Podcasts about Barry Goldwater

Send us a textFrank Lavin served under Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush in positions as varied as personnel, national security, international trade negotiations, Ambassador to Singapore, among others. In this conversation, we discuss his 8+ years in the Reagan White House from 1981-1989 - which is chronicled in his recent book Inside the Reagan White House. In the Reagan White House, he wore several different hats, was in hundreds of meetings with President Reagan, worked alongside some of the most influential administration officials - culminating in his stint as White House Political Director during the 1988 elections.IN THIS EPISODEFrank grows up in small-town Ohio in a tensely political time...Frank talks the establishment vs. conservative sparring in the GOP of the 1970s...Frank's early campaign activities in the late 70s and working for an IE backing Reagan as a college student in 1980...An important political lesson Frank learned from James Baker in Baker's 1978 race for Texas Attorney General...Memories of how Jim Baker ran the Reagan White House as Chief of Staff...How Reagan borrowed from FDR to become a powerful political communicator...How Reagan led the White House in meetings behind closer doors...Frank's first White House job of letting unsuccessful job applicants down easy...How the White House was a tug-of-war between "true believers" and "pragmatists"...Memories of his time at the Office of Public Liasion and how the President would "freeze" the first 10 minutes of a meeting...The 1984 Democratic challenger the White House was most worried about and how Reagan bounced back from a bad '82 midterm to win an '84 landslide...The difference in "desk truth" and "street truth"...How Reagan staffer Mike Deaver fundamentally changed the way a White House handles presidential travel...Frank's time as a White House national security staffer negotiating with the Soviets and spending time with President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher at Camp David...Frank demystifies his role as White House Political Director during the 1988 elections...The origin of the famous Reagan "11th Commandment" maxim...How Reagan initially won - and successfully held - the voters who came to be known as "Reagan Democrats"...Frank's memories of being around President George H.W. Bush...The low point of Frank's time in the Reagan White House...Quick memories from Frank of prominent figures including Karl Rove, Colin Powell, Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, Roger Stone, and Pat Buchanan...AND Al Haig Disease, Lee Atwater, Jimmy Carter, George Christopher, Bill Clinton, creative tension, Peter DelGiorno, Terry Dolan, Tony Dolan, Frank Donatelli, Mike Dukakis, exotic tendencies, the FEC, fireside chats, forced marriages, force multipliers, Gerald Ford, John Glenn, Barry Goldwater, Mikhail Gorbachev, Bob Haldeman, Warren Harding, Kamala Harris, Gary Hart, hatchet men, horizontal management, LBJ, jelly beans, Dick Lyng, Paul Manafort, Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Ed Meese, Walter Mondale, Brian Mulroney, Daniel Murphy, Ed Muskie, NCPAC, neutral recapitulations, the New Left, non sequiturs, Oliver North, John Poindexter, the Reykjavik Summit, Stu Spencer, Robert Taft, Donald Trump, Bob Weed, George Wortley...& more!

