July 16, 2014

50 years ago today: Barry Goldwater, accepting the GOP nomination, said: "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" and "moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Here's how that looked on the front page of The New York Times the morning after. For the full text of Goldwater's acceptance speech, click forward to page 10. But do pause for a moment at page 9 where LBJ takes Lady Bird for a walk ("The First Lady was bareheaded and she was wearing a sleeveless, straight line dress with a light colored silk scarf at her throat") and for a glimpse at the future of telephone booths:



You get action when you telephone.

From the Goldwater speech — which is easier to read here — I've selected the top 10 best lines:

10. "We must, and we shall, return to proven ways — not because they are old, but because they are true."

9. "Rather than useful jobs in our country, people have been offered bureaucratic 'make work,' rather than moral leadership, they have been given bread and circuses, spectacles, and, yes, they have even been given scandals."

8. "[I]t has been during Democratic years that a billion persons were cast into Communist captivity and their fate cynically sealed."

7. "The good Lord raised this mighty Republic to be a home for the brave and to flourish as the land of the free — not to stagnate in the swampland of collectivism, not to cringe before the bully of communism."

6. "Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies."

5. "We do not seek to lead anyone's life for him — we seek only to secure his rights and to guarantee him opportunity to strive, with government performing only those needed and constitutionally sanctioned tasks which cannot otherwise be performed."

4. "History shows us — demonstrates that nothing — nothing prepares the way for tyranny more than the failure of public officials to keep the streets from bullies and marauders."

3. "Those who seek to live your lives for you, to take your liberties in return for relieving you of yours, those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for divine will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom."

2. "Our Republican cause is not to level out the world or make its people conform in computer regimented sameness." 

1. "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

78 comments:

Holmes said...

He was the man. Can't believe you still moderate comments.

Ann Althouse said...

"Can't believe you still moderate comments."

Because you can't see what I am keeping out.

Nonapod said...

"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies."

Sounds very much like what C.S. Lewis said:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth."

madAsHell said...

Because you can't see what I am keeping out.


YeeHaw....I'm sitting with the kewl kidz in the lunch room.

madAsHell said...

Funny, how Goldwater's speech is still relevant today.

Curious George said...

"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies."

So obviously true, yet the left never realizes it. If not for the checks and balances they would have us all in chains, and would still not see how it happened.

Bob Boyd said...

"You don't need to be 'straight' to fight for your country. You just need to shoot straight." - Barry Goldwater

The Drill SGT said...

While I think BG was a great American Libertarian, I like this construct better:

7. "The good Lord raised this mighty Republic to be the land of the free because it is the home for the brave"

Hagar said...

True. Your enemy may take pity on you in your wretchedness and let you go, but those bent on helping you save you from yourself, never!

tim maguire said...

My only objection is that no extremist ever acted in defense of liberty. That statement, rather, suggests to me his own susceptibility to creating a hellish tyranny in pursuit of his own conception of good.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...


Never mind those excellent observations and proscriptions, didn't the bastard want to nuke a little girl?

The Crack Emcee said...

This is the man who MLK said made room for racists in the Republican Party and we're supposed to celebrate him? Really?

Even now, as conservatives declare Democrats "own" the black vote, that was once the Republican's exclusive domain?

As they lie, and say we were coerced - rather than chased away - by Goldwater?

Whenever Jim Crow dances, y'all love the tune, don't you?

FWBuff said...

My earliest political memory is of the 1964 campaign between LBJ and Goldwater. Nearly everyone else in our Texas Panhandle town was a Johnson supporter and a Democrat. My contrarian Dad was a proud Goldwater supporter and a Republican. My siblings and I chanted, "Goldwater, Goldwater, He's our man! Johnson belongs in the garbage can!"

Free expression, pre-school style!

Skyler said...

You don't hear many politicians speaking of freedom anymore. They only speak of free things.

Paul said...

"Because you can't see what I am keeping out."

Oh the horrors.

Paul said...

