live Birth – Counterfeit Version on Obama Web Site
Obama / Dunham Marriage License – Not released
Soetoro / Dunham Marriage License – Not released
Soetoro Adoption Records – Not Released
Fransiskus Assisi School Application – Not released
Punahou School Records – Not released
Selective Service Registration – Counterfeit version generated
Occidental College records – Not released
Columbia College Records – Not released
Columbia Thesis – Not released
Harvard College Records – Not released
Baptism Certificate – None
Medical Records – Not released
Illinois State Senate Records – Not released
Law Practice Client List – Not released
University of Chicago Scholarly Articles – None

searcher484 on February 28, 2009 at 10:25 PM

I knew this article would be “the quote of the day.”

deidre on February 28, 2009 at 10:28 PM

searcher484 on February 28, 2009 at 10:25 PM

I like how you got right to the heart of Frum’s article. That was some stunning analysis.

lowandslow on February 28, 2009 at 10:28 PM

Frum don’t know diddly. Neither does Allah.

Percy_Peabody on February 28, 2009 at 10:28 PM

Oh for the love of G_d, searcher, peddle your lists on some other forum.

myrenovations on February 28, 2009 at 10:29 PM

reform and renew our conservative message for modern times.

That, to me, sounds very much like saying that we should no longer be conservative in our thinking. Times may change attitudes to principles, yet they remain as founded.

OldEnglish on February 28, 2009 at 10:30 PM

Carter = Obama

stenwin77 on February 28, 2009 at 10:30 PM

searcher484 on February 28, 2009 at 10:25 PM

This is at least the 5th time you’ve pasted that, and it’s not even remotely on topic.

MadisonConservative on February 28, 2009 at 10:30 PM

And the Democrats have a strategy? Jimmy Carter? Until early 08, Hillary was the presumed nominee of the party. You track her collapse from the debate where she gave that dreadful answer about licenses for illegals. The rest is history.

I would agree that the GOP needs a grand strategy, but politics comes down to one party capitalizing on the mistakes of the other party.

RadioFreeUSA on February 28, 2009 at 10:30 PM

The most spectacular electoral victories the Republicans ever had in recent years were Reagan in 1980 and 1984, and Gingrich’s Congressional victory of 1994. All solid conservative leaders putting forth solid conservative ideas in a clear and organized manner.

But by all means, run a “moderate” again. How’s that worked out so far?

tbrosz on February 28, 2009 at 10:31 PM

searcher484 on February 28, 2009 at 10:25 PM

Elvis is dead
Oswald shot Kennedy
and Obama is President

You need to get over it.

RadioFreeUSA on February 28, 2009 at 10:32 PM

I think this kind of observation is pointless. Right, the resurgence of Republicans is because of Democratic overreach. And the Democratic resurgence in 2006 onward is because of Republican overreach.

People vote for charismatic, compelling people. The GOP could be run by unemployed plumbers and the Children of the Corn as it apparently is now until late 2011, and if the Republicans bring forth a candidate that is more compelling than Obama, that makes his case better than Obama, and is more adept at campaigning and fundraising than Obama, then that person is going to win.

If the GOP doesn’t find that person, then they are going to lose, regardless of Obama’s record. That’s what it comes down to, and that’s all it comes down to.

Proud Rino on February 28, 2009 at 10:34 PM

Frum should be made to listen to Rush’s CPAC speech 24/7 for at least a week until he “gets” it. Maybe have him listen to Jonathan Krohn…maybe he can understand the simple language better that way.

Re-making Conservatism to fit a modern model, Frum’s mantra…well, that’s been tried…and it does not work. Might as well scrap the Constitution and re-write it to fit the modern mold, make it constantly changeable…remove all that old fashioned stuff like the Bill of Rights, make being an American “easier” so that we don’t have to be accountable to ourselves, let alone government…

The real Goldwater “myth” can be found in those conservatives who believe in a candidate more than they believe in the basic Conservative principles, principles which were espoused by Goldwater, refined by Reagan, and forgotten by most on the Right since 1988.

coldwarrior on February 28, 2009 at 10:36 PM

Frum seems to be skipping over Nixon and the silent majority stuff, doesn’t he? Not that Nixon ended up being conservative. But his massive re-election win meant something. Would there have been a Carter if not for the Ford pardon?

myrenovations on February 28, 2009 at 10:36 PM

Goldwater didn’t lose because he was too ideological, he lost because he wasn’t a good candidate.

If you don’t want an ideologue, then you want a demagogue.

Reagan is an example of an ideologue who was a good candidate – that should be the goal.

Clearly Frum takes the wrong lesson from Goldwater’s failure, and AP seems to like it.

ebrawer on February 28, 2009 at 10:38 PM

searcher484

What’s the idea anyways? To convince us that Obama isn’t being totally open with us? I think you’ve got the wrong audience, we’re already skeptical of him.

kc8ukw on February 28, 2009 at 10:43 PM

Clearly Frum takes the wrong lesson from Goldwater’s failure, and AP seems to like it.

ebrawer on February 28, 2009 at 10:38 PM

It’s bizarre to me how many of you conflate Allahpundit’s traffic fishing with endorsement. He’d post stories about Palin being a gay atheist who wants amnesty if it would generate traffic… but linking or commenting does not automatically equal endorsement.