I've been in London this week talking to America watchers about the current situation in the United States. First up is Edmund Fawcett, the longtime Economist correspondent in DC and historian of both liberalism and conservatism. Fawcett argues that Trump's MAGA movement represents a kind of third way between liberalism and conservatism - a version of American populism resurrected for our anti-globalist early 21st century. He talks about how economic inequality fuels Trumpism, with middle-class income shares dropping while the wealthy prosper. He critiques both what he calls right-wing intellectual "kitsch" and the left's lack of strategic vision beyond its dogma of identity politics. Lacking an effective counter-narrative to combat Trumpism, Fawcett argues, liberals require not only sharper messaging but also a reinvention of what it means to be modern in our globalized age of resurrected nationalism. 5 Key Takeaways* European reactions to Trump mix shock with recognition that his politics have deep American roots.* Economic inequality (declining middle-class wealth) provides the foundation for Trump's political appeal.* The American left lacks an effective counter-narrative and strategic vision to combat Trumpism.* Both right-wing intellectualism and left-wing identity politics suffer from forms of "kitsch" and American neurosis.* The perception of America losing its position as the embodiment of modernity creates underlying anxiety. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, we are in London this week, looking westward, looking at the United States, spending some time with some distinguished Englishmen, or half-Englishmen, who have spent a lot of their lives in the United States, and Edmund Fawcett, former Economist correspondent in America, the author of a number of important books, particularly, Histories of Liberalism and Conservatism, is remembering America, Edmund. What's your first memory of America?Edmund Fawcett: My first memory of America is a traffic accident on Park Avenue, looking down as a four-year-old from our apartment. I was there from the age of two to four, then again as a school child in Washington for a few years when my father was working. He was an international lawyer. But then, after that, back in San Francisco, where I was a... I kind of hacked as an editor for Straight Arrow Press, which was the publishing arm of Rolling Stone. This was in the early 70s. These were the, it was the end of the glory days of Haight-Ashbury, San Francisco, the anti-war movement in Vietnam. It was exciting. A lot was going on, a lot was changing. And then not long after that, I came back to the U.S. for The Economist as their correspondent in Washington. That was in 1976, and I stayed there until 1983. We've always visited. Our son and grandson are American. My wife is or was American. She gave up her citizenship last year, chiefly for practical reasons. She said I would always feel American. But our regular visits have ended, of course. Being with my background, my mother was American, my grandfather was American. It is deeply part of my outlook, it's part of my world and so I am always very interested. I read quite a bit of the American press, not just the elite liberal press, every day. I keep an eye on through Real Clear Politics, which has got a very good sort of gazetteer. It's part of my weather.Andrew Keen: Edmund, I know you can't speak on behalf of Europe, but I'm going to ask a dumb question. Maybe you'll give me a smarter answer than the question. What's the European, the British take on what's happening in America? What's happened in this first quarter of 2025?Edmund Fawcett: I think a large degree of shock and horror, that's just the first reaction. If you'll allow me a little space, I think then there's a second reaction. The first reaction is shock and terror, with good reason, and nobody likes being talked to in the way that Vance talked to them, ignorantly and provocatively about free speech, which he feels he hasn't really thought hard enough about, and besides, it was I mean... Purely commercial, in largely commercial interest. The Europeans are shocked by the American slide from five, six, seven decades of internationalism. Okay, American-led, but still internationalist, cooperative, they're deeply shocked by that. And anybody who cares, as many Europeans do, about the texture, the caliber of American democracy and liberalism, are truly shocked by Trump's attacks on the courts, his attacks on the universities, his attack on the press.Andrew Keen: You remember, of course, Edmund, that famous moment in Casablanca where the policeman said he was shocked, truly shocked when of course he wasn't. Is your shock for real? Your... A good enough scholar of the United States to understand that a lot of the stuff that Trump is bringing to the table isn't new. We've had an ongoing debate in the show about how authentically American Trump is, whether he is the F word fascist or whether he represents some other indigenous strain in US political culture. What's your take?Edmund Fawcett: No, and that's the response to the shock. It's when you look back and see this Trump is actually deeply American. There's very little new here. There's one thing that is new, which I'll come to in a moment, and that returns the shock, but the shock is, is to some extent absorbed when Europeans who know about this do reflect that Trump is deeply American. I mean, there is a, he likes to cite McKinley, good, okay, the Republicans were the tariff party. He likes to say a lot of stuff that, for example, the populist Tom Watson from the South, deeply racist, but very much speaking for the working man, so long as he was a white working man. Trump goes back to that as well. He goes back in the presidential roster. Look at Robert Taft, competitor for the presidency against Eisenhower. He lost, but he was a very big voice in the Republican Party in the 1940s and 50s. Robert Taft, Jr. didn't want to join NATO. He pushed through over Truman's veto, the Taft-Hartley bill that as good as locked the unions out, the trade unions out of much of the part of America that became the burgeoning economic America, the South and the West. Trump is, sorry, forgive me, Taft, was in many ways as a hard-right Republican. Nixon told Kissinger, professors are the enemy. Reagan gave the what was it called? I forget the name of the speech that he gave in endorsing Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican Convention. This in a way launched the new Republican assault on liberal republicanism. Rockefeller was the loser. Reagan, as it were, handed the palm to Rocket Goldwater. He lost to Johnson, but the sermon they were using, the anti-liberal went into vernacular and Trump is merely in a way echoing that. If you were to do a movie called Trump, he would star, of course, but somebody who was Nixon and Reagan's scriptwright, forgive me, somebody who is Nixon and Reagan's Pressman, Pat Buchanan, he would write the script of the Trump movie. Go back and read, look at some of Pat Buchanan's books, some of his articles. He was... He said virtually everything that Trump says. America used to be great, it is no longer great. America has enemies outside that don't like it, that we have nothing to do with, we don't need allies, what we want is friends, and we have very few friends in the world. We're largely on our, by our own. We're basically a huge success, but we're being betrayed. We're being ignored by our allies, we're being betrayed by friends inside, and they are the liberal elite. It's all there in Pat Buchanan. So Trump in that way is indeed very American. He's very part of the history. Now, two things. One is... That Trump, like many people on the hard right in Europe, is to some extent, a neurotic response to very real complaints. If you would offer a one chart explanation of Trumpism, I don't know whether I can hold it up for the camera. It's here. It is actually two charts, but it is the one at the top where you see two lines cross over. You see at the bottom a more or less straight line. What this does is compare the share of income in 1970 with the share of the income more or less now. And what has happened, as we are not at all surprised to learn, is that the poor, who are not quite a majority but close to the actual people in the United States, things haven't changed for them much at all. Their life is static. However, what has changed is the life for what, at least in British terms, is called the middle classes, the middle group. Their share of income and wealth has dropped hugely, whereas the share of the income and wealth of the top has hugely risen. And in economic terms, that is what Trumpism is feeding off. He's feeding off a bewildered sense of rage, disappointment, possibly envy of people who looked forward, whose parents looked forward to a great better life, who they themselves got a better life. They were looking forward to one for their children and grandchildren. And now they're very worried that they're not those children and grandchildren aren't going to get it. So socially speaking, there is genuine concern, indeed anger that Trump is speaking to. Alas, Trump's answers are, I would say, and I think many Europeans would agree, fantasies.Andrew Keen: Your background is also on the left, your first job was at the New Left Reviews, you're all too familiar with Marxist language, Marxist literature, ways of thinking about what we used to call late-stage capitalism, maybe we should rename it post-late-stage-capitalism. Is it any surprise, given your presentation of the current situation in America, which is essentially class envy or class warfare, but the right. The Bannonites and many of the others on the right fringes of the MAGA movement have picked up on Lenin and Gramsci and the old icons of class warfare.Edmund Fawcett: No, I don't think it is. I think that they are these are I mean, we live in a world in which the people in politics and in the press in business, they've been to universities, they've read an awful lot of books, they spend an awful lot of time studying dusty old books like the ones you mentioned, Gramsci and so. So they're, to some extent, forgive me, they are, they're intellectuals or at least they become, they be intellectualized. Lenin called one of his books, What is to be Done. Patrick Deneen, a Catholic right-wing Catholic philosopher. He's one of the leading right-wing Catholic intellectuals of the day, hard right. He named it What is To Be Done. But this is almost kitsch, as it were, for a conservative Catholic intellectual to name a book after Vladimir Lenin, the first Bolshevik leader of the Russian Revolution. Forgive me, I lost the turn.Andrew Keen: You talk about kitsch, Edmund, is this kitsch leftism or is it real leftism? I mean if Trump was Bernie Sanders and a lot of what Trump says is not that different from Sanders with the intellectuals or the few intellectuals left in. New York and San Francisco and Los Angeles, would they be embracing what's happening? Thanks, I've got the third again.Edmund Fawcett: No, you said Kitsch. The publicists and intellectuals who support Trump, there is a Kitsch element to it. They use a lot of long words, they appeal to a lot of authorities. Augustine of Hippo comes into it. This is really kind of intellectual grandstanding. No, what matters? And this comes to the second thing about shock at Trump. The second thing is that there is real social and economic dysfunction here that the United States isn't really coping with. I don't think the Trumpites, I don't think the rather kitschy intellectuals who are his mature leaders. I don't think they so much matter. What I think matters here is, put it this way, is the silence of the left. And this is one of the deep problems. I mean, always with my friends, progressive friends, liberal friends, it's terribly easy to throw rocks at Trump and scorn his cheerleaders but we always have to ask ourselves why are they there and we're here and the left at the moment doesn't really have an answer to that. The Democrats in the United States they're strangely silent. And it's not just, as many people say, because they haven't dared to speak up. It's not that, it's a question of courage. It's an intellectual question of lacking some strategic sense of where the country is and what kinds of policy would help get it to a better place. This is very bleak, and that's part of, underlies the sense of shock, which we come back to with Trump after we tell ourselves, oh, well, it isn't new, and so on. The sense of shock is, well what is the practical available alternative for the moment? Electorally, Trump is quite weak, he wasn't a landslide, he got fewer percentage than Jimmy Carter did. The balance in the in the congress is quite is quite slight but again you could take false comfort there. The problem with liberals and progressives is they don't really have a counter narrative and one of the reasons they don't have a counter-narrative is I don't sense they have any longer a kind of vision of their own. This is a very bleak state of affairs.Andrew Keen: It's a bleak state of affairs in a very kind of surreal way. They're lacking the language. They don't have the words. Do they need to reread the old New Left classics?Edmund Fawcett: I think you've said a good thing. I mean, words matter tremendously. And this is one of Trump's gifts, is that he's able to spin old tropes of the right, the old theme music of the hard right that goes back to late 19th century America, late 19th century Europe. He's brilliant at it. It's often garbled. It's also incoherent. But the intellectuals, particularly liberals and progressives can mishear this. They can miss the point. They say, ah, it doesn't, it's not grammatical. It's incoherent. It is word salad. That's not the point. A paragraph of Trump doesn't make sense. If you were an editor, you'd want to rewrite it, but editors aren't listening. It's people in the crowd who get his main point, and his main point is always expressed verbally. It's very clever. It's hard to reproduce because he's actually a very good actor. However, the left at the moment has nothing. It has neither a vocabulary nor a set of speech makers. And the reason it doesn't have that, it doesn't have the vocabularies, because it doesn't have the strategic vision.