"Funny, how Goldwater's speech is still relevant today."

More than ever, as we are much farther along on the road to serfdom.

The Drill SGT said...

The Crack Emcee said...
This is the man who MLK said made room for racists in the Republican Party and we're supposed to celebrate him? Really?


The Guy who formed the Arizona Air National Guard and desegregated it two years before the rest of the Military.

Joan said...

I very much appreciate the time and effort Althouse puts into moderating comments.

Thanks, Professor!

The Godfather said...

Before hearing what Goldwater actually said, I heard the "more at 11" blurb, saying "Extremism in, moderation out, in Goldwater acceptance speech." I thought, What BS, Barry didn't say that! Only he kind of did.

He was right, of course, but that didn't make it prudent to say it.

No one else seems to have said yet, so: They told me I voted for Goldwater we'd be in a land war in Asia in 6 months, and I did, and we were.

PB Reader said...

50 years later and liberals are still pursuing dreams with failed policies and conservatives still say, "um, but that can't work!"

Likely not to change anytime soon.

Virgil Hilts said...

Crack --
For what its worth, in the 1930s Goldwater was the first businessman in Phoenix who broke the "color barrier" and hired African-Americans as sales clerks. He was a member of the Arizona NAACP, etc. What people never forgave him for was voting against the 64 Civil Rights Act (which a greater number of republicans voted for than democrats, BTW). He did that not because he was a racist, but because of his strict views on the constitution. But it killed him (and the republicans) in the minds of AA voters. Nixon got 32% of the AA vote, Goldwater 6% and the rest is history.

Chuck said...

It was Barry Goldwater who went to the White House to meet with President Nixon to tell him that the Senate Republicans could not defend him against a possible impeachment vote. Goldwater effectively broke the news to the President that he must resign.

Can anyone imagine a Democratic senator doing the same today? Who would that be? Levin? (No.) Durbin? (No.) Schumer? (No.) Reid? (No.) Feinstein? (No.) Warren? (Gag me.) Sanders? (Haha!)

Ann Althouse said...

"I very much appreciate the time and effort Althouse puts into moderating comments. Thanks, Professor!"

Thanks for appreciating the behind-the-scenes work that must necessarily remain behind the scenes.

Ann Althouse said...

Not Goldwater, but a similar embrace of extremism: "[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it."

Brando said...

I imagine Goldwater would have had a much better shot even four years later, when so much of the Great Society and LBJ's Vietnam policies were up in flames. 1964 was still a year when the economy was booming, and big social programs were popular as most voters associated them (inaccurately) with having helped reduce poverty during the Depression. Plus, civil rights laws were popular in both parties, and Goldwater had unfortunately voted along with southern Democrats (including liberal heroes like William Fullbright and Al Gore Sr.) who opposed those laws not based on the principle of limited federal power (as Goldwater did) but based on plain old white supremacy. Like it or not, they made lousy bedfellows for Barry and soured a lot of black (and white liberal) voters from the GOP for a long time to come.

Plus, it was still popular on both sides of the aisle to support South Vietnam, and our troop presence at that time was minimal.

Add to that LBJ's natural skills as a campaigner, and you had the makings of an inevitable landslide. Goldwater's loss opened the door for Nixon four years later, and Nixon wound up governing in a way that would make even a Democrat today blush (EPA, OSHA, Detente, price controls, affirmative action, and putting two Justices on the Supreme Court who would be part of the Roe v. Wade majority).

Goldwater's mistake wasn't that he was a principled libertarian, but rather that a principled libertarian could not win in 1964 against LBJ. The GOP today should remember that lesson--you have to read the public, and either change the public's minds or adapt to them. Losing an election absolutely has consequences--the years 1965 through 1968 being a sad example.

garage mahal said...

I wonder what Goldwater would have to say about the ILLEAGLES at the border.

RecChief said...

Barry Goldwater provided funding for the Arizona NAACP lawsuit to integrate Arizona schools.

