U.S. Election GOLDWATER: MILESTONE OR MILLSTONE FOR REPUBLICANS?

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30469, 17 June 1964, Page 16

U.S. Election GOLDWATER: MILESTONE OR MILLSTONE FOR REPUBLICANS?

(By ALIX FAULKNERI (Reprinted from the "Daitp Telegraph," London, bp arrangement J Senator Barry Morris Goldwater,.aged 55, the likeable conservative from Arizona who is heartily disliked by so many of his fellow-nepubli-cans has already described his startling success in the Calfornia primary election as “a milestone in American political history.” If he goes on to win his party’s Presidential nomination in San Francisco less than six weeks} from today, which he now has a very good chance of doing, it may well become a milestone on which the party will be wrecked. . •

That* at least is the feeling of its more liberal leaders, as they examine the implications of the California vote and search frantically fbr a stratagem to “stop Goldwater.” They are not at all responsive to the suggestion that the conservatives, primarily from, the Middle West, who were repeatedly foiled in their attempts to 'make the late Senator Taft the ' leader, should be given an opportunity once and for all to .find out whether they have something to Offer that would appeal to the majority of Americans. “Suicidal Course” The “New York Times,” which follows an independent line, takes the view that the nomination of Mr Goldwater “would be as tragic for the country as it would be for the Republican party. The nation cannot "afford to see the Republicans slide into such a suicidal course.” A stalwart Republican newspaper, the “New York Herald Tribune,” takes a more gen-

erous view; “We didn’t want him to win. We don’t pretend we are happy that he did. But we salute him for it.”

The “Washington Post” takes the practical view that since he represents an essentially minority faction on the Right wing of the party he remains, in spite of' his success in the Golden State, “a fringe candidate who has little chance of winning the votes of independents and of many Republican moderates.” •All this- must .confuse foreign observers, if to average Republicans' he is a Frankenstein monster (“vote for Dracula—he’ll bring new bipod to California” was one of the anti-Goldwater signs I saw here), if many Republicans who will be running (as they do in America) for office in .November believe, as they do, that having him on the ticket will carry them down to defeat, why is it supposed that 1308 delegates who are gathering in San Francisco next month will nominate him?

In other places the explanation might be that as an ultra-nationalist, with a Hitlerian belief in the family virtues and a Parkinsonian abhorrence of bureaucracy, he was rising on the horizon as a ne i Caesar. But Senator Goldwater has none of the usual qualities of dictators. Personally he is the most modest and sincere of men.

He has an undictatorish sense of humour. He shudders at the excesses of such supporters as members of the John Birch Society. He is handsome, charming and witty. It is true that he preaches a gospel with a strong appeal to overlooked men. He dis-

likes the Welfare State, and so do a good many of his fellow-countrymen, not realising how thoroughly they have embraced it, but that is a liability in the big cities which have come to depend on Federal largesse. He is horrified by the central Government’s ever-growing spending power, and the influence it exercises, for example on education. As a second generation American he appeals to the melting-pot side. And as a patriot (I must have watched him a dozen times pledging allegiance to the flag, that -curious feature of American political rallies) he feels deeply that American power is being allowed to wither away, and that the United States is not exercising its proper authority in the world—especially vis-a-vis the Communists. Public Response All these elements in his philosophy, .which is expressed in curious and often contradictory ways (he frequently modifies his positions, or complains that he has been misquoted or misunderstood), strike responsive notes in the hearts of Americans' of immensely varied backgrounds. In some obscure way they feel that here is a man who can break the shackles and banish the frustrations of modern industrial and international society, and give the country a strong, clear lead. His very obscurity on many points wins support from all sorts of people who disagree violently with one. another. .

“I don’t apologise for being a Conservative,” he once said. “I' can remember when ‘Conservative’ and ‘Mother’ were clean words.” It doesn’t mean much, but it sounds good. Yet with all his enthusiasm for conservatism, of which many a sound British Conservative would approve, he is a man of his century. A major-general in the Air Force Reserve he still loves to get his hands on a fast jet He is a. radio ham, and his £50,000 hom •* outside Phoenix is full of electronic gadgets. One of them raises the Stars and Stripes at sunrise and lowers it at sunset. He is a keen and able photographer. And he lacks pomposity. “I was born in a log cabin,” he said in one speech, tongue in cheek, “which I had moved to Phoenix and, except for some air conditioning, a swimming pool, a bowling alley, a bar, a shooting range, and a golf course, it remains the simple log cabin it always was.” Everyone likes Barry Goldwater personally, but it is not the “I like Ike” kind of sentiment. A great many feel that he is not the sort of man who should be President, if only because of his impulsiveness. Very few believe that he ever will be, even if he is nominated, because President Johnson’s re-election in November is taken for granted. Candidates Prejudiced

Why then are so many Republicans averse to the idea of having Goldwater as their candidate? There is the fear that he would hurt other Republican candidates. There is the fear that, as the nominee, he would gain control of the party machinery and influence the directi-1. the party takes for another four years, or longer. And there is the seldom-mentioned fear that if President Johnson died before the election (he suffered a major heart attack in- 1955) and if Goldwater were leading the Republicans he taight -get elected. ."Should • Goldwater lose [the election] but run a strong race” writes the able* Washington correspondent of the Liberal “New York Post,”. William Shannon, '•‘this would impair American prestige in the world because it would

dangerously shake foreign confidence in the judgment and dependability of the American electorate.” Among those who share tliis. alarm is the columnist Walter - Uppmann, America, he says, cannot “afford the tom-toms and the flagpolesitting which he substitutes for serious consideration of the terrible issues of peace knd war.”

. But the hour is very late for a “Stop Goldwater” manoeuvre. With Governor Rockefeller discredited, and Henry Cabot Lodge almost surely eliminated, with Richard Nixop's regarded by many as a tattered standard to which they would rather not repair, the obvious “non-candidate” on whom all hopes of compromise are now pinned is Governor Scranton of Pennsylvania. Convention Tactics As anyone knows who has ever attended an American political convention, or read the best-selling novel “Convention,” by Fletcher Knebel and Charles Bailey, anything can happen when members of the party hierarchy start applying pressure to get what they want and unmentionable bargains are struck in smokefilled rooms. But Senator Goldwater already claims 454 "publicly committed” convention votes out of the 655 he needs, and he intimates that under various private understandings the total is not far short of the 600 mark. His California win, creating a band-waggon psychology, will influence many doubters, and in 16 State conventions to be held before the end of June 331 delegates will be chosen. The Goldwater forces are stepping up the pressure wherever uncommitted delegates are to be found and wherever delegates are still to be elected or appointed. Everything the Senator says from now on will he watched by friend and foe alike. Wil) he continue to move in the direction of the “moderation” advocated by General Eisenhower in his recent statement on the ideal Republican? Will he succeed in his efforts to win over Republican leaders to whom his candidacy has hitherto been anathema? Will he avoid the dangerous habit of shooting from the hip, which characterised him in the New Hampshire primary (he is now much more cautious about answering reporters’ questions) and of throwing off Suggestions that nuclear weapons might be used in South Vietnam, or that the Communist supply lines there should be attacked inside China?

It Will be surprising if he does not. He believes he has the nomination almost in his grasp and he will certainly be careful.

The Democrats hope, of course, that he will make it. They regard him as the ideal opponent. Already they are using the gibe “Goldwater in 1964; hot water in 1965; bread and water in 1966.”

Thls summary of the confusing position in the Republican Party was written in Los Angeles on June 6 by Alex Faulkner of the “Daily Telegraph,” London.’