Lehosh on February 28, 2009 at 10:43 PM

ebrawer on February 28, 2009 at 10:38 PM

Frum misses another historical point. The country had just seen JFK assassinated in ’63 and they saw LBJ as his heir apparent. LBJ was riding a tidal wave of sentiment and sorrow. LBJ represented the Kennedy legacy. To the country Kennedy was a fallen hero and LBJ was the guy who would pick up the torch and finished what Kennedy had started. Goldwater didn’t stand a chance no matter how good he was.

As much as anything it was the mood of the country still moring a popular president that helped defeat Goldwater.

RadioFreeUSA on February 28, 2009 at 10:46 PM

Oh for the love of G_d, searcher, peddle your lists on some other forum.

myrenovations on

I love viewing the list as it gives me HOPE.

The wtc was one thing as it was obvious to anyone with knowledge of gravity and able to apply logic where necessary but Obambi’s continual secrecy of basic records is
uncalled for and I say with many others he has something to hide. If the rest of you want to be complacent about this well then your part of the problem. I realize he was elected but was it legal. Proof is all I’m asking and it shouldn’t be that much of a burden to provide it.

Furthermore, if you folks want to take it lying down, fine, however, quite a bit of damage can be done in the 47 months this usurper has left.

larvcom on February 28, 2009 at 10:46 PM

Being this chump is not old enough to actually having been there, this article only makes the author look like a flaming idiot.

I am old enough and I was there. Through the Goldwater years and the early years of Reaganism; I first heard Reagan speak on national issues in May, 1963; over half of that same speech could be given today as even more relevant.

Without Goldwater’s campaign, the Reagan revolution doesn’t happen. Period.

Carter was a guaranteed disaster when he was elected; our current President will prove to be worse. But the GOP was in shape to provide an viable alternative to Reagan because of the groundwork of Goldwater’s ‘troops’. This time around, there will be no hardened troops of unified philosophy; and certainly no solid, optimistic visionary can be seen on the horizon.

If we count on flaming idiots like this for advise, Obama will be kept in office by the unified effort of the MSM, no matter how bad he mucks things up.

michaelo on February 28, 2009 at 10:47 PM

searcher484 on February 28, 2009 at 10:25 PM

Thank you. I didn’t read it the first 17 times you posted that.

jgapinoy on February 28, 2009 at 10:54 PM

Frum is getting really scary. I mean uncle locked in the basement scary.

TugboatPhil on February 28, 2009 at 10:55 PM

Conservatism will win if it is
–explained clearly (hear that, McCain?)
–presented humbly (right, Rush?)
–embodied in a likable personality (Miss Coulter, are you listening?)

jgapinoy on February 28, 2009 at 10:57 PM

I love viewing the list as it gives me HOPE.

I think that is wonderful. But as others have pointed out, the list has been posted in every thread for serveral days. Just the list and sometimes so raving.

There has got to be a better way than that.

myrenovations on February 28, 2009 at 10:58 PM

I would say that Senator George Murphy, R-CA; William F. Buckley; & Barry Goldwater made the Reagan Revolution possible. Murphy, by showing Reagan what conservatism was all about back when Reagan by a Democrat; Buckley, by providing the intellectual impetus behind the movement; & Goldwater, for being the first man in modern times to run for POTUS with positive conservative principles.

youngTXcon on February 28, 2009 at 10:59 PM

I am old enough and I was there. Through the Goldwater years and the early years of Reaganism; I first heard Reagan speak on national issues in May, 1963; over half of that same speech could be given today as even more relevant.

That is so true. I have been re-reading a collection of Reagan’s speeches and they are even more relevant today.

myrenovations on February 28, 2009 at 11:01 PM

Anticipated response to my comment at 10:57: “But Rush is humble–his boasting is an act!”
He says over & over, & he said it this week: his #1 goal is to build a radio audience, not to win converts to conservatism.

jgapinoy on February 28, 2009 at 11:01 PM

So in Frum’s world, the R’s lose, but just not as badly? We’re supposed to go to war for a smarter better Welfare State? Doesn’t that just prolong the agony?

Welfare state economics, like all ponzi schemes is built on re-cooking the books every few years until it collapses. Seems to me the best approach is to stat pat so that when it does, you’ll be there with the alternative.

vimrich on February 28, 2009 at 11:01 PM

It is this alternative possibility of success or failure down the ballot as well as up that makes it so urgent to disenthrall ourselves of the 1964 myth. Goldwater’s defeat was a prelude to nothing except defeats on the floor of Congress in 1965-66. As the next presidential cycle begins, our priority should be to identify presidential candidates who can run strongly in every region of the country – not because we expect to win every region of the country, but because we want to help elect Republican congressional candidates in every region of the country. Our present strategy is one that is paving the way not merely to another defeat at the presidential level, but to a further shriveling of our congressional party –and an utterly unconstrained Obama second term that will make LBJ’s ascendancy look moderate and humble in comparison.

Frum is willing to say or do anything to win. I imagine there is no principle too big to be abandoned, and he justifies this by saying that once we’re in total power then we can steer the country to the right. It just doesn’t seem like a workable strategy to me.