Get your fucking facts straight you hack, no matter what else you might think of the man, when you look at the facts, Goldwater was no racist.

tim maguire said...

Ann Althouse said...
Not Goldwater, but a similar embrace of extremism: [snip]


That's not extremism, that's vigilance.

Oso Negro said...

Every one of Barry Goldwater's words ring true today! I would like to point out here that the much reviled Baby Boomers couldn't vote in that election. So you can lay Lyndon Johnson and his evil Great Society at the feet of the so-called Greatest Generation and their living predecessors at the time.

Brando said...

I have to say "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..." statement could hardly have been a poorer choice of words, despite what was meant by it. The word "extremism" by definition means "too much of something." It'd be like saying "I'm a stalker...for freedom!" or "I'm a pervert....turned on by liberty!" It just feeds an (unfair) impression of Goldwater that he's on the political fringe, even if he considers his extremist beliefs to be the right ones.

Better phrasing would be something along the lines of "it is not extremism to defend liberty" or something to that effect. But perhaps such a statement would not have gotten as much press.

jimbino said...

"Because you can't see what I am keeping out."

Exactly, Ann. So I repeat my comment made ages ago: Why not provide a "censored comments bucket" to save all those you've censored, so that we can see what you consider inappropriate and decide for ourselves whether or not we want to comment or participate in the blog at all?

Amazon pennies depend on satisfying the folks here!

William Chadwick said...

Uncled Crack, Goldwater knew more about individual liberty--and values it more--than you or MLK ever did. (Hint: wanting to overthrow Jim Crow, and replace it with State-socialism--isn't any advance of individual liberty.)

The 1964 Republican convention was a pivotal moment in my life. Like most uneducated people (I was a teen just starting to do serious reading in history and economics--you know, the studies that Crack and other members of today's "Stupid Left" never get around to*--but was still pretty unformed, and uninformed), I was drifting toward socialism. Then I heard Reagan's speech. He said (probably not an exact quote), "We will have to explain to future generations what we valued more than liberty."** It was my Road-to-Damascus moment. "Yeah," I thought, "just what IS more important than liberty?" No "liberal" (and by "liberal I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State-fellator") has ever given me a satisfactory answer.

*Not to mention Logic. Show them a syllogism and they flee like Dracula before a crucifix. Crack probably believes, like the African-American educator in Atlanta who reportedly said it, that logic is a creation of and tool of the white oppressor.

**Uncle Crack's answer to Reagan's question: "Why, me and my gang getting to pick your pockets, fool!"

jimbino said...

Sad that Goldwater lost. He would have been the first and only "Jewish" president and the first one to have been circumcised, beating out Jimmy Carter by a few years.

William Chadwick said...

Re what Virgil Hilts said:

Reminds me of what that great humanitarian Lyndon Johnson said (in private, of course) after he signed the Civil Rights Act: "Now we'll have the African-Americans voting Democratic for the next 100 years!" Only he didn't say "African-American."

The story may be unverified, but it sure sounds like LBJ.

mccullough said...

Another ideologue from the Senate who liked to hear his own voice. He sure liked D.C. because he was there a long time.

Chuck said...

It's true, Brando; in hindsight, it would have been good to throw Nelson Rockefeller up against LBJ as the Republican sacrificial lamb. And have Goldwater run against Humphrey in '68.

I think Goldwater would have won by a wider margin than did Nixon.

Our "long national nightmare" might never have gotten started.

Two terms of Goldwater, followed by two terms of Ronald Reagan. And a U.S. Supreme Court with six or seven Bork/Scalia types.

Douglas said...

Johnson won because he convinced everyone (at least everyone I knew in Newton, Massachusetts) that Goldwater would start a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Remember the daisy ad? Remember the bumper stickers: Au + H20 = U235 ? That's why LBJ won.

The Crack Emcee said...

Virgil Hilts,

"What people never forgave [Goldwater] for was voting against the 64 Civil Rights Act (which a greater number of republicans voted for than democrats, BTW). He did that not because he was a racist, but because of his strict views on the constitution."