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and coming back to the K-word you brought up, kitsch. If anything, the kitsch is on the left with Kamala Harris and her presentation of herself in this kitschification of American immigration. So the left in America, if that's the right word to describe them, are as vulnerable to kitsch as the right.Edmund Fawcett: Yes, and whether it's kitsch or not, I think this is very difficult to talk to on the progressive left. Identity politics does have a lot to answer for. Okay, I'll go for it. I mean, it's an old saying in politics that things begin as a movement, become a campaign, become a lobby, and then end up as a racket. That's putting it much too strongly, but there is an element in identity politics of which that is true. And I think identity politics is a deep problem for liberals, it's a deep problem for progressives because in the end, what identity politics offers is a fragmentation, which is indeed happened on the left, which then the right can just pick off as it chooses. This is, I think, to get back some kind of strategic vision, the left needs to come out of identity politics, it needs to go back to the vision of commonality, the vision of non-discrimination, the mission of true civic equality, which underlay civil rights, great movement, and try to avoid. The way that identity politics is encouraged, a kind of segmentation. There's an interesting parallel between identity politics and Trumpism. I'm thinking of the national element in Trumpism, Make America Great Again. It's rather a shock to see the Secretary of State sitting beside Trump in the room in the White House with a make America it's not a make America great cap but it says Gulf of America this kind of This nationalism is itself neurotic in a way that identity politics has become neurotic.Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's a Linguistic.Edmund Fawcett: Neurosis. Both are neurotic responses to genuine problems.Andrew Keen: Edmund, long-time viewers and listeners to the show know that I often quote you in your wonderful two histories of conservatism and liberalism when you, I'm not sure which of the books, I think it may have been in conservatism. I can't remember myself. You noted that this struggle between the left and the right, between liberalism and conservatives have always be smarter they've always made the first move and it's always been up to the liberals and of course liberalism and the left aren't always the same thing but the left or progressives have always been catching up with conservatives so just to ask this question in terms of this metaphorical chess match has anything changed. It's always been the right that makes the first move, that sets the game up. It has recently.Edmund Fawcett: Let's not fuss too much with the metaphor. I think it was, as it were, the Liberals made the first move for decades, and then, more or less in our lifetimes, it has been the right that has made the weather, and the left has been catching up. Let's look at what happened in the 1970s. In effect. 30-40 years of welfare capitalism in which the state played ever more of a role in providing safety nets for people who were cut short by a capitalistic economy. Politics turned its didn't entirely reject that far from it but it is it was said enough already we've reached an end point we're now going to turn away from that and try to limit the welfare state and that has been happening since the 1970s and the left has never really come up with an alternative if you look at Mitterrand in France you look at Tony Blair new Labor in you look at Clinton in the United States, all of them in effect found an acceptably liberal progressive way of repackaging. What the right was doing and the left has got as yet no alternative. They can throw rocks at Trump, they can resist the hard right in Germany, they can go into coalition with the Christian Democrats in order to resist the hard right much as in France but they don't really have a governing strategy of their own. And until they do, it seems to me, and this is the bleak vision, the hard right will make the running. Either they will be in government as they are in the United States, or they'll be kept just out of government by unstable coalitions of liberal conservatives and the liberal left.Andrew Keen: So to quote Patrick Deneen, what is to be done is the alternative, a technocracy, the best-selling book now on the New York Times bestseller list is Ezra Klein, Derek Thompson's Abundance, which is a progressive. Technocratic manifesto for changing America. It's not very ideological. Is that really the only alternative for the left unless it falls into a Bernie Sanders-style anti-capitalism which often is rather vague and problematic?Edmund Fawcett: Well, technocracy is great, but technocrats never really get to do what they say ought to be done, particularly not in large, messy democracies like Europe and the United States. Look, it's a big question. If I had a Leninist answer to Patrick Deneen's question, what is to be done, I'd be very happy to give it. I feel as somebody on the liberal left that the first thing the liberal left needs to do is to is two things. One is to focus in exposing the intellectual kitschiness, the intellectual incoherence on the one hand of the hard right, and two, hitting back in a popular way, in a vulgar way, if you will, at the lies, misrepresentations, and false appeals that the hard-right coasts on. So that's really a kind of public relations. It's not deep strategy or technocracy. It is not a policy list. It's sharpening up the game. Of basically of democratic politics and they need to liberals on the left need to be much tougher much sharper much more vulgar much more ready to use the kinds of weapons the kinds of mockery and imaginative invention that the Trumpites use that's the first thing the second thing is to take a breath and go back and look at the great achievements of democratic liberalism of the 1950s, 60s, 70s if you will. I mean these were these produced in Europe and the United States societies that by any historical standard are not bad. They have terrible problems, terrible inequities, but by any historical standard and indeed by any comparative standard, they're not bad if you ask yourself why immigration has become such a problem in Western Europe and the United States, it's because these are hugely desirable places to live in, not just because they're rich and make a comfortable living, which is the sort of the rights attitude, because basically they're fairly safe places to live. They're fairly good places for your kids to grow up in. All of these are huge achievements, and it seems to me that the progressives, the liberals, should look back and see how much work was needed to create... The kinds of politics that underpinned that society, and see what was good, boast of what was and focus on how much work was needed.Andrew Keen: Maybe rather than talking about making America great again, it should be making America not bad. I think that's too English for the United States. I don't think that should be for a winner outside Massachusetts and Maine. That's back to front hypocritical Englishism. Let's end where we began on a personal note. Do you think one of the reasons why Trump makes so much news, there's so much bemusement about him around the world, is because most people associate America with modernity, they just take it for granted that America is the most advanced, the most modern, is the quintessential modern project. So when you have a character like Trump, who's anti-modernist, who is a reactionary, It's bewildering.Edmund Fawcett: I think it is bewildering, and I think there's a kind of bewilderment underneath, which we haven't really spoken to as it is an entirely other subject, but is lurking there. Yes, you put your absolutely right, you put your finger on it, a lot of us look to America as modernity, maybe not the society of the future, but certainly the the culture of the future, the innovations of the future. And I think one of the worrying things, which maybe feeds the neurosis of Make America Great Again, feeds the neurosis, of current American unilateralism, is a fear But modernity, talk like Hegel, has now shifted and is now to be seen in China, India and other countries of the world. And I think underlying everything, even below the stuff that we showed in the chart about changing shares of wealth. I think under that... That is much more worrisome in the United States than almost anything else. It's the sense that the United States isn't any longer the great modern world historical country. It's very troubling, but let's face it, you get have to get used to it.Andrew Keen: The other thing that's bewildering and chilling is this seeming coexistence of technological innovation, the Mark Andreessen's, the the Musk's, Elon Musk's of the world, the AI revolution, Silicon Valley, who seem mostly in alliance with Trump and Musk of course are headed out. The Doge campaign to destroy government or undermine government. Is it conceivable that modernity is by definition, you mentioned Hegel and of course lots of people imagine that history had ended in 1989 but the reverse was true. Is it possible that modernity is by-definition reactionary politically?Edmund Fawcett: A tough one. I mean on the technocracy, the technocrats of Silicon Valley, I think one of their problems is that they're brilliant, quite brilliant at making machines. I'm the machinery we're using right here. They're fantastic. They're not terribly good at. Messy human beings and messy politics. So I'm not terribly troubled by that, nor your other question about it is whether looming challenges of technology. I mean, maybe I could just end with the violinist, Fritz Kreisler, who said, I was against the telegraph, I was against the telephone, I was against television. I'm a progressive when it comes to technology. I'm always against the latest thing. I mean, I don't, there've always been new machines. I'm not terribly troubled by that. It seems to me, you know, I want you to worry about more immediate problems. If indeed AI is going to take over the world, my sense is, tell us when we get there.Andrew Keen: And finally, you were half-born in the United States or certainly from an American and British parent. You spent a lot of your life there and you still go, you follow it carefully. Is it like losing a lover or a loved one? Is it a kind of divorce in your mind with what's happening in America in terms of your own relations with America? You noted that your wife gave up her citizenship this year.Edmund Fawcett: Well, it is. And if I could talk about Natalia, my wife, she was much more American than me. Her mother was American from Philadelphia. She lived and worked in America more than I did. She did give up her American citizenship last year, partly for a feeling of, we use a long word, alienation, partly for practical reasons, not because we're anything like rich enough to pay American tax, but simply the business of keeping up with the changing tax code is very wary and troublesome. But she said, as she did it, she will always feel deeply American, and I think it's possible to say that. I mean, it's part of both of us, and I don't think...Andrew Keen: It's loseable. Well, I have to ask this question finally, finally. Maybe I always use that word and it's never final. What does it mean to feel American?Edmund Fawcett: Well, everybody's gonna have their own answer to that. I was just... What does it mean for you? I'm just reading. What it is to feel American. Can I dodge the question by saying, what is it to feel Californian? Or even what is to be Los Angelino? Where my sister-in-law and brother-in-law live. A great friend said, what it is feel Los Angeles you go over those mountains and you put down your rucksack. And I think what that means is for Europeans, America has always meant leaving the past behind.Edmund Fawcett was the Economist‘s Washington, Paris and Berlin correspondent and is a regular reviewer. His Liberalism: The Life of an Idea was published by Princeton in 2014. The second in his planned political trilogy – Conservatism: The Fight for a Tradition – was published in 2020, also by Princeton University Press. The Economist called it ‘an epic history of conservatism and the Financial Times praised Fawcett for creating a ‘rich and wide-ranging account' that demonstrates how conservatism has repeated managed to renew itself.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Chris and Sean begin march down musical memory lane remembering past concerts of U2, REM, Echo and the Bunnymen, RUSH, and REO Speedwagon on an everything 80's music rant - before remembering an esteemed member of the Arizona congressional delegation - Andy Biggs - is an accomplished musician. Andy is also leading Karin Taylor Robson by some 30 or 40 points in the Republican primary for Governor of Arizona - depending on what polls you look at - and was recently endorsed by President Trump - further complicating Karin's path to victory. Karin, meanwhile, was suspiciously absent at the Arizona Chamber Update from Capitol Hill Luncheon - which included Congressman Biggs, along with Juan Ciscomani, Eli Crane and Abe Hamadeh. AND, we can finally answer the question of #WhereIsMarkKelly? He attended the Update along with Arizona junior Senator Ruben Gallego to prove to the audience that the policies and politics of business and trade are not their strong suits. Chris and Sean remember the mentorship and fortitude of former Congressman Bob Stump and continue to marvel at his former Chief of Staff, Lisa Atkins, to whom they owe much for their love and understanding of politics. In fact, Arizona owes much to an Arizona delegation that has historically punched above it's weight with giant figures like Ernest McFarland, Barry Goldwater, John Rhodes, Mo Udall, John McCain and John Kyl. Regardless of our differences, the better angels of our delegation have always looked out for Arizona. #MustListen Follow Light Beer Dark Money on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LightBeerDarkMoney/ Follow Light Beer Dark Money on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lightbeerdarkmoney/ Follow Light Beer Dark Money on Twitter: https://twitter.com/LBDMshow Follow Light Beer Dark Money on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/light-beer-dark-money/ Link to the Light Beer Dark Money Blog: https://lightbeerdarkmoney.com/hypocrisy-and-the-aoc-oh-sandy/