DFCtomm on February 28, 2009 at 11:01 PM

Reading Frum is like reading a bad Babylon 5 script where Londo Mollari rambles on about his ascendancy to Vir Cotto.

In short, what a bunch of history revisionist horse sh!t

Kini on February 28, 2009 at 11:02 PM

I’ll note that the Democrats did not win the presidency by running a moderate. Kerry was more leftwing then Gore, and Obama far more leftwing then Kerry.

18-1 on February 28, 2009 at 11:02 PM

By the way, speaking of Goldwater and Reagan, this is an awesome music video of those two and some other major voices in the 60s.

MadisonConservative on February 28, 2009 at 11:03 PM

searcher484 on February 28, 2009 at 10:25 PM

Allah, how many OT posts does one have to make before getting at least a warning?

Bunsin on February 28, 2009 at 11:04 PM

searcher484 on February 28, 2009 at 10:25 PM

Allah, how many OT posts does one have to make before getting at least a warning?

Bunsin on February 28, 2009 at 11:04 PM

WRGAF?

Bunsin who cares?

Jamson64 on February 28, 2009 at 11:06 PM

Goldwater was much better than those who were born after his candidacy choose to think.

As he aged, he only got better.

He was the kind of conservative we need today. Rigid where necessary, flexible when it was called for.

What am I saying? Many of today’s “conservatives,” who believe the movement is inextricably tied with promoting their religious and social beliefs, would have hated the man.

But he was a great man, and I wish we could find a modern Goldwater to lead us out of the toxic waste dump that Osama Obama is building for us.

MrScribbler on February 28, 2009 at 11:07 PM

So … the author just explained the milque-toast candidacy of McCain (who supported new, super-charged versions of all the cr#ppy legislation from the late 60′s that emerged from the lopsided Congress after Goldwater’s defeat). Very true. And the legislation coming out of this lunatic Congress and inept Precedent is looking to be far, far worse.

It’s time to move back to true, conservative principles – those priniciples that have built this country and made it what it was (before the left-wing marxists came in and bled it dry). But his attempt to argue in the other direction betrays a cowardice that is all too familiar, these days.

progressoverpeace on February 28, 2009 at 11:08 PM

Allah, I am begging you, please switch to a threaded comment system with rank voting… something like disqus… there’s absolutely no real discussion here… just a bunch of morons without a life shouting idiotic cliches…

ninjapirate on February 28, 2009 at 11:09 PM

Allahpundit talking about Conservatism.

That’s rich…

thebronze on February 28, 2009 at 11:11 PM

As the next presidential cycle begins, our priority should be to identify presidential candidates who can run strongly in every region of the country – not because we expect to win every region of the country, but because we want to help elect Republican congressional candidates in every region of the country

Given it’s Frum I assuming were going down the ‘big tent electability’ route as the answer. Didn’t we just try that and got spanked?

Bunsin on February 28, 2009 at 11:11 PM

MrScribbler on February 28, 2009 at 11:07 PM

Goldwater was a libertarian, not a conservative.

jgapinoy on February 28, 2009 at 11:16 PM

Allahpundit talking about Conservatism.

That’s rich…

thebronze on February 28, 2009 at 11:11 PM

Honest to Christ, anyone who thinks Allah actually writes the quote of the day should be banned immediately on the basis that they’re too stupid to breathe.

SnarkVader on February 28, 2009 at 11:17 PM

ninjapirate on February 28, 2009 at 11:09 PM

I hope my comments weren’t too idiotic for you.
So you want to ban comments that aren’t part of a discussion?

jgapinoy on February 28, 2009 at 11:19 PM

Honest to Christ, anyone who thinks Allah actually writes the quote of the day should be banned immediately on the basis that they’re too stupid to breathe.

SnarkVader on February 28, 2009 at 11:17 PM

+infinity

MadisonConservative on February 28, 2009 at 11:19 PM

Allah, I am begging you, please switch to a threaded comment system with rank voting… something like disqus… there’s absolutely no real discussion here… just a bunch of morons without a life shouting idiotic cliches…

ninjapirate on February 28, 2009 at 11:09 PM

Threading would be appreciated. However, the sheer irony of the post is fantastic.

You really didn’t do well at formulating persuasive debates did you? “You’re a moron and now let me tell you why…”

Bunsin on February 28, 2009 at 11:21 PM

Clearly Frum takes the wrong lesson from Goldwater’s failure, and AP seems to like it.

AP doesn’t necessarily like it; he posts it because he thinks it will create a buzz.

jgapinoy on February 28, 2009 at 11:22 PM

ninjapirate on February 28, 2009 at 11:09 PM
I made an original argument about how Reagan become president; not sure how that is an ‘idiot cliche’.

youngTXcon on February 28, 2009 at 11:22 PM

Bunsin on February 28, 2009 at 11:21 PM

How to win friends & influence people, right?

jgapinoy on February 28, 2009 at 11:23 PM

youngTXcon on February 28, 2009 at 11:22 PM
‘idiotic’ cliche

youngTXcon on February 28, 2009 at 11:23 PM

Rank voting is kind of lame, IMHO. People can decide for themselves who they think has a good comment. They don’t need help.