Patronizing as Hell, and you don't even realize it. Like that guy Ann referred to - talking to the female author, not realizing he was describing her book, but just kept going on.

Why are you telling me Goldwater's history? MLK said Goldwater allowed racists into the party - how did you address that? I see racists in my party now - how are you addressing that? In the same way:

By ignoring it.

And then you idiots claim it's the Democrat's fault you get get traction with blacks,...

Hagar said...

One of my high school teachers told us we should be moderate in all things - except things we really cared about.

But I think lector Mardal meant that a bit "tongue in cheek."

damikesc said...

Patronizing as Hell

Facts are tools of oppression by the White Man, eh brother Crack?

MLK said Goldwater allowed racists into the party - how did you address that?

King's knowledge of theology was solid but on politics, he was dumber than a bag of hammers.

As much as white folks wish to believe otherwise, if he wasn't dead, King would be just as much of a huckster as Sharpton and Jackson.

I see racists in my party now - how are you addressing that? In the same way:

By ignoring it.

And then you idiots claim it's the Democrat's fault you get get traction with blacks,..


Given that your percentage of the population and voting base isn't growing --- why should anybody give a damn if blacks support them?

Black support seldom has a lot of correlation with long-term success.

Ann Althouse said...

"Why not provide a "censored comments bucket" to save all those you've censored, so that we can see what you consider inappropriate and decide for ourselves whether or not we want to comment or participate in the blog at all?"

Email me and I'll tell you why the answer must be no (quite aside from the time this would take and how it would delay moderation, which lets through more than 99% of what comes in).

Ignorance is Bliss said...

The Crack Emcee said...

MLK said Goldwater allowed racists into the party

What did he do that allowed them into the party? What power did he have to keep them out?

chickelit said...

Sad that Goldwater lost. He would have been the first and only "Jewish" president and the first one to have been circumcised, beating out Jimmy Carter by a few years. said the only pretend Althouse commenter obsessed with smoking pot in National Parks and circumcision.

Birkel said...

The Crack Emcee advocates a political party that demands conformity of thought and pretends he's not a Democrat. It's nauseatingly precious.

As a Native American I didn't inherit guilt according to The Crack Emcee's New Age religious views. My disagreement can be given without implicit racism because I do not have Original Sin due to skin color. The historical fact that LBJ was a racist whose party did not support the Civil Rights Act, is a racist fact. Because White People are guilty from birth due to New Age religious views. Especially Republicans. We are all equal, but some of us are less equal than others. Racists!

David said...

Hillary Clinton was enthralled.

Smilin' Jack said...

Why are you telling me Goldwater's history? MLK said Goldwater allowed racists into the party - how did you address that?

Forget it, Crack. Black people will never really be able to understand the white experience.

Email me and I'll tell you why the answer must be no (quite aside from the time this would take and how it would delay moderation, which lets through more than 99% of what comes in).

Wow, those must be some juicy comments if you not only can't post them, but can't even post the reason why.

Brando said...

"Two terms of Goldwater, followed by two terms of Ronald Reagan. And a U.S. Supreme Court with six or seven Bork/Scalia types."

I agree about the two terms of Goldwater--I could see him benefitting from the same forces that helped Nixon in '72 (the south shifting from a Democratic party that veered left, and the end of the Vietnam War and a growing economy). The question then is whether the economic downturn of '73-'75 with inflation would have still happened the way they did. I doubt Goldwater would have imposed price controls, even with Congressional authority, but the inflation may have been unavoidable. With a weaker economy in '76, and the usual "fatigue" voters feel towards one party, the Democrats may have had a strong year then.

Which is just as well--much of what befell Carter was more bad luck than the result of a specific policy--he mostly continued what Nixon started, and to his credit the deregulation of a lot of industries began under him. While his gullibility towards the Soviets did him no favors re: Afghanistan and Nicaragua, Iran was likely going to have a revolution anyway, and the late '70s oil spike, inflation, and downturn may have happened no matter who was at the helm. Reagan may have been better off not winning in '76 so he'd have a better chance in '80.