Tariffs are on. Tariffs are off. Did Trump blink — or was it all part of the master plan? Either way, the markets went on a wild ride, and Chris and Sean are here to break it all down. They dive into the strategic shifts behind Trump's latest move, the market's whiplash reaction, and what it all means for free markets moving forward. Plus, Sean shares highlights from an event honoring conservative icons William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater — and how their legacy helped pave the way for Ronald Reagan. Buckle up — this episode is full of sharp insights, big ideas, and a few plot twists you won't want to miss. Follow Light Beer Dark Money on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LightBeerDarkMoney/ Follow Light Beer Dark Money on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lightbeerdarkmoney/ Follow Light Beer Dark Money on Twitter: https://twitter.com/LBDMshow Follow Light Beer Dark Money on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/light-beer-dark-money/ Link to the Light Beer Dark Money Blog: https://lightbeerdarkmoney.com/hypocrisy-and-the-aoc-oh-sandy/

On this day in 1973, future U.S. Senator John McCain was released after spending over five years in a North Vietnamese prisoner of war camp. 36 years old at the time of his release, in less than 10 years he would be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives for Arizona. Four years after that, he would succeed Barry Goldwater in the U.S. Senate. Learn more in today's KTAR timeline brought to you by Beatitudes Campus. 

Alissa Wilkinson: Gibson (3 ounces gin, 1/2 ounce dry vermouth, onion)Film Critic for the New York Times, Alissa gives her take on the Oscars, shares some insider info on Siskel and Ebert, discusses the beginning and end of the Golden Age of TV along with some of her favorites from the era, reflects on Joan Dideon's admiration for John Wayne and Barry Goldwater along with her surprising takes on their present day closest equivalents, and identifies why 9-11 was a before-and-after moment for American filmmaking.

Give to help Chris make Truce William F. Buckley Jr. helped change the face of conservatism in the US because he gave it intellectual backing. But that doesn't mean that his ideas were accepted completely. He had several nemesis within his own movement that tried to derail him. One opponent was the John Birch Society. Buckley's whole modus operandi was to make conservatism respectable. But Robert Welch and other members of the JBS were using their movement to spread bogus conspiracy theories. They were actively discrediting the movement that Buckley tried to build. So Buckley, National Review, and Barry Goldwater tried to bring it down. Another enemy was Ayn Rand. Buckley and Rand were libertarians, but they disagreed on something important: religion. Rand was an ardent atheist, while Buckley believed Christianity and conservatism were inseparable. When Buckley started Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) he discovered that his young followers were incorporating many other ideas into their ideology. Rand's writings were impacting the students. So Buckley had to work to expel those ideas from YAF. Libertarian economist Murray Rothbard was another enemy. Rothbard actively encouraged his followers to split YAF and leave the organization. Extremism leads to extremism. Extremism lends itself to ideological purity, which means that groups like YAF were destined to split and split and split again. Buckley has his work cut out for him. Sources Buckley: William F Buckley Jr. and the Rise of American Conservatism by Cart T. Bogus. The Rise and Fall of Modern American Conservatism by David Farber Burning Down the House by Andrew Koppelman Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus by Rick Perlstein God and Man at Yale by William F. Buckley Jr Heather Cox Richardson's YouTube series on the history of the GOP Hoover Institution article on the impact of Buckley and Firing Line Reaganland by Rick Perlstein The Incomparable Mr. Buckley documentary The Sharon Statement Discussion Questions: Extremism leads to extremism. Do you agree? The desire to keep a movement ideologically pure is not unique to Buckley. Discuss that desire. When is it important and when does it lead to issues? Rand and Buckley disagreed on the role of religion. Why did that put them at odds? Why would Murray Rothbard want to split YAF? Why are youth movements so important to politics? To religion? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this lively new history, Brian Doherty provides a concise, thorough account of the intellectual roots of the American libertarian movement, with helpful summaries of key figures, institutions, and events. Modern Libertarianism effortlessly combines historical insights and intellectual profiles of important figures—including Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, and Barry Goldwater—and key institutions such as the Foundation of Economic Education and the Mont Pelerin Society.A superb introduction for the newcomer, yet rich and varied enough for those steeped in the libertarian tradition, Modern Libertarianism is a tribute to those who advocated for the cause of political liberty in America in the 20th century. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Malcolm X is assassinated; Barry Goldwater speaks out on Vietnam; Patricia Neal suffers two strokes; James Baldwin debates William F. Buckley; the Celtics roll; Stan Laurel is dead. Newscaster: Joe Rubenstein.  Support this project on Patreon!