The voluntary humorous/serious rank voting like +1,000,000 is fun.

INC on February 28, 2009 at 11:32 PM

Someone explain to me what David Frum has ever done, said, or written that suggests competence, imagination, or relevance. This guy is famous for being famous. He’s never accomplished anything, he’s never led anyone, he’s never built or inspired the building of anything. He held Michael Gerson’s coat.

Shut up David Frum. Call me when you’ve demonstrated your relevance.

The Apologist on February 28, 2009 at 11:36 PM

tired of AP baiting with these Frum articles without explaining whether he agrees with the sentiment or not

commodore on February 28, 2009 at 11:36 PM

jgapinoy on February 28, 2009 at 11:16 PM

So…Goldwater’s book…a political biography written in 1960, was entitled “The Conscience of a Conservative” why? And he was named at the 1964 Convention as “Mr. Conservative” why?

In 1964 he was as staunch a Conservative as there was around at the time, which is why, as memory serves, he caused such a huge uproar within the GOP.

As he grew older, he did come to believe that marijuana, for example, should be legalized…not because he enjoyed doing a dooby out on the range, but because he believed the federal government had no business trying to regulate it…thought it was a state issue. His stance on the Vietnam War was based on recognizing the futility of a moving game plan, one in which victory was never defined, and the loss of so many young Americans as so many politicians used them as a bat to score points in some sort of perverse game. As a Reserve Major General, he knew the troops were being misused…and sought to end it…out of decency, not ideology.

He was aghast at the Religious Right of Ralph Reed and Jerry Falwell…because while he believed one’s personal faith was vital to guiding one’s personal decisions and conduct as a servant of the people, he in no way wanted religion, any religion, made the quasi-official religion of the Party, nor of the nation.

20 years later, last time I saw Goldwater, was in 1984, maybe 1985, a few years before he died, at Washington National Airport, he was traveling commercial, and he stopped when recognized, spent a few moments conversing, then turned his attention to my young daughter, now 34, and was very kind and decent and solicitous as he asked her about her upcoming air travel and all manner of other things regular adults, especially those “in power,” never waste their time on with a little kid…unless there is a bank of reporters and cameras chattering away.

There are too few like him…somewhere along the way, we, the GOP, broke the mold.

coldwarrior on February 28, 2009 at 11:38 PM

coldwarrior on February 28, 2009 at 11:38 PM

+100!

So many of today’s “conservatives” believe that the package must include their religious and social beliefs.

Goldwater understood that everyone was not the same in those matters, but we could be united in the principles that keep our country free and strong.

MrScribbler on February 28, 2009 at 11:42 PM

Frum and those who believe his horse hockey are a good example of why we have lost the house, senate and white house. It’s like the Rockets asking for advice from the coach of that girls basketball team that lost 100 to zip.

conservnut on February 28, 2009 at 11:50 PM

Goldwater lost because Kennedy’s body was barely in the ground, and the American people weren’t ready to toss Johnson out. Didn’t Goldwater himself say something like “The people aren’t going to assassinate two Presidents in under 12 months”?

Reagan and Goldwater were eminently electable.

joe_doufu on February 28, 2009 at 11:50 PM

Frum is an idiot.
How can you get people even vaguely excited about a RINO party? It wopuld be pure Tweedledee and Tweedledum, with the Dums getting the edge with the MSM. We would never win aanything. Look how well McCain did against a neophyte like Obama. McCain was having trouble reaching 35% of the vote even in the late primaries. I still believe that Romney could have kicked Obama’s ass.

The Republicans have never won with a “middle of the road” candidate. Even Nixon was considered a Right-winger in 1968.
The strange reluctance to even mention Nixon (whose landslide in 1972 dwarfed Reagan’s) ignores the fact that, had Nixon not gotten into the insane Watergate fiasco, there never even would have been a Carter. Nixon’s 1972 landslide was historic, with 49 states, I believe.
Like that other phony conservative, David Brooks, Frum is married to a big Lib. What a pair of crappy little men.

TexasJew on February 28, 2009 at 11:50 PM

AP doesn’t necessarily like it; he posts it because he thinks it will create a buzz.

jgapinoy on February 28, 2009 at 11:22 PM

I certainly hope that quoting something doesn’t automatically mean you approve of it. I’ve quoted Obama before. Hell, I think I quoted Keith Olbermann once. If Allah posting a Quote of the Day is tantamount to endorsing what has been said, that time I quoted Olbermann is really gonna come back to haunt me.

I think Frum is wrong, but I wouldn’t dismiss his critique entirely out of hand. It’s defensible to suggest that most of the significant political decisions since the New Deal have been driven by liberals – either liberals getting what they want, or the backlash to same. Conservatism must become activist now, to undo the horrific damage being done to the country, but activism is not within our nature. If we were starting the country over again today, according to strict obedience to the Constitution… (pause for collective dreamy sigh from Hot Air readers) … conservatism wouldn’t really *have* an agenda, other than stomping down the more ridiculous ideas liberals would immediately begin coming up with.