Timing can be a cruel mistress. Consider how unlucky Bush Sr. was that the economy didn't improve early enough for him to benefit in '92, and how fortunate Clinton was to preside over a long boom, leaving office before the next recession and getting credit for it all.

Brando said...

I'm now genuinely curious as to what sort of comments made it through prior to moderation. Besides spam, lewdness, and irrelevant comments, I can't imagine what else could have been on there.

traditionalguy said...

Goldwater and Ayn Rand had some good points, but they definitely attracted the angry twisted ones of their era. I've always wondered why. I suppose it was a spiritual thing.

TCom said...

Why not delete comments and ban posters after the fact? Are the readers of this blog so sensitive that we can't be permitted to see the crimethink?

Is it really worth destroying conversation through the wait times?

I suspect the moderation is more about protecting Althouse, and not so much about concern for the readers.

Disagree? Well, that's the natural conclusion when one merely looks at the tripe you approve. I suspect you don't allow some race baiting, while you let crack right on in.

Anthony said...

Yeah, #6 is oh-so true.

Ever wonder where all the "Question Authority" bumper stickers went? Now the mantra seems to be "How DARE you Question Authority".

Ann Althouse said...

"Why not delete comments and ban posters after the fact? Are the readers of this blog so sensitive that we can't be permitted to see the crime think?"

I don't have the ability to ban anyone. It's not part of the software here.

The moderating has nothing to do with viewpoint or even form of expression (except in the rare case of a comment with nothing substantive and pure insult).

Joseph said...

"I wonder what Goldwater would have to say about the ILLEAGLES at the border."

"We do not seek to lead anyone's life for him — we seek only to secure his rights and to guarantee him opportunity to strive, with government performing only those needed and constitutionally sanctioned tasks which cannot otherwise be performed."

hmi said...

" I went to the Republican convention with a group of scholars who were sitting in on the platform committee hearings, just to keep our eyes and ears open and see if there was anything constructive we might have to say. After a meeting where I heard Nelson Rockefeller warn about the dangers of extremism, I wrote a two-paragraph memorandum with the line about extremism in defense of liberty. Somehow that filtered up to Goldwater. Then he said he wanted his speech written around those lines."
Interview with Harry Jaffa
http://nymag.com/news/politics/elections-2012/barry-goldwater-campaign-2012-10/

Bob said...

> "Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth."

The left is always trying to immanentize the eschaton. That's the problem.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Well, I had thought repetition worked, but not here.

Comments are moderated because of a freakshow psycho posting several times per minute for hours at a time.

That would ruin the blog.

899 comments saying "penis" and 21 with a valid viewpoint means the blog comment section ceases to be read or enjoyed.

I will repeat this because lots of people still don't understand.

Comments are moderated because some people are damaged so severe they spend the bulk of their day trying to ruin this blog.

Because of these people and their warped behavior, the comments are moderated.

I see you find this difficult to comprehend.

Okay, suppose every 35 seconds, a person writes "jugs" in the comment section. They do this or 8 hours.

This would make the blog comments unreadable, so comments are moderated.

Sorry my communication skills can't impart what is happening and why. May God have mercy.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

So another example.

In this comment thread, the first four comments are from different people.

Do you see that? It's not the same commenter, it is different people.

All of the comments have a valid point, even if the host doesn't agree with the point being expressed, they are published because they are saying something, not just gibberish.

Okay, are you still with me?

So, if the comments weren't moderated, what had happened in the past is one or two people would write all the comments, and the point would be to distract and ruin the blog comments section, not contribute to the flow of narrative.

Perhaps we can start a Kickstarter campaign to raise $40K or $50K and get a committee to commence a study and document more clearly why moderation exists?