Give a little to help Chris a lot In the first part of our series, Chris explored the beginning of Barry Goldwater's career, from his early days as a young man to his rise to the Senate. In the second episode, Goldwater still hasn't agreed to be the nominee, even though groups are raising money in his name. One of his most valuable supporters was a woman named Phyllis Schlafly. In 1964 she published a small book, A Choice Not an Echo. It claimed that GOP nominations had been rigged going back many years. She felt burned that Robert Taft (a true conservative) had been avoided over Dwight Eisenhower. Her book earned Goldwater the eventual nomination by his party. At the 1964 GOP convention, Goldwater announced that extremism was a thing he was okay with. While this excited his base, it scared a good many others who were already afraid that he'd use his power to launch nuclear weapons. Lyndon Johnson won that year in the greatest landslide in US presidential history. Sources Before the Storm by Rick Perlstein. The Heritage Foundation's claims about Black Lives Matter JFK's address about the Cuban missile crisis The Years of Lyndon Johnson by Robert Caro LBJ ice cream ad Rockefeller's speech at the 1964 RNC via C-SPAN Birchers by Matthew Dallek Goldwater's speech at the 1964 RNC via C-SPAN 1964 RNC party platform These Truths by Jill LePore Goldwater's comments on the Religious Right Discussion Questions How did the 1964 Republican platform show a slide to extremism? Is the argument for "states' rights" inherently racist? How has it been used to back racism? Why did Goldwater's talk about nuclear weapons make people uneasy? How did Goldwater's address to the 1964 RNC act as a call to extremists? Why did Lyndon Johnson win by the largest victory in US presidential history? Even though he lost dramatically, Goldwater had a big impact. What was it? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Dimitri and Khalid commence their long-planned dive into America's most frustratingly enigmatic boomer icon, Bob Dylan. Topics include: The calculated ambiguity of Dylan's public, political, and artistic personae over the decades, getting discovered by Vanderbilt heir/Columbia Records starmaker John Hammond, Dylan's slightly Discordian memoir “Chronicles Vol. 1”, the fabricated composite character “Ray Gooch” and his sister/cousin/wife “Chloe Kiel” who thinks Dracula rules the world, astroturfed Dimes Square vibes in Greenwich Village, Bob's career-long obsession with the Devil, his curious admiration for Barry Goldwater in 1964, and more. Part one of two. For access to premium SJ episodes, upcoming installments of DEMON FORCES, and the Grotto of Truth Discord, become a subscriber at patreon.com/subliminaljihad.

Give to help Chris continue making Truce Barry Goldwater may be one of the most interesting figures in Republican history. He grew up the son of a wealthy department store owner. He was a city council member and then a senator from Arizona. He was handsome and took pictures with guns and cacti. Goldwater was also a libertarian who wanted a small government and low taxes. His platform was laid out in a ghostwritten book Conscience of a Conservative. L. Brent Bozell wrote the book. He was a member of the John Birch Society. The book advocated for state's rights, though Goldwater argued that he was not a racist. The problem is that the South had long been using state's rights complaints to justify their oppression of black people. So, was Goldwater a racist? He sure as heck did what racists wanted. He also advocated for nuclear weapons in the US, an end to progressive taxation, and strange plans to reduce government spending. He courted extremists, mashing traditional conservatism false conspiracies and bad actors. The Republican Party would eventually bounce back to being an establishment party, but not for long. Many of Goldwater's ideas would be carried out by Reagan just a decade and a half later. Sources Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus by Rick Perlstein The Years of Lyndon Johnson by Robert Caro. Especially The Passage of Power Bichers by Matthew Dallek A Choice Not An Echo by Phyllis Schlafly Buckley: William F Buckley Jr. and the Rise of American Conservatism by Cart T. Bogus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05MPUsdFyQY The Memory Palace episode 130 “Independence Hall 2: The Legend of Walter Knott” 1964 Republican Party Platform Heather Cox Richardson's video series on the history of GOP Questions What does it mean for someone to be a "conservative"? How does it impact us when we are tied to organizations like the John Birch Society? How did it impact conservatives? Discuss the relationship between the state's rights argument and racism. Was Goldwater a racist? Many of the people we've covered over the years have been public speakers. Should we take a second pass at vetting our public speakers? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Tonight Show  Ep1067 66-12-05 Barry Goldwater, Mills Brothers, Yvonne Constant

Nelson Rockefeller's Dilemma reveals the fascinating and influential political career of the four-time New York State governor and US vice president. Marsha E. Barrett's portrayal of this multi-faceted political player focuses on the eclipse of moderate Republicanism and the betrayal of deeply held principles for political power. Although never able to win his party's presidential nomination, Rockefeller's tenure as governor was notable for typically liberal policies: infrastructure projects, expanding the state's university system, and investing in local services and the social safety net. As the Civil Rights movement intensified in the early 1960s, Rockefeller envisioned a Republican Party recommitted to its Lincolnian heritage as a defender of Black equality. But the party's extreme right wing, encouraged by its successful outreach to segregationists before and after the nomination of Barry Goldwater, pushed the party to the right. With his national political ambitions fading by the late 1960s, Rockefeller began to tack right himself on social and racial issues, refusing to endorse efforts to address police brutality, accusing, without proof, Black welfare mothers of cheating the system, or introducing harsh drug laws that disproportionately incarcerated people of color. These betrayals of his own ideals did little to win him the support of the party faithful, and his vice presidency ended in humiliation, rather than the validation of moderate ideals. An in-depth, insightful, and timely political history, Nelson Rockefeller's Dilemma details how the standard-bearer of moderate Republicanism lost the battle for the soul of the Party of Lincoln, leading to mainlining of white-grievance populism for the post-civil rights era. Marsha E. Barrett is Assistant Professor of History at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her articles have appeared in such publications as the Journal of Policy History, New York History, and Politico. For more info on the book click HERE  

In the first half, Don Schmitt, a prominent figure in ufology and a veteran investigator of the 1947 Roswell Incident, shared his insights into the infamous crash and the ongoing secrecy surrounding it. He posited that the first atomic bomb tests in New Mexico might have acted as a "calling card" to extraterrestrial intelligence, indicating humanity's advanced technological capabilities.Schmitt recounted his disclosure efforts with senator Barry Goldwater, who sought to uncover the truth behind Roswell. The conversation briefly reflected on the recent congressional hearings about UFOs, with Schmitt expressing cautious optimism. "The taboo has finally been removed... but they're not asking for the meat and potatoes," he argued. He criticized the lack of direct engagement with witnesses who could provide substantial evidence, lamenting, "How sad that all the Roswell witnesses are now gone."Despite the many years that have passed since 1947, Schmitt revealed that he recently spoke with an 87-year-old woman who, as a child, handled material from the crash site. "She managed through her family to recover a piece before the military cleanup," he noted. Schmitt explained the shroud of secrecy surrounding Roswell, attributing it to a mix of ignorance and culpability among military officials. "They threatened witnesses... just imagine... they were threatening to kill children over a [so-called] balloon device," he scoffed. He then emphasized the moral obligation for greater transparency. "How about just tell the truth!" he insisted.--------------------In the second half, the man George Noory has dubbed the "Greatest Storyteller Ever Born" — Anglican priest Lionel Fanthorpe — shared various myths, legends, folklore, and tales. His described how his early fascination with the strange and unusual was sparked by his penchant for escaping schoolwork. "I would sneak in and crouch down behind one of the big library shelves," he recounted, indulging in the works of H.G. Wells and Jules Verne.This ignited a lifelong pursuit of unsolved mysteries, including the infamous case of Jack the Ripper, for whom Fanthorpe suggested a compelling theory: "I think… [it] was a member of the distant edge of the aristocracy… or a surgeon avenging his son." He also delved into the intriguing lore of Spring Heeled Jack, describing him as "very tall and thin but immensely strong." Fanthorpe's vivid descriptions of Jack's escapades, including extraordinary leaps over ten-foot walls, painted a captivating picture of urban legend. He mused over the possibility that Jack may have been extraterrestrial, suggesting, "Could he have been born to a more humanoid race on a distant planet?"The conversation ventured into other folklore, including "duendes" or goblins in Spanish culture, with Fanthorpe likening them to mischievous leprechauns. He also remarked on parallel universes and the notion that creatures from these dimensions might occasionally manifest in ours.Fanthorpe then shared his experiences with exorcisms, providing listeners with a glimpse into the mysterious world he navigates as an ordained priest. He detailed a particularly strange exorcism involving a haunted Ford Capri. The car exhibited erratic behavior, steering itself perilously close to pedestrians. "I could feel that there was some sort of dark force overcoming that car," Fanthorpe recalled. After performing a prayer, he sensed a shift, although the entity did not completely vacate the vehicle. "It seemed to have subsided into something... harmless," he noted, adding that the car still bore the ominous number 666 on its license plate.

Flinn-Brown Fellow Lisa Schnebly Heidinger, a renowned author, journalist, and historian, shares her stories of Arizona and future plan to promote teachers with Leadership Forward for a Better Arizona host Dawn Wallace of the Arizona Center for Civic Leadership at the Flinn Foundation. Schnebly Heidinger, a 2012 Flinn-Brown Fellow and third generation Arizonan, has worked in print, radio and television journalism and written books, including “Sedona Schnebly” about her great-grandmother and namesake of Sedona. In this 13th episode of the podcast, learn about her interviews with Arizona icons Barry Goldwater and Sandra Day O'Connor and the real story of the miner on the Arizona State Seal.

Dr. Rachel Blum, an expert on political parties and factions, and author of the book How the Tea Party Captured the GOP: Insurgent Factions in American Politics, joins the pod to explore a bold transformation within the Republican Party. Can the rise of the MAGA movement be understood as a mere political shift, or does it signify a deeper change in American democracy? We discuss the movement's historical lineage, from Barry Goldwater's conservatism to its contemporary manifestations, and consider its profound implications on the GOP's future and the broader democratic landscape.Donald Trump's indelible impact on American politics is undeniable, and we discuss the fascinating trajectory that has seen traditional Republican elites ousted in favor of a new MAGA-aligned core. What are the social and political repercussions of Trump's enduring influence, and how has his rhetoric redefined what is politically acceptable? We examine the psychological loyalty Trump inspires in his base, the dynamics of conservative Christian support, and the Democrats' ongoing struggle to resonate with some Americans amid a fragmented media landscape.Finally, we discuss with threats to democratic norms, including erosion of trust in election integrity and heightened polarization, posed by the MAGA movement. From potential authoritarian tendencies in a second Trump term to the Democrats' strategic response to evolving identity politics, we consider how these factors might reshape America's political future. Related:Counterpoint PodcastCounterpoint Podcast-------------------------Follow Deep Dive:InstagramYouTube Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com Music: Majestic Earth - Joystock