Liberalism is the ideology always on the attack, always responding to some dependency group clamoring for a bigger payout, or looking for some injustice it can use as a wedge to advance its endless agenda. It’s interesting to note the occasional troll post on Hot Air, in which the leftist jeers something like “I can’t wait for you to run Sarah Palin as your nominee so you get your clocks cleaned again in 2012″ or “I hope people pay attention to the weirdness going on at CPAC, so Republicans lose more seats in 2010.” One wonders why they’re being so aggressive. What dream or fantasy of liberalism is not being fulfilled, even as we speak? How many more trillions do they look forward to showering on their favored causes if Obama gets a second term? Of course, a lot of this is simple tribalism – the average HA troll knows virtually nothing about Obama’s economic plans (and neither does Obama, or most of his cabinet, or the Democrat caucus) but he knows he likes it when “his team wins” and the other team loses. But part of it comes from the endless forward momentum of liberal collectivism – its agenda can never be filled, not one single problem it identifies can ever be resolved, and the continuing failure of its ideas only means they need to be tried harder. As long as there is one private businessman somewhere, making a profit, the liberal’s work is never done.

The limited-government conservative never gets to write a heroic political narrative, which is why the media always regards him as an odd creature, devoid of romance. Liberals swoon over repulsive creatures like Castro or Chavez because they’re doing *big things* with government power – it’s a romantic narrative of heroes seizing power in the name of the people, with kleptocratic dictators, murderous Che Guevara thugs, and concentration camps minor distractions from the Big Story. What is there about a serious conservative for the media to fall in love with? How do you write a heroic story about a guy who just starts shutting down wasteful government agencies and cutting taxes? What reporter will fall in love with the president whose actions force his network to scale back their big, sexy Washington bureau and start dispatching reporters to dreary state capitols, where nobody will be signing trillion dollar stimulus bills? Because Obama is spending hundreds of billions of dollars more than a tax-cutting conservative president would, he cares hundreds of billions of times as much.

I think Goldwater set the stage for Reagan much more directly than Frum gives him credit for, but I also think we can study Goldwater for insights into the way the left-media culture will react to a true conservative revolutionary, which is surely what Goldwater was in his day, and what the next Republican candidate must be, to save the country from the abyss currently swallowing it. Obama’s successor will be an adult, charged with taking the White House away from a little boy with an incredibly expensive blanket tied around his neck, pretending he’s Superman. The media culture will be very, very cranky when they’re told play time is over. They’ll probably level the same kind of unforgivable calumnies they directed at Goldwater, and this time, the candidate must be ready for them.

Doctor Zero on February 28, 2009 at 11:57 PM

The conservatives of yesteryear had the disadvantage of not having the means to get their message–conservative principles–out to a wide audience in an instant. However, because of this Buckley, Goldwater and Reagan had time to build an argument and a movement.

Today, the message cycle is a day at most instead of weeks, months or years. Contemporary conservatives don’t have time to do too much formulating of principles.

Fortunately, we don’t have to.

baldilocks on February 28, 2009 at 11:59 PM

He was aghast at the Religious Right of Ralph Reed and Jerry Falwell…because while he believed one’s personal faith was vital to guiding one’s personal decisions and conduct as a servant of the people, he in no way wanted religion, any religion, made the quasi-official religion of the Party, nor of the nation.

I agree with the Founders’ admonitions on the right to life, & I agree with their desire to honor God, & I want to conserve their principles, thus making me conservative.
I know Goldwater called himself a conservative. I just think he was a libertarian.

jgapinoy on March 1, 2009 at 12:00 AM

I know Goldwater called himself a conservative. I just think he was a libertarian.

jgapinoy on March 1, 2009 at 12:00 AM

It may be somewhat naive of me, but I believe they are one in the same when conservatives are true to their principles.

conservnut on March 1, 2009 at 12:04 AM

So Frum is saying that a “moderate” would have won in 1964 and all would be better. Didn’t he and his ilk tell us the same thing about McCain…Dole…?

SouthernGent on March 1, 2009 at 12:05 AM

David Frum and “Allahpundint” are not conservatives, they are libertarians!

There is room in our movement for libertarians – just don’t let them make policy.

Joe Pyne on March 1, 2009 at 12:06 AM

It may be somewhat naive of me, but I believe they are one in the same when conservatives are true to their principles.

conservnut on March 1, 2009 at 12:04 AM

Yes, I’m sorry, you are naive. They are not one and the same. Goldwater, Perot, and R. Paul are libertarians, but Reagan, Gingrich, Buckley, and Rush are conservatives.

Allahpundint and Frum are libertarians, Michelle Malkin and William Buckley are conservatives. There is a distinct difference; one wants the morality of a free market without the morality (God), and one wants the morality (God) and the free market.