The Crack Emcee said...

traditionalguy,

"Goldwater and Ayn Rand had some good points, but they definitely attracted the angry twisted ones of their era."

As usual, and as the rest of these guys are attempting to defend our indefensible history, you grasp the obvious - exactly what damikesc's "huckster" meant.

MLK never said Goldwater was a racist. He said Goldwater created an environment hospitable to racists. This confuses whites who don't understand the country's racism. Their simplistic formulations - like the suggestion Goldwater's hiring black sales clerks (which, his defenders never mention, didn't take place without black pressure) makes up for Goldwater later refusing them the same civil rights he enjoyed - are valuable examples of how the racist status quo was perpetuated for so long. They just refuse to admit they don't get it and they're wrong.

The fact Thomas Jefferson was a racist slave owner, sleeping with a black woman, should tell them white's racism is more complicated, in practice, than they're letting on.

"His strict views on the constitution" kept him from giving blacks the full rights they were deprived of for 100 years? And to whites - even after 100 years of doing us wrong - "his strict views on the constitution" are enough to absolve him of that crime?

Even if the 14th Amendment meant nothing without it?

He was defending the perpetuation of America's constitutional scam - pretending the document was fine while it was excluding American citizens for being black - and he's your hero for paying them the minimum wage?

I'm glad to see William Chadwick admit he was "uneducated" when he fell for this malarky - you'd have to be.

"King's knowledge of,..politics,...was dumber than a bag of hammers."

- damikesc, who ought to be ashamed, to be that dumb.

Ignorance is Bliss,

"What did [Goldwater] do that allowed [racists] into the party? What power did he have to keep them out?"

The same power he had when it came to The Tea Party's precursor, The John Birch Society.

Birkel,

"The Crack Emcee advocates a political party that demands conformity of thought and pretends he's not a Democrat."

Notice how discarding white's racism is referred to, by Birkel, as eschewing "conformity of thought" - a nice euphemism. He also says acting like a Republican makes me a Democrat.

See if you can identify these types of strategies, here, being used by American racists in the past.

If you can, be sure to tell Birkel you know what he's up to,...

jr565 said...

What was true then is true today. Its so applicable it could have been written yesterday.

EMD said...

You guys should head over to Althou.se to see the really inflammatory comments!

Pookie Number 2 said...

Why are you telling me Goldwater's history? MLK said Goldwater allowed racists into the party - how did you address that? I see racists in my party now - how are you addressing that? In the same way:

The way "we" address it is by pointing out how devastatingly destructive African-Americans' blind allegiance to the Demicratic party has been. You may find it more satisfying to search for imaginary racists under the bed and to beg for money you haven't earned, but following MLK's advice has produced infinitely more Trayvon Martins than Ben Carsons. For most Americans, that's a shame. For African-Americans, it's suicidal.

stan marcus said...

Too bad Barry lost his mind as he got old. In 1980 Reagan pulled him over the finish line and Goldwater thanked him by undermining the great President later in his term. I always thought Goldwater was jealous that Reagan became the star of the 1964 campaign and the movement. Goldwater even fought against Reagan in 1968 and was w/ Ford against Reagan in 1976.

In 1996 when Goldwater chaired the Dole campaign in AZ, he complimented Hillary and said he could vote for her. Goldwater said Republicans were too hard on her.

Goldwater so incensed the GOP that they fought McCain and others who wanted to name Sky Harbor Airport after him. By the time he died, Goldwater had become what he fought in 1964.

Birkel said...

As a Native American, I have no white guilt (aka Original Sin) in The Crack Emcee's New Age, religious view. But somehow because of my well-considered political position I am a racist by osmosis if I don't accept The Crack Emcee's religion.

Please, The Crack Emcee, write down all the steps I must take to join the Church Of the Perpetually Petulant, Aggrieved and Frustrated. Must I be as racist as are you? Will I get my reparations before you since my forebears were treated worse than were yours?

If your New Age church is to gather members we must know what steps joining will take.

Capn Eddie Ricketyback said...