Why won't mental health professionals share with the public when they suspect a presidential candidate has mental illness? As election cycles intensify, the public often seeks expert opinions on candidates' mental health, but there's a reason psychiatrists stay silent. In today's episode, host Gabe Howard and guest Rachael Beairsto dive into the history of the 1964 Goldwater Rule, which prohibits mental health experts from publicly diagnosing public figures without firsthand evaluation. They explore why this rule was established after the Barry Goldwater controversy, the ethical and practical dilemmas it addresses, and how "post-truth" culture challenges its boundaries. In a world where facts can feel secondary to personal beliefs, this episode unpacks why mental health diagnoses in the political sphere may be more divisive than informative. Tune in to discover the surprising reasons why expert silence might protect both democracy and those living with mental illness. To learn more -- or read the transcript -- please visit the official episode page. This episode is sponsored, in part, by Cornbread Hemp. They produced the first-ever USDA-certified organic CBD gummies in America. Save 30% on your first order using code "Inside30." Guest co-host, Rachael Beairsto, is a senior editor with Healthline Media. She covers many health topics, including mental health, chronic conditions, and skin care. Most recently, she supported the launch of Wellos, a mobile wellness app that helps members reach their stress, nutrition, and weight goals. She's passionate about sharing accurate, engaging health information to help people lead their healthiest, happiest lives. Our host, Gabe Howard, is an award-winning writer and speaker who lives with bipolar disorder. He is the author of the popular book, "Mental Illness is an Asshole and other Observations," available from Amazon; signed copies are also available directly from the author. Gabe makes his home in the suburbs of Columbus, Ohio. He lives with his supportive wife, Kendall, and a Miniature Schnauzer dog that he never wanted, but now can't imagine life without. To book Gabe for your next event or learn more about him, please visit gabehoward.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kamala Harris n'entrera pas à la Maison-Blanche. Après une intense campagne face à Donald Trump, la démocrate rejoint désormais la liste des perdants historiques de la présidentielle américaine, comme le pays en a déjà connu de nombreux dans son histoire. Certains sont restés très célèbres, d'autres sont tombés dans l'oubli, mais leur parcours en dit long sur la politique américaine. La Loupe vous brosse le portrait de ces “losers” légendaires. Dans cet épisode : Barry Goldwater, ce perdant oublié qui a inspiré Reagan et Trump.Retrouvez tous les détails de l'épisode ici et inscrivez-vous à notre newsletter. L'équipe : Présentation : Charlotte BarisEcriture : Mathias PenguillyMontage : Léa BertrandRéalisation : Jules KrotCrédits : C-SPAN, Daisy, Facebook, e-Footage, le HuffPost, KQED, la Maison Blanche, NBC News, Le Parisien, Paramount, PBS NewHour Musique et habillage : Emmanuel Herschon / Studio Torrent Logo : Jérémy Cambour Pour nous écrire : laloupe@lexpress.fr Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Tonight Show  Ep1067 66-12-05 Barry Goldwater, Mills Brothers, Yvonne Constant

The Democratic Party finds itself in nearly as much disarray as the GOP did following Barry Goldwater's 1964 defeat to LBJ. DMZ America co-hosts Ted Rall (from the Left) and Scott Stantis (from the Right) turn to American political scientist Charles Lipson to dissect what went wrong for the Democrats in the election and to discuss their prospects for renewal. Can Democrats follow the Republican example and rebuild their grassroots organization from the ground up at the local level? Can they free themselves of their addiction to corporate money in order to increase their populist appeal? Or should the party add domestic policy to a foreign policy that has already moved to the Right of the Republicans, completing a realignment that reverses much of what transpired between 1928 and 1932?The DMZ America Podcast is recorded weekly by political cartoonists Ted Rall and Scott Stantis. Twitter/X: @scottstantis and @tedrallWeb: Rall.com

In this episode we investigate the claim made by conservative Christians every year that Christmas is being threatened by forces they are weirdly shy about specifically naming. But of course the first and foremost piece of cognitive dissonance we must force our way through when examining the threat to Christmas is where it has ACTUALLY come from, historically. Christmas had been frowned upon and ignored in a lot of Protestant places throughout Europe for as long as the Protestant movement had existed. Their reasoning was pretty straight forward. Unbelievably straightforward and logical for Christians actually. The Christmas celebration is simply not Christian. The earliest mention of any Christmas celebration is from a Roman Bishop in 129ce. Long after the New Testament authors had passed. So while not celebrated by some Europeans, the first official state ban was introduced by the British Puritan Parliament in 1647. And that's where our story will start. It features cameo guest star appearances from Oliver Cromwell, King Charles II, Jesus Christ, USA, Massachusetts Bay Colony, Henry Ford, Santa Claus, Barry Goldwater, John Birch Society, COMMUNISTS, United Nations, Peter Brimelow, VDARE, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster, Immigration and Bad Social Policies Don't Mix; A White Ethnic Core, Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti-Defamation League, Virginia Dare, Brown Vs Board of Education, Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC, The Failure of Multiculturalism: How the pursuit of diversity is weakening the American Identity, DACA, New York Times, Bill O'Reilly, Christmas Under Siege, Fox News, Canada, Macy's, Amazon, Pat Buchanan, Shark Week, John Gibson, The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought, Alliance Defending Freedom, Alan Sears, The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values, Ebenezer Scrooge, Wikipedia, Tennessee, Sarah Palin, Good Tidings and Great Joy: Protecting the Heart of Christmas, Joshua Feuerstein, Starbucks REMOVED CHRISTMAS from their cups because they hate Jesus, Donald Trump and Liberty University. #666 #SketchComedy #Sketch #Comedy #Sketch Comedy #Atheist #Science #History #Atheism #Antitheist #ConspiracyTheory #Conspiracy #Conspiracies #Sceptical #Scepticism #Mythology #Religion #Devil #Satan #Satanism #Satanist #Skeptic #Debunk #Illuminati #SatanIsMySuperhero #Podcast #funny #sketch #skit #comedy #comedyshow #comedyskits #HeavyMetal #weird #RomanEmpire #Rome #AncientRome #Romans #RomanEmperor  666, SketchComedy, Sketch, Comedy, Sketch Comedy, Atheist, Science, History, Atheism, Antitheist, Conspiracy Theory, Conspiracy, Conspiracies, Sceptical, Scepticism, Mythology, Religion, Devil, Satan, Satanism, Satanist, Skeptic, Debunk, Illuminati, Heavy Metal, weird, Roman Empire, Rome, Romans, Roman Emperor, SatanIsMySuperhero, 

Un comentario casual sobre su temperamento le generó un tremendo problema a Barry Goldwater, candidato presidencial en Estados Unidos en 1964. Y es que una revista luego le consultó a más de mil psiquiatras si el político era apto para ser presidente, liderar a su país en una guerra y manejar códigos nucleares, todo ello sin haber conversado nunca con Goldwater. En este episodio, Andrés Kalawski y Rafael Pardo repasan los efectos de esa publicación y una medida adoptada desde entonces por los profesionales de la salud mental.

The Democratic Party finds itself in nearly as much disarray as the GOP did following Barry Goldwater's 1964 defeat to LBJ. DMZ America co-hosts Ted Rall (from the Left) and Scott Stantis (from the Right) turn to American political scientist Charles Lipson to dissect what went wrong for the Democrats in the election and to discuss their prospects for renewal. Can Democrats follow the Republican example and rebuild their grassroots organization from the ground up at the local level? Can they free themselves of their addiction to corporate money in order to increase their populist appeal? Or should the party add domestic policy to a foreign policy that has already moved to the Right of the Republicans, completing a realignment that reverses much of what transpired between 1928 and 1932?The DMZ America Podcast is recorded weekly by political cartoonists Ted Rall and Scott Stantis. Twitter/X: @scottstantis and @tedrallWeb: Rall.com

Marlene Soudant first volunteered as a poll worker in the 1964 presidential election, when Lyndon Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater. She remembers wooden hand-crank ballot boxes and announcing winners to a waiting crowd late at night, before things became computerized.

Caleb Smith may be the only political operative who's worked for three consecutive US House Speakers. During over a decade on Capitol Hill, he worked with Speakers Boehner, Ryan, and McCarthy. In this conversation, Caleb talks his path to politics from managing a legislative race in small-town Kentucky to working in some of the most prime real estate at the US Capitol building. He goes in-depth on his time on the Hill - being in the early wave of digital political staffers, joining Speaker Boehner's staff, strengths and weaknesses of the last 3 GOP Speakers, witnessing the rise of Trump from within the walls of the GOP establishment, starting Drive Public Affairs, and much more from a participant in some of the most important political moments of the 21st Century.IN THIS EPISODEGrowing up in Paducah, KY at an important crossroads of American politics...Why a young Caleb trekked to DC to attend the memorial for Ronald Reagan...The skill set Caleb picked up managing a motorcycle shop between campaign gigs...Caleb spends a year working for prominent pollster & focus group maven Frank Luntz...Caleb manages a winning hometown Kentucky legislative race, the lone D to R legislative flip of the cycle...Caleb comes to the Hill as a "new media director" among the digital political revolution...Caleb's first impressions of working for Speaker John Boehner...Caleb's "GOP House Conference 101" of how House Republicans operate...The GOP member Caleb describes as a "snake in the grass" (it's not Matt Gaetz)...What sold John Boehner on embracing digital politics..John Boehner meets the pope...Caleb's memories of the chaos during the Boehner to Ryan Speaker transition and why Caleb stuck it out with Ryan...The "really unpleasant" first interaction Caleb had with Paul Ryan...Caleb on the unique skill-set that made Paul Ryan an effective House leader...Being a fly on the wall of the House GOP leadership during the 2015-2016 rise of Donald Trump...Paul Ryan's immediate Election Night reaction upon Trump's surprise victory...Inside the development of the 2017 "Trump Tax Cut" bill...Paul Ryan's reaction when John McCain scuttled Obamacare Repeal...Caleb's insights into the Donald Trump and Paul Ryan working relationship...Why Ryan steps down as Speaker and why Caleb stayed with new House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy...Caleb on McCarthy's habit of being a "risk taker"...Inside the toppling of Speaker McCarthy...Could Patrick McHenry have won the Speaker's Gavel...Caleb on one of Speaker Pelosi's strongest qualities...The controversial high-profile House member Caleb believes will be a future GOP Leader...Junior members Caleb finds especially impressive...Caleb on the fundamental difference between House Republicans and House Democrats...Why Caleb started Drive Public Affairs a few months ago...AND the American Conservative Union, American University, antiquated radio addresses, Sharron Angle, The Better Way Agenda, Stephanie Bice, Kevin Brady, Tim Burchett, George HW Bush, George W. Bush, CPAC, Dave Camp, Joe Cannon, Eric Cantor, The Capitol Rotunda, Centre College, Jason Chaffetz, Michael Cloud, country clubs vs. truck stops, cults of personality, Howard Dean, debating at Oxford, dial tests, Domino's Pizza, fall guys, famous smokers, fiscal cliffs, The Freedom Caucus, Matt Gaetz, Barry Goldwater, Jeb Hensarling, French Hill, Erin Houchin, Jack Kemp, Sue Lowden, Nancy Mace, John McCain, Mark Meadows, Steve Mnuchin, mopeds, Jack Nicklaus, normalizing ideas,  Ralph Norman, Rand Paul, Harry Reid, Marco Rubio, the SALT deduction, Tim Scott, sloven appearances, The Tonight Show.. & more!