Joe Pyne on March 1, 2009 at 12:12 AM

Anyone who lived through the 1963-1964 period remembers how difficult it was for any Republican to win in 1964 against Camelot and the MSM’s weeping and wailing.
Even though JFK’s popularity was declining (his trip to Texas in November, 1963 was an attempt to boost it up, since he knew that the critical purely Democrat South was a lost case, and that even LBJ would not win Texas for him in 1964), the asssination made him a super-hero, and even LBJ knew that 1964 was regained by the Democrats because of that event.
Goldwater never had a chance. JFK was the first MSM “Saint” and they indirectly blamed “right-wingers” for killing him , even though all evidence has proven that Oswald was a failed Leftist.
Bill Moyers and the others in the “Johnson Mafia” then painted Goldwater as a psychotic warmonger, and even pushed that fake “Daisy Ad”.
Goldwater fought the good fight against terrible odds – the worst in modern Presidential history. Hell, even Hillary was a Goldwater Girl – that must have been the nail in the coffin!

TexasJew on March 1, 2009 at 12:12 AM

Here in America, as I have come to understand both Libertarianism and Conservatism,

Libertarianism advocates individual rights and a limited government….the individual and personal liberty being most important.

Conservatism believes in the Constitution as it is written, advocates small, limited government (from local to federal levels) and a conservative demands taxes should be limited and levied for the sole purpose of financing the limited responsibilities of government (as defined in the Constitution.)

And there are permutations of both, and melding of both…and along the way, the basics have been put aside, or forgotten, as the turf battles have raged, and apparently, continue to rage.

coldwarrior on March 1, 2009 at 12:16 AM

If Frum is a Libertarian, why is he against free markets?
If Frum is a conservative, why is he for RINOs like John McCain?
Thus, Frum is neither a conservative nor a libertarian.
He’s just a moderate Democrat who lies a lot.

TexasJew on March 1, 2009 at 12:16 AM

TexasJew on March 1, 2009 at 12:12 AM

I lived through that period, and you are absolutely correct!

I remember the Democratic Convention. They had a short film of JFK and his presidency, Camelot has arrived! – the press played it to the hilt! Lots of crying and nodding of heads through the whole thing. Goldwater was DOA.

Joe Pyne on March 1, 2009 at 12:17 AM

Anticipated response to my comment at 10:57: “But Rush is humble–his boasting is an act!”
He says over & over, & he said it this week: his #1 goal is to build a radio audience, not to win converts to conservatism.

jgapinoy on February 28, 2009 at 11:01 PM

Well, quit assigning more importance than he gives himself, or than his listeners give him. All this “RUSH IS LEADING US ASTRAY!” stuff is starting to sound like one of the army of straw men I’ve been seeing lately. If you don’t like what he says, point out specifics.

ddrintn on March 1, 2009 at 12:17 AM

tired of AP baiting with these Frum articles without explaining whether he agrees with the sentiment or not

commodore on February 28, 2009 at 11:36 PM

There are other blogs, you know.

baldilocks on March 1, 2009 at 12:18 AM

Frum is wrong AND right ( not all that hard to accomplish when discussing politics )

Sometimes elections are primarily about events outside the political process: We just got finished with one of those

Without the convenient collapse at just the right time, we’d probably complaining about the squishiness of President McCain now–except for the fact that sometimes elections are the result of one Bad Campaign losing to a much better one

We just got finished with one of those………

1964 was about the martyrdom of JFK, and Bad campaign of Goldwater against a much better campaign of LBJ ( a campaign where Barry was maligned as a ‘warmonger’ and LBJ promised to NEVER ‘send American boys to do the job that Vietnamese boys should do’).

Nelson Rockefeller was the only other likely Repub nominee, and if he had run as bad a campaign as Goldwater in 1964, he would have lost.

Playing with historical events can be fun, but is mostly rhetorical

Janos Hunyadi on March 1, 2009 at 12:20 AM

Joe Pyne on March 1, 2009 at 12:17 AM
Joe Pyne lives! Before Bob Grant, before anyone!
The Ur-Limbaugh!
“What’s your beef?”

TexasJew on March 1, 2009 at 12:22 AM

Given it’s Frum I assuming were going down the ‘big tent electability’ route as the answer. Didn’t we just try that and got spanked?

Bunsin on February 28, 2009 at 11:11 PM

You must not be up on current mythology. You see, McCain was cruising toward victory, with all those precious “moderates” and “independents” in his pocket, until he made the fatal choice of that vile Sarah Palin, who immediately appealed to the baser instincts of the basest of the base of the party. Got it now? ;)

ddrintn on March 1, 2009 at 12:23 AM

Joe Pyne on March 1, 2009 at 12:12 AM

I used to think the same thing until I took this test

Really I think you are splitting hairs. I know plenty of libertarians who are evangelicals, myself for example. But I also consider myself a conservative (see my name) But when I take the test I line up more on the libertarian side. That was a surprise to me at the time. But really I think both have more in common than what separates them.

conservnut on March 1, 2009 at 12:25 AM

David Frum and “Allahpundint” are not conservatives, they are libertarians!

There is room in our movement for libertarians – just don’t let them make policy.

Joe Pyne on March 1, 2009 at 12:06 AM

Allahpundit is a Libertarian, David Frum not so much. He’s one of the big government/ fiscally irresponsible “Conservatives” in the Republican party. Also known as a neoconservative.