One of the greatest Americans who ever lived. When he was defeated by LBJ I was an Air Force pilot serving in SAC and had 12 years service. That election convinced me that I was not willing to continue serving such people in that environment, so resigned my commission to accept employment in the much safer and much better paid airline industry. Turned out to be a good decision, as I had a very nice career, during which I was able to have a nice little conversation with Senator Goldwater when he was a passenger on one of my flights.

I enjoyed that career so much that if I had ever encountered LBJ after that I'd have kissed the SOB (paraphrasing Geo. S. Patton, Jr.).

My opinion of people who elect such politicians has only been reinforced during the past 50 years, and glad I won't be around to see the final results

The Crack Emcee said...

Pookie Number 2,

"The way 'we' address it is by pointing out how devastatingly destructive African-Americans' blind allegiance to the Demicratic party has been."

Blacks just voted for Republican Thad Cochran - to the loud and open disdain of the racists infesting my party.

Now please, keep pitching, because I think I'm connecting with the ball pretty well on you,...

William said...

I've read some of the Caro books on LBJ. There was quite a lot about Johnson that was not reported on during that election. Compare that to the overwhelmingly negative flack that Goldwater had to fly through. It's a wonder any Republican ever gets elected.......Black civil rights leaders who met with LBJ claimed that he treated them with respect and dignity. Per the Caro book, LBJ treated his black personal servants like shit. I've never read a biography of Goldwater, but the guess here is that Goldwater treated his subordinates, off all races, with a good deal more tact than LBJ.......Eisenhower had a far better record on civil rights than Stevenson and even, arguably, than Truman. He never won the black vote.....W.E. Dubois endorsed Woodrow Wilson, a militant white supremacist, in the 1916 election. The New Deal coalition consisted of northern blacks and southern segregationists......If black leaders were acute and sagacious in pursuing the interests of black people, we would see black Americans as illegal immigrants to Africa and the West Indies rather than the other way around.

Michael K said...

" I see racists in my party now - how are you addressing that? In the same way:"

You see racists everywhere. There's medicine for that.

I assume you still haven't read it .

Smilin' Jack said...

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Comments are moderated because of a freakshow psycho posting several times per minute for hours at a time.


So how come you can post an explanation and she can't, hmmm?

I still think she's hiding the good stuff.

Gary Rosen said...

Most amazing thing to me is that he talked about computers in 1964.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Blacks just voted for Republican Thad Cochran - to the loud and open disdain of the racists infesting my party.

Actually, they voted for Thad Cochran because they believe, as do you, that African-Americans can't succeed on their own, and therefore they need someone to bring home the pork.

You're entitled to this belief in African-American incompetence, I suppose. I don't share it - I think that once African-Americans focus on their responsibilities, they'll be successful.

William Chadwick said...

Our resident Rhodes Scholar, Uncle Crack (faux-Republican and faithful servant of the Hive's plantation( wrote in response to my post:

"I'm glad to see William Chadwick admit he was 'uneducated when he 'fell for this malarky - you'd have to be."

And by "malarky," he means "liberty."

Genius that you are, U. C., you missed my point that that was the START of my education--at least my education in liberty. When I was uneducated I drifted toward socialism. I'm curious, Uncle Crack, could you put down the water you're hauing for the State and explain how educated you have to be before you come to the conclusion liberty is malarkey but collectivism is the bee's knees? I've had my doubts about your amount of education (I'm figuring "Black Studies," i.e., "No Studies," with enough DeVry to use a computer), but obviously you have been "educated" (i.e., brainwashed) to think our lives and property belong to Massa State. But if education were the hallmark of wanting to be buggered by Big Brother, why are so many of the new-generation Left
so stupid and historically and philosophically illiterate?

Drago said...

Crack: "Now please, keep pitching, because I think I'm connecting with the ball pretty well on you,..."

LOL

Oh, there is no question at all that you do think that.

Matt said...