Donald Trump ou Kamala Harris ? Dans moins de deux mois, l'un des deux sera élu président des Etats-Unis... faisant de l'autre un “perdant historique”, comme le pays en a déjà connu de nombreux dans son histoire. Certains sont restés très célèbres, d'autres sont tombés dans l'oubli, mais leur parcours en dit long sur la politique américaine. Pour sa rentrée, La Loupe vous brosse le portrait de cinq de ces “losers” légendaires. Deuxième épisode : Barry Goldwater, ce perdant oublié qui a inspiré Reagan et Trump.Retrouvez tous les détails de l'épisode ici et inscrivez-vous à notre newsletter. L'équipe : Présentation : Charlotte BarisEcriture : Mathias PenguillyMontage : Léa BertrandRéalisation : Jules KrotCrédits : C-SPAN, Daisy, Facebook, e-Footage, le HuffPost, KQED, la Maison Blanche, NBC News, Le Parisien, Paramount, PBS NewHour Musique et habillage : Emmanuel Herschon / Studio Torrent Logo : Anne-Laure Chapelain / Thibaut Zschiesche Pour nous écrire : laloupe@lexpress.fr Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

The distinction lies not in the science itself, but in the hands that wield it. When harnessed for the betterment of society, progress is indeed assured. However, when it falls prey to the insidious interests of the powerful, the masses are left to suffer the consequences.Before you continue, please consider giving this article a like to help other people find it. Thank you! The unholy trinity of electrical engineering, banking, and social engineering has given rise to a new era of technocratic tyranny. The fact that the same principles that govern the flow of electricity can be applied to the flow of capital and the manipulation of human behavior is a chilling testament to the boundless ingenuity of those who seek to control us. The Elite have long recognized the potential of Science to further their interests, and have spared no effort in exploiting its power to maintain their grip on society.The foundation of Technocracy is rooted in the dogmatic ideology of Scientism, a philosophy that seeks to supplant traditional values and spiritual beliefs with a narrow, reductionist worldview. By elevating Science to the status of absolute truth, Scientism attempts to monopolize the narrative, dismissing any opposing perspectives as inferior or irrelevant. This rigid adherence to a singular ideology is a hallmark of totalitarian thinking, where dissent is not tolerated and critical inquiry is discouraged.The assertion that Scientism upholds Atheism, defined as the absence of belief in any god, is a gross oversimplification that betrays a profound ignorance of the complexities of human spirituality. The notion that one's understanding of the divine must be confined to the narrow parameters of biblical dogma is a laughable attempt to stifle the diversity of human experience. What of those who reverence the natural world as the ultimate reality, or who find solace in the mystical traditions of Eastern spirituality? Are they to be dismissed as atheists simply because their conception of the divine transcends the petty squabbles of biblical literalism?The practice of labeling and categorization is a pernicious aspect of Scientism, serving only to stifle nuanced discussion and reduce complex ideas to simplistic, binary oppositions. The term “conspiracy theorist” has become a pejorative, used to discredit and marginalize those who dare to question the official narrative. This kind of intellectual McCarthyism is a hallmark of totalitarian regimes, where dissent is pathologized and critical thinking is discouraged.Those who peddle this brand of Scientism are complicit in the destruction they have wrought upon the world. By elevating their own narrow ideology to the status of absolute truth, they justify the ravaging of the environment, the exploitation of the poor, and the erosion of civil liberties. Theirs is a worldview that is fundamentally at odds with the values of empathy, compassion, and intellectual curiosity that have always defined humanity at its best.The insidious game of cat and mouse, where the Dark Masters employ their favorite tactics of compartmentalization and redefinition to obfuscate their true intentions. By carefully calibrating their language, they seek to manipulate the narrative, sowing confusion and doubt among the unsuspecting masses. It is a clever ruse, designed to conceal the sinister agenda that lurks beneath the surface.It is important for us to confront the reality that the true struggle is not between good and evil, but between competing factions vying for control of the planet. The choice, it seems, is not between light and darkness, but between the geopoliticians and the progressive technicians. Who would you prefer to hold the reins of power? The answer, much like the truth, remains shrouded in uncertainty.A Lily Bit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. “The C.F.R. is the American branch of a society which originated in England. Internationalistic in viewpoint, the C.F.R., along with the Atlantic Union Movement, and the Atlantic Council of the U.S., believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established … What the Trilaterals truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political government of the nation-states involved. As managers and creators of the system they will rule the world … In my view, the Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power: political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical.” — (With No Apologies, [1979], the auto-biography by Senator Barry Goldwater, pp. 128, 284).The New International Economic OrderThe goal of “transforming government” is a euphemism for a far more sinister agenda. It becomes clear that the ambitions of those behind this new order extend far beyond the realm of politics, and that the very fabric of our society is being transformed before our eyes.The plans for a New International Economic Order are part of a much larger scheme to create a one-world government, with the technocrats firmly in control. This raises important questions about the future of our world and the role that we will play in it.The Bank for International Settlements is just one of the many threads that are woven together to create a tapestry of deceit and corruption. The true nature of this new order is slowly coming to light, and it is clear that it is not in the best interests of the general population.The New International Economic Order is a far-reaching and complex plan to transform our society. At its core, it seeks to reshape the world in the image of its creators, with a focus on control, manipulation, and exploitation.The primary targets of this transformation are:* Economics: The creation of a new economic order, with a focus on sustainable development and the Green Economy.* Government: The transformation of government, with a focus on technocratic control and the erosion of national sovereignty.* Religion: The undermining of traditional religious values and the promotion of a new, secular spirituality.* Law: The creation of a new, global legal framework, with a focus on international law and the erosion of national laws.* Energy: The control of energy resources, with a focus on sustainable energy and the reduction of individual freedom.* Humanity: The transformation of humanity, with a focus on human enhancement and the merger of man and machine.But who is behind this transformation? The answer is clear:* The Trilateral Commission: A powerful, secretive organization that seeks to promote a new world order.* The United Nations: A global organization that seeks to promote a new world order, with a focus on international law and the erosion of national sovereignty.* Non-Government Organizations (NGOs): A network of organizations that seek to promote a new world order, with a focus on sustainable development and the Green Economy.It is clear that neither the American People nor the Congress of the United States of America are party to this transformation. Instead, it is being driven by a small group of powerful, secretive organizations that seek to promote their own interests and agendas.As we examine the tools and tactics being used to promote this transformation, we see a number of key initiatives:* Agenda 21: A United Nations program that seeks to promote sustainable development and the Green Economy.* Sustainable development: A concept that seeks to balance economic growth with environmental protection and social justice.* Smart meters: A technology that seeks to control and manipulate energy usage, with a focus on reducing individual freedom.* Climate change: A concept that seeks to promote a new, global agenda, with a focus on reducing carbon emissions and promoting sustainable energy.* Cap and trade: A system that seeks to control and manipulate carbon emissions, with a focus on promoting sustainable energy.* The Green Economy: A concept that seeks to promote sustainable development and the reduction of individual freedom.* Human enhancement (Trans-Humanism): A movement that seeks to merge man and machine, with a focus on promoting a new, technocratic society.The Dark Heart of TechnocracyScientism is the foundation upon which Technocracy is built. This ideology seeks to regulate every aspect of human life, from the mundane to the profound, under the guise of scientific authority.The Seven Pillars of Scientism* The Application of Scientific Methods to Social and Political Modeling: Scientism seeks to apply the scientific method to the study of human behavior and society, reducing complex social issues to simplistic, quantifiable problems.* Science as the Absolute Truth: Scientism posits that science is the only reliable source of truth, dismissing other forms of knowledge and understanding as inferior.* Atheism: Scientism upholds atheism, rejecting the existence of a higher power or divine authority.* Predictive Power: Scientism claims to be able to predict the future, using scientific models and data to forecast human behavior and societal trends.* Rejection of Opposing Inquiry: Scientism rejects any opposing viewpoints or criticisms, dismissing them as unscientific or uninformed.* Demand for Acceptance: Scientism demands acceptance by non-scientists, expecting the general public to blindly accept scientific authority without question.“Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints."—WikipediaAs we explore the implications of Scientism, we see a disturbing trend towards the erosion of individual freedom and the centralization of power. From the regulation of shower times to the elimination of private property, Scientism seeks to control every aspect of human life under the guise of scientific authority.A Lily Bit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Ray Kurzweil, a senior scientist at Google, is a prominent transhumanist who has written extensively on the topic of merging human and machine intelligence. His book, "The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology", published in 2005, explores the idea of a future where humans and machines become indistinguishable.Kurzweil's work at Google is closely tied to the company's chairman, Eric Emerson Schmidt, who is a member of the Trilateral Commission. Schmidt's involvement with the Trilateral Commission is well-documented. He has been a member of the organization since 2001, and has played a key role in shaping its agenda.As a member of the Trilateral Commission, Schmidt has been involved in promoting the interests of the organization, which include the advancement of technocracy and the erosion of national sovereignty. Google's ties to the Trilateral Commission are extensive, and Schmidt's membership in the organization has given the company a significant amount of influence and access to the global elite. This has allowed Google to shape the agenda of the Trilateral Commission, which includes the promotion of technocracy and the advancement of “artificial intelligence.”Schmidt's views on government surveillance and data collection are also noteworthy. In 2013, he stated that government surveillance in the United States was the “nature of our society” and that he was not going to “pass judgment on that”. However, when it was revealed that the NSA had been secretly spying on Google's data centers worldwide, he called the practice “outrageous” and criticized the NSA's collection of Americans' phone records.Schmidt's relationship with the Obama administration is also worth noting. He was a campaign advisor and major donor to Barack Obama, and served on Google's government relations team. Obama considered him for Commerce Secretary, and Schmidt was mentioned as a possible candidate for the Chief Technology Officer position, which Obama created in his administration.The Definition of TechnocracyTechnocracy was termed in 1932 at Columbia University by M. King Hubbert and Howard Scott. After being booted from Columbia in 1934, they continued to develop their ideas through the Technocracy Study Course.Characteristics of Technocracy* Produces volumes of inviolable regulations: Technocracy is based on “science” and produces a large number of regulations that are considered absolute.* Creates totalitarian control: Technocracy seeks to create a totalitarian system of control, but it is not socialism or communism.* Seeks to replace price-based economic system with energy-based system: Technocracy aims to replace the traditional price-based economic system with an energy-based system, where energy credits are used instead of money.Communism, Marxism, Socialism, and Fascism are all based on a price-based economic system. Technocracy shifts away from that, so it is neither.Requirements for Technocracy* Register energy conversion and consumption* Create a balanced load* Provide a continuous inventory of production and consumption* Provide specific registration of goods and services* Provide specific registration of individual consumptionThe Technology to Implement TechnocracyToday, we have the technology to implement these requirements, including:* Obamacare* NSA spying on all Americans* Common Core* Data collection and miningThe Transformation of AmericaThe insidious tentacles of the Trilateral Commission have been quietly strangling the life out of our democratic institutions for decades. The brainchild of David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, this cabal of 289 handpicked members, comprising the crème de la crème of bankers, industrialists, academics, politicians, media moguls, law firms, and NGOs, has been pulling the strings of power from behind the scenes since its inception in 1973.Their grand design, masquerading as a benevolent force for global cooperation, is nothing short of a thinly veiled attempt to consolidate economic power and impose a New International Economic Order. The Trilateral Commission's mantra of “interdependence” and “free trade” is merely a euphemism for the dismantling of tariffs and trade barriers, paving the way for the unfettered exploitation of resources and labor by the global elite. It was an economic takeover, but they needed the political machinery to pull it off. Technocracy is not a political system — it is an economic system.The Commission's influence on U.S. politics illustrates their Machiavellian tactics. In 1976, they hijacked the White House, with Brzezinski handpicking Jimmy Carter for the presidency and subsequently appointing nearly a third of the American Trilateral membership to key Cabinet and Administration posts. This brazen power grab was a masterclass in the art of manipulation, with the American people blissfully unaware of the economic coup unfolding before their very eyes.The Trilateral Commission's fingerprints are all over the subsequent decades of U.S. policy, from the Earth Summit's Agenda 21 to Clinton's “National Partnership For Reinventing Government” and the creation of the President's Council on Sustainable Development. The appointment of John Negroponte, a Trilateralist, as the first Director of the National Intelligence Agency in 2005, serves as a stark reminder of the Commission's enduring influence.But the roots of this technocratic behemoth run even deeper. Brzezinski's 1970 book, "Between Two Ages: America's Role In The Technetronic Era," is the ideological blueprint for the Trilateral movement, a clarion call for the imposition of a technocratic order on a global scale. As we delve deeper into the labyrinthine world of the Trilateral Commission, it becomes increasingly clear that their ultimate goal is nothing short of a complete overhaul of our economic and political systems, with the global elite firmly ensconced at the helm.“The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values…Today we are again witnessing the emergence of transnational elites…[whose] ties cut across national boundaries… It is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook. Within a few years the rebels in the more advanced countries who today have the most visibility will be joined by a new generation making its claim to power in government and business… accepting as routine managerial processes current innovations such as planning-programming-budgeting systems (PPBS) … A national information grid that will integrate existing electronic data banks is already being developed…. The projected world information grid, for which Japan, Western Europe, and the United States are most suited, could create the basis for a common educational program, for the adoption of common academic standards.The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty. … In the economic-technological field, some international cooperation has already been achieved, but further progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position.”—Brzezinski, “Between Two Ages: America's Role In The Technetronic Era”Brzezinski's 1970 magnum opus, “Between Two Ages: America's Role In The Technetronic Era” was no mere academic exercise, but a blueprint for the incremental implementation of a controlled society, where the boundaries between politics, economics, and technology are deliberately blurred.It's no coincidence that Brzezinski, a professor at Columbia University, the very institution where Technocracy was born in 1932, was handpicked by David Rockefeller to co-found the Trilateral Commission in 1973. Rockefeller, ever the astute observer of questionable talent, recognized in Brzezinski a kindred spirit, a fellow traveler in the quest for a technocratic utopia.The term “technetronic,” coined by Brzezinski, is more than just a clever neologism; it's a call for the fusion of technology and politics, a harbinger of the all-encompassing control grid that the technocratic elite have been constructing for decades. “Technetronic” and “technocracy” are virtually interchangeable, two sides of the same coin.Brzezinski's vision, as outlined in his book, is one of gradual, incremental control over a “Technetronic Era” in which the boundaries between individual freedom and collective servitude are systematically eroded. It's a prospect that should send shivers down the spine of anyone who values liberty and autonomy.And now, let us take a moment to hear from the horse's mouth, as it were. Brzezinski himself will explain, in his own words, the contours of his technocratic vision. Prepare to be enlightened, or perhaps, more accurately, prepare to be chilled to the bone.The “war on terror,” that nebulous and ever-shifting construct, has been a boon for those who seek to regulate and control the patterns of traditional American behavior. It's a Trojan horse for the imposition of a surveillance state, where the boundaries between public and private are deliberately blurred. The “internationalist” elite, with their technocratic vision of a totally surveilled societal structure, have been the primary beneficiaries of this perpetual war.But the tentacles of the Trilateral Commission reach far deeper into the inner workings of our government than most of us could have ever imagined. The fact that six out of the eight heads of the World Bank have been Trilateralists is a staggering statistic. And it's not just the World Bank; the Trilateral Commission's influence permeates every level of our government, from the President and Vice President to the U.S. Trade Representatives and National Security Advisers.The sheer scope of the Trilateral Commission's infiltration is breathtaking. Every President and Vice President since Carter has had ties to the Commission, as have a disproportionate number of U.S. Trade Representatives and National Security Advisers. It's a veritable Who's Who of Trilateralists, a rogues gallery of technocrats who have insinuated themselves into the highest echelons of power.And what's the common thread that binds these individuals together? Their allegiance to the military-industrial complex, that behemoth of war and destruction. The Trilateral Commission's ties to the machinery of war are well-documented, and it's no coincidence that their influence has coincided with the perpetual war footing that has become the hallmark of our foreign policy. The war on terror, it seems, is just a convenient pretext for the imposition of a technocratic order, one that serves the interests of the elite at the expense of the American people.A Blueprint for Technocratic TyrannyThe New International Economic Order is nothing short of a dystopian nightmare, where the Elite rule with an iron fist. This “Technetronic Era” is characterized by:* A controlled society where the primary actors and planners of economic life are global banks and multi-national corporations.* A continuous surveillance of every citizen, with files containing all information about every citizen instantly available to authorities.But that's not all. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has been pushing a “Green Economy Initiative” that is, in reality, a Trojan horse for Technocracy. The UNEP's own words are chilling: “These initiatives, both public and private, provide the mechanism for reconfiguration of businesses, infrastructure and institutions, and for the adoption of sustainable consumption and production processes.”In other words, the Green Economy is a euphemism for a complete overhaul of our society, our way of life, and our institutions. It's a recipe for disaster, and one that has been championed by none other than Bill Clinton, who promised to “reinvent government.” We now know what he meant by that.But the Green Economy is not just a secular phenomenon. The World Council of Churches has proudly declared that the “World's faiths will declare themselves, irrevocably, as Green Faiths.” The very fabric of many people's spiritual lives is being co-opted by the technocratic elite.And if that's not enough, let me introduce you to the concept of “Reflexive Law” as a “Legal Paradigm For Sustainable Development”. This is the final nail in the coffin of our freedoms, a legal framework that will enshrine the principles of Technocracy and ensure that the Elite remain in control.The doublespeak of the technocratic elite is on full display in this document. On the surface, it appears to be a call for new approaches to achieving sustainable development, but scratch beneath the surface and you'll find a sinister plot to undermine our existing systems of governance and replace them with a new paradigm of “reflexive law”.The language is deliberately obtuse, but the intent is clear: to create a new framework for decision-making that is “integrated” and “normative”, where social systems and subsystems are forced to interact and communicate in a way that is predetermined by the technocratic elite. The goal is to create a seamless web of control, where every aspect of society is aligned with the objectives of sustainable development, as defined by the Elite.The reference to “Type 2” non-regulatory private or public-private partnership initiatives is particularly telling. This is code for the outsourcing of governance to unelected, unaccountable entities that are beholden only to the interests of the Elite. The “shifting emphasis” away from traditional regulation and government programs is a euphemism for the dismantling of our democratic institutions and the transfer of power to the technocratic elite.And what of “reflexive law” itself? This sociological construct is presented as a solution to the “conceptual dilemmas” of sustainable development, but it's really just a fancy name for a system of control that is designed to “specify procedures” for regulated entities to follow. In other words, it's a recipe for a totalitarian regime, where every aspect of society is micromanaged by the technocratic elite.The use of words like “normative” and “integrated” is particularly insidious, as it implies a sense of moral authority and inevitability. But make no mistake, this is a power grab, plain and simple. The technocratic elite are using the rhetoric of sustainable development to justify a radical transformation of our society, one that will leave us all subject to their whims and fancies.The emergence of a new worldwide web of energy, a global energy network, is a reminds us of the technocratic agenda's far-reaching implications. This network, like the internet, will revolutionize the way we live, work, and interact with one another. But, as we've seen, it's not just about energy distribution; it's about control, manipulation, and the transformation of humanity itself.The dispersal of trillions of “stimulus dollars” globally, parades the vast resources at the disposal of the globalists. The “Black Budget” is just one of the many tools in their arsenal, designed to further their agenda of control and domination.As we navigate our dark ages of deceit and manipulation, it's easy to feel overwhelmed. But we must remain vigilant and committed to our mission of preserving freedom. I urge everyone to take action, to educate themselves and others, and to advocate for freedom at the local level. Acting locally while thinking globally is the key to preserving our liberties.Let us take a stand against the forces of tyranny and oppression. Let us support and educate our local Sheriffs, who are the last line of defense against federal overreach. Let us name and shame those who practice un-American thinking and activity. And let us serve Misprision of Treason wherever appropriate.Together, we can make a difference. Together, we can preserve freedom and protect our way of life.I wrote all of this was for free! How you can still support my writing:* Restack, like and share this post via email, text, and social media* Tip me a bug-free meal with Ko-Fi* Buy a discount subscriptionThank you; your support keeps me writing and helps me pay the bills.