Cr4sh Dummy on March 1, 2009 at 12:27 AM

You must not be up on current mythology. You see, McCain was cruising toward victory, with all those precious “moderates” and “independents” in his pocket, until he made the fatal choice of that vile Sarah Palin, who immediately appealed to the baser instincts of the basest of the base of the party. Got it now? ;)

ddrintn on March 1, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Point taken!
Well, I must be pretty base, since, like many others, I would not have wasted that $1000 nor my vote to get McCain elected, since I never would have voted for that senile crazy sack of crap backstabbing RINO had he not chosen Palin or another conservative for his VP.

TexasJew on March 1, 2009 at 12:27 AM

TexasJew on March 1, 2009 at 12:22 AM

Too funny!

You know, you are the first one on this blog who knew who the real Joe Pyne was. That means you must have lived in So. Cal. in the 60′s, am I right?

Joe Pyne on March 1, 2009 at 12:28 AM

Its times like these I remember the guys I graduated HS with that aren’t available for comment and remember the social engineering forced down our throats that time, both the war dead and the class warfare, with the media’s help.

Speakup on March 1, 2009 at 12:32 AM

ALLAHPUNDIT

Quote of THE DAY should have been anything, ANYTHING by Paul Harvey.

ANYTHING

Ugly on March 1, 2009 at 12:33 AM

conservnut on March 1, 2009 at 12:25 AM

I don’t want to get into a debate about libertarianism vs. conservatism, but from what I’ve read, and from people I’ve talked to, the basic difference is that libertarians don’t want the government to be involved in anything except protecting the citizens. That means no foreign military intervention (too bad Britain during the 1940′s) and no involvement in protecting the unborn (Perot said himself that he had no interest in the subject back in 92). They also want to decriminalize drugs.

No conservative I know wants any of those things.

Joe Pyne on March 1, 2009 at 12:35 AM

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.
- Barry Goldwater

Hubert Humphrey talks so fast that listening to him is like trying to look at Playboy magazine with your wife turning the pages.
- Barry Goldwater

I think any man in business would be foolish to fool around with his secretary. If it’s somebody else’s secretary, fine.
- Barry Goldwater

I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle.
- Barry Goldwater

You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.
- Barry Goldwater

It’s a great country, where anybody can grow up to be president …… except me.
- Barry Goldwater

MB4 on March 1, 2009 at 12:35 AM

coldwarrior on March 1, 2009 at 12:16 AM

‘libertarianism’ and ‘conservatism’ are markings along a continuum, wouldn’t you agree? Not different ideas but degrees of essentially the same thing…..

Janos Hunyadi on March 1, 2009 at 12:35 AM

conservnut on March 1, 2009 at 12:04 AM
A libertarian may be liberal or conservative.

Two great reads are (1) Freedom and Virtue: The Conservative/Libertarian Debate by George W. Carey and (2) The Elephant in the Room by Ryan Sager.

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 12:36 AM

Joe Pyne on March 1, 2009 at 12:28 AM
No, Texas. But they syndicated Joe Pyne’s show late at night and I was mesmerized. What a hardass! He was the first modern conservative that I ever saw. In Texas, we had that redneck conservative crap, George Wallace garbage – one inch from the N-word, but not anyone like him.
One time Pyne had a guy dressed up as an Indian (Native American for the PC here!) with a full headdress ready to ask him a question and he said to him, without losing a beat, “What’s your beef, chief?”
He epitomized the white-haired hard-ass California conservative for me and many others. The real OC!
I remember Firesign Theatre (you HAVE to be a 50+ babyboomer to remember them) taking digs at him as “Joe Swine”

TexasJew on March 1, 2009 at 12:38 AM

coldwarrior on March 1, 2009 at 12:16 AM

Hmmm… interesting thought excercise…

In TODAYS terms… what would the Founding Fathers be?

Certainly not Neo Cons… or Social Cons…

Isn’t the Constitution itself at its basis a Libertarian very limited Government document?

After all, its still one of the only docs of its type in the world which enshrines Freedom of Speech…

Romeo13 on March 1, 2009 at 12:38 AM

ALLAHPUNDIT

Quote of THE DAY should have been anything, ANYTHING by Paul Harvey.

ANYTHING

Ugly on March 1, 2009 at 12:33 AM

One would think by listening to all the propaganda about the United Nations that they are some sort of benevolent, peaceful organization. Never in the history of the United Nations has it stood for anything but killing and violence. They have never kept peace anywhere on this globe. Their sole function is to replace the U.S. military – dissolve all four branches of our armed forces. Their allegiance is only to the United Nations Charter which does not recognize the U.S. Constitution. This body is made up almost exclusively of communists and leaders of the bloodiest regimes on this globe. Their history and operating agenda is apparent to anyone who takes the time to sincerely and with an open mind, research the facts of this organization, separating truth from myth.
- Paul Harvey

MB4 on March 1, 2009 at 12:40 AM

Cr4sh Dummy on March 1, 2009 at 12:27 AM
Socio-religious cons also advocate more government intervention than palecons.

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 12:41 AM

In TODAYS terms… what would the Founding Fathers be?

Certainly not Neo Cons… or Social Cons…

Romeo13 on March 1, 2009 at 12:38 AM

Cellmates

DasObamaReich on March 1, 2009 at 12:42 AM

tool   /tul/ –noun

1. an implement, esp. one held in the hand, as a hammer, saw, or file, for performing or facilitating mechanical operations.
2. any instrument of manual operation.
3. the cutting or machining part of a lathe, planer, drill, or similar machine.
4. the machine itself; a machine tool

5. David Frum

Norwegian on March 1, 2009 at 12:42 AM

Quote of THE DAY should have been anything, ANYTHING by Paul Harvey.