Goldwater. One of the few Republicans who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Because of that vote he went on to win Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, a Deep South bloc that hadn't gone Republican since Reconstruction. I'm not sure how Goldwater is anyone's hero.

The Crack Emcee said...

Pookie Number 2,

"Actually, they voted for Thad Cochran because they believe, as do you, that white people can't admit when they've been handily proven wrong by a black man online."

"Blind allegiance to the Demicratic party"?

Please. I keep telling y'all blacks have a blind allegiance to one party:

Blacks getting justice.

White folks on the left and right are just being white folks. Your idiotic, asinine, misguided, unhelpful, time-and-money-wasting, partisan bullshit don't matter to nobody but you.

I say that all the time as well.

But whites don't listen. And (woo-woo) believe what they want to believe,...

The Crack Emcee said...

Michael K,

"You see racists everywhere."

Why? Because I nail you? Please:

Didn't call the Pope a racist.
Didn't call Weird Al Yankovich a racist.
Didn't call Brian Eno a racist.
Didn't call Paul McCartney a racist.
Didn't call John Boehner a racist.
Didn't call Bette Midler a racist.
Didn't call Joan Jett a racist.
Didn't call Bill Nye, The Science Guy a racist.

Am I getting through yet?

The Crack Emcee said...

William Chadwick,

"Our resident Rhodes Scholar, Uncle Crack (faux-Republican and faithful servant of the Hive's plantation,.."

Tell the truth - When did the memo go out that all the white supremacists, at the same time, were going to start saying blacks are on the [place name here] "plantation" if we oppose you? It couldn't have been long ago, because y'all just started really saying that shit - we used to just be race-mixing communist infiltrators.

"By 'malarky,' [Crack] means 'liberty.'

By 1964, America had been around for almost 200 years - without it's black citizens enjoying your precious "liberty" - so, please, excuse me if I laugh at the idea of "educated" white you not understanding it, until then, either.

"Genius that you are, U. C., you missed my point that that was the START of my education--at least my education in liberty."

My education in liberty started by talking to people who fled slavery - I was a child.

"When I was uneducated I drifted toward socialism."

You sound like a drifter.

"I'm curious, Uncle Crack, could you put down the water you're hauing for the State and explain how educated you have to be before you come to the conclusion liberty is malarkey but collectivism is the bee's knees?"

As educated as those taken as slaves - together.

Who made the Middle Passage - together.

And then suffered for 275 years under whites - together.

And then started escaping slavery - together.

Then got 12 years of freedom after the war - together.

But then we had to endure Jim Crow - together.

But then escaped Jim Crow - together.

And were segregated by whites - together.

Before killing Jim Crow - together.

And now going for justice - together.

That's how smart you have to be.

"I've had my doubts about your amount of education (I'm figuring "Black Studies," i.e., "No Studies," with enough DeVry to use a computer), but obviously you have been "educated" (i.e., brainwashed) to think our lives and property belong to Massa State."

The people who raised me were slaves and sharecroppers. They told me enough.

"But if education were the hallmark of wanting to be buggered by Big Brother, why are so many of the new-generation Left so stupid and historically and philosophically illiterate?"

That's funny, coming from a guy who claims he knew liberty - at a time when his fellow black citizens had little-to-no access to it - educated?

Buddy, you're so far behind - like blacks with wealth after the white slavery power grab - your dumb ass may never catch up,...

Pookie Number 2 said...

But whites don't listen.

Actually, some do, some don't - it pretty much depends on whether the speaker has anything of value to say.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Please. I keep telling y'all blacks have a blind allegiance to one party:

Blacks getting justice.


Which is the situation we're in now. African-Americans with talent and drive - say, Oprah, or Ben Carson, or any of the thousands of doctors and lawyers and plumbers and electricians that are willing to take responsibility for themselves - succeed. African-Americans that are lazy and irresponsible do not. Just like everyone else.

I don't know you, but your persistent begging for money and silly comments about 'whites' don't reflect a desire for justice - they reflect a desire for charity.