ANYTHING

Ugly on March 1, 2009 at 12:33 AM

Here…a quote that so many recoiled in horror at, yet is purest, undiluted wisdom:

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Winston Churchill said that the American people…he said, the American people, he said, and this is a direct quote, “We didn’t come this far because we are made of sugar candy.”

That was his response to the attack on Pearl Harbor. That we didn’t come this far because we are made of sugar candy.

And that reminder was taken seriously. And we proceeded to develop and deliver the bomb, even though roughly 150,000 men, women and children perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With a single blow, World War II was over.

Following New York, Sept. 11, Winston Churchill was not here to remind us that we didn’t come this far because we’re made of sugar candy.

So, following the New York disaster, we mustered our humanity.

We gave old pals a pass, even though men and money from Saudi Arabia were largely responsible for the devastation of New York and Pennsylvania and our Pentagon.

We called Saudi Arabians our partners against terrorism and we sent men with rifles into Afghanistan and Iraq, and we kept our best weapons in our silos.

Even now we’re standing there dying, daring to do nothing decisive, because we’ve declared ourselves to be better than our terrorist enemies — more moral, more civilized.

Our image is at stake, we insist.

But we didn’t come this far because we’re made of sugar candy.

Once upon a time, we elbowed our way onto and into this continent by giving small pox infected blankets to native Americans.

Yes, that was biological warfare!

And we used every other weapon we could get our hands on to grab this land from whomever. And we grew prosperous.

And, yes, we greased the skids with the sweat of slaves.

And so it goes with most nation states, which, feeling guilty about their savage pasts, eventually civilize themselves out of business and wind up invaded, and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry and up and coming who are not made of sugar candy.

And he was absolutely right. Now you’ve heard…the rest of the story.

MadisonConservative on March 1, 2009 at 12:42 AM

You must not be up on current mythology. You see, McCain was cruising toward victory, with all those precious “moderates” and “independents” in his pocket, until he made the fatal choice of that vile Sarah Palin, who immediately appealed to the baser instincts of the basest of the base of the party. Got it now? ;)

ddrintn on March 1, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Point taken!
Well, I must be pretty base, since, like many others, I would not have wasted that $1000 nor my vote to get McCain elected, since I never would have voted for that senile crazy sack of crap backstabbing RINO had he not chosen Palin or another conservative for his VP.

TexasJew on March 1, 2009 at 12:27 AM

2 comments & commenters after my heart! Love it!
(Frum is such a tool wannabe…He just can’t getting over being canned by President Bush!)

Jenfidel on March 1, 2009 at 12:43 AM

I don’t give a rat’s behind whether the Republican Party lives or dies. That’s absolutely immaterial to me. What I care about is having a choice between philosophies of government.

Bush was so big-government that he was effectively a Democrat on domestic policy. The lack of Republican ethics and opposition played a large part in creating the current catastrophe. I’m not satisfied in merely getting to vote for what flavor of tyranny I would like to be subjected to. I’m ready to see them go.

The way I see it, the best thing that can possibly happen would be a complete collapse. The federal government is FUBAR. Perhaps something new and worthy will arise from the ashes.

Venusian Visitor on March 1, 2009 at 12:43 AM

gosh, i can’t spell today…

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 12:44 AM

I don’t want to get into a debate about libertarianism vs. conservatism, but from what I’ve read, and from people I’ve talked to, the basic difference is that libertarians don’t want the government to be involved in anything except protecting the citizens. That means no foreign military intervention (too bad Britain during the 1940’s) and no involvement in protecting the unborn (Perot said himself that he had no interest in the subject back in 92). They also want to decriminalize drugs.

No conservative I know wants any of those things.

Joe Pyne on March 1, 2009 at 12:35 AM

I don’t either, but I would point out that you are illustrating the extremes of both. A lot of us lie somewhere in-between.

conservnut on March 1, 2009 at 12:45 AM

Romeo13 on March 1, 2009 at 12:38 AM
That depends…Some Founding Fathers were influenced by Locke (Thomas Jefferson) while others by Biblical principles (John Adams).

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”

John Adams

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 12:46 AM

Janos Hunyadi on March 1, 2009 at 12:35 AM

Yes. Both are parts of the same continuum…Libertarianism being right of Conservatism.

A while back we had a few hundred posts on the subject, especially after we looked at the next logical step to the right of Libertarianism. Most refused to look at the etymologic origin of the terms used, banking instead on the current errant usages.

coldwarrior on March 1, 2009 at 12:48 AM

gosh, i can’t spell today…

youngTXcon on March 1, 2009 at 12:44 AM

Maybe you can get one of Obama’s 14 million dollar Ebonics giveaways. If U cnt spel gud yu kwalifi!
Hey, it’s a 9000-page trillion-dollar giveaway – anything’s possible, since, as we know, it’s not real money!

TexasJew on March 1, 2009 at 12:50 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3