Happy Monday! Sam and Emma speak with David Austin Walsh, postdoctoral associate at the Yale Program for the Study of Antisemitism and college fellow at the University of Virginia, to discuss his recent book Taking America Back: The Conservative Movement and the Far Right. First, Sam and Emma run through updates on the Harris campaign's momentum, Trump's email problem, the DNC, Ilhan Omar's race, Trump's tough few weeks, Biden's medicare drug price negotiations, consumer protection policy, Israel's continuing genocide in Gaza, Ukraine's counter-invasion, and dropping violent crime rates in 2024, before basking in Trump and Vance's beautifully poor handling of the “weird” allegations. David Austin Walsh then joins, diving right into the major role of one William F. Buckley in shaping American conservatism in the second half of the 20th Century, presenting himself (and all of his bigotry) as the “rational Republican.” Stepping back, Walsh explores how Buckley, the founder of the National Review, came to be the resectable staunch anti-communist and anti-labor aficionado that just happened to have close ties to full-on Neo Nazis, looking at the roles of folks like Merwin Hart, Charles Lindbergh, and Russell Maguire in shaping the more explicitly racist antisemitic strands of Buckley's war on communism, before Barry Goldwater's major loss in 1964 (and the rise of the Civil Rights Movement) saw him begin to push away the electoral risk of rhetorical extremism. Expanding on this, David explores how Buckley's goal of obscuring the bigotry behind the policies of his party became a fundamental element of the conservative political apparatus in the decades that followed, with lines being drawn between the intellectual race science of the Bell Curve and the explicit eugenics of William Shockley, and other major talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and Tucker Carlson becoming media darlings while pushing the line of “respectability” further and further. After briefly touching on the important role of the “crackpot” extremist bigots in Buckley's political charade, Walsh steps back to analyze the role catholicism and theocracy have played in the background of this evolution, and wraps up with a brief assessment of the Right's willing embrace of reactionary populism over recent decades. And in the Fun Half: Sam and Emma dive deep into reports of the major disarray within the Trump campaign in the wake of Harris replacing Biden on the Democratic ticket, before taking in Dr. Tanya Haj Hassan's reflections on medical care in Gaza and the unmatched horrors facing Palestinians. The MR Team also has an expansive conversation on Harris' approach to Gaza, how her public stance on the genocide influences Biden and Bibi (if at all), and what they'd like to see from her moving forward, plus, your IMs! Check out David's book here: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300260977/taking-america-back/ Check out the LIMITED EDITION Vergogna shirt on the MR shop!: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/collections/all-items/products/the-majority-report-vergogna-t-shirt Check out Tony Y, who designed the Vergogna shirt's website!: https://linktr.ee/tonyyanick AND! Check out Anne from Portland's website for HER Vergogna t-shirt! INQUIRE MORE HERE FOR DETAILS!: https://www.bonfire.com/store/pictrix-design/ Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Join Sam on the Nation Magazine Cruise! 7 days in December 2024!!: https://nationcruise.com/mr/ Check out the "Repair Gaza" campaign courtesy of the Glia Project here: https://www.launchgood.com/campaign/rebuild_gaza_help_repair_and_rebuild_the_lives_and_work_of_our_glia_team#!/ Check out StrikeAid here!; https://strikeaid.com/ Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: Prolon: Right now, Prolon is offering The Majority Report with Sam Seder listeners 15% off their 5-day nutrition program. Go to https://ProlonLife.com/MAJORITY.  That's https://ProlonLife.com/MAJORITY slash MAJORITY for this special offer. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Rioting in Harlem and Brooklyn; news coverage in Vietnam set to expand; the search for three civil rights workers continues; Malcolm X speaks out on Barry Goldwater; George Wallace withdraws; the Phillies are riding high. Newscaster: Joe Rubenstein.  Support this project on Patreon!

This summer, C-SPAN is bringing you live, gavel-to-gavel coverage of both the Republican and Democratic party conventions … featuring the presidential nomination acceptance speeches of Joe Biden and Donald Trump … If history is any guide, there will be at least one memorable line or phrase from each speech. Like in 1964: "So let us here tonight, each of us, all of us, rededicate ourselves to keeping burning the golden torch of promise which John Fitzgerald Kennedy set aflame” That was President Lyndon Johnson, accepting the nomination at the 1964 Democratic National Convention… He ran for president a year after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. And here's his opponent -- Senator Barry Goldwater -- accepting the nomination at that year's Republican National Convention “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” The latest episode of C-SPAN's podcast "The Weekly" puts all these famous lines in historical context – going back to 1960. What were the most iconic or meaningful or campaign-altering sentences and phrases from every acceptance speech since 1960? What were the quick but big rhetorical moments that affected every presidential campaign over the past 64 years? Find out in C-SPAN's “The Weekly.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Republican National Convention is underway in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this week, and Donald Trump is the GOP's official pick for president. But Trump's bombastic attitude and brash words aren't new to American politics. Sixty years ago, another grandiloquent and explicitly extreme presidential candidate appeared on the scene: Barry M. Goldwater. For longtime Arizonans and political historians, the name Goldwater is synonymous with "extremism" and the man who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. For conservatives, he was a leader they could rally behind during a time of immense change.  Just who was Goldwater and was he really as extreme as history says he is? In this episode, we look back at that historic campaign between Goldwater and Lindon B. Johnson. Want to learn more about Arizona's unique brand of extremism? Subscribe to Rediscovering. Season 4 "The Roots of Radicalism" drops Monday, July 22. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sixty years ago, convening in San Francisco, Republicans nominated firebrand Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater as their party's nominee against incumbent Democrat Lyndon Johnson. But ,many Republicans in 1964 saw Goldwater as too extreme. And Goldwater himself didn't do much to calm those concerns, with his acceptance speech. After being trounced by LBJ that fall, Goldwater remained in the Senate for another 22 years, helping shape the conservative policies of the GOP. In this 1988 interview Goldwater talks about how nasty politics have become, but how otimistic he is about America's youth. Get Goldwater by Barry GoldwaterAs an Amazon Associate, Now I've Heard Everything earns from qualifying purchases.You may also enjoy my interviews with Bob Dole and Dan Quayle For more vintage interviews with celebrities, leaders, and influencers, subscribe to Now I've Heard Everything on Spotify, Apple Podcasts. and now on YouTube #Republican #1964 #LBJ #GOP

Sami Gold, an undergraduate political science student at George Washington University and contributor to Liberal Currents joins me from New York City to discuss some key texts of reactionary right-wing cinema from the post-Civil Rights era and the beginning of America's involvement in Vietnam and the election of Richard Nixon, what we could call counter-counter revolutionary cinema or Silent Majority cinema. We begin with a discussion of the John Birch Society, a formerly influential wing of the Republican Party whose ideas we can see being indulged now in Donald Trump's control of the GOP, including the JBS's controversial propaganda film Anarchy U.S.A., which argues that the Civil Rights movement is a secret Communist plot to fuel a “Negro-Soviet” takeover of the United States. John Wayne was once a member of the John Birch Society and we discuss his passion project of the late sixties, the controversial pro-Vietnam War film The Green Berets which he co-directed, one of the only studio films about the war made during the war, released in the summer of 1968 in a climate of antiwar protests, assassinations and the rise of Richard Nixon. And we also discuss the 1970 political satire Joe, starring Peter Boyle as a blue collar, racist, anti-hippie right-winger who strikes up a friendship with a conservative member of the executive class who in a moment of rage murders the drug-dealing boyfriend of his junkie hippie daughter, and how their search for her in New York leads to further carnage, with remarkable echoes to modern politics because these two men represent the two main voter blocks that support Trump today.  To support this show directly and to receive access to dozens of exclusive episodes, consider becoming a patron for only $5.00 a month (U.S.) at ⁠patreon.com/junkfilter Follow Sami Gold on Twitter and subscribe to his Substack, Shmulik's Takes. Sami's article "Chris Rufo and the Great Liberal Threat" for Liberal Currents, Feb 27, 2024 "Barry Goldwater vs. The Swinging '60s: The ‘Choice' Film” by Daniel McCarthy, for the American Conservative, May 20, 2013 The suppressed 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign commercial Choice The John Birch Society propaganda film Anarchy U.S.A. (G. Edward Griffin, 1966), courtesy of the National Film Preservation Foundation Trailer for The Green Berets (John Wayne and Ray Kellogg, 1968) UK trailer for Joe (John G. Avildsen, 1970)

Episode 229 is the seventh  in a series of episodes where we begin to explore the radical right groups of the 1960's that clearly had great motive to murder president Kennedy. Emerging, alongside civil rights leaders, as a prime target for ire of white racists,  anti-communists, and and a wide variety of other conservative groups, President Kennedy was a a target among them all. This aspect of the assassination and the connection of the radical right is little explored.  We started  many episodes back, with the story of Joseph Milteer but its rather easy to pull on that string and find much more underneath the covers. Today's episode Part 7 explores the Constitution Party Meeting in Indianapolis in October 1963 where Milteer  was a material player. Ths meeting was a consortium of sorts where many of the most prominent members of the radical right underground were further bound together and found an environment to further collaborate. A rift developed over the support of Strom Thurmond versus Barry Goldwater and Milteer is admonished for certain activities and nearly expelled from the party.  There story brings together a greater element of societal underground. We hear of the traditional groups and study them including the KKK, the John Birch Society, the White Citizens Councils, The National States Rights Party and the Minutemen. These handful of groups were intertwined with men who weaved their way in and out of the shadowy existence of this intense resistance to societal change. This meeting included those elements but it was more than that...it included other elements of society with means  The story is not faceless, and we will introduce many of the key characters in this series of episodes that were key to understanding how the radical right may have participated in the JFK Assassination. But first lets explore a bit about this meeting the Congress of Freedom as we go deeper  to connect the players and provide context. Even as early as 1964, rumors and serious concerns over  the lone gunman theory and the evidence that might contravene it,  were becoming a major concern for the government and the commission. Conspiracy theories were contrary to the government's stated narrative from the very beginning. This  real-life story is more fascinating than fiction.  No matter whether you are a serious researcher or a casual student, you will enjoy the fact filled narrative and story as  we relive one of the most shocking moments in American History. An event that changed the nation and changed the world forever.

The Heritage Foundation's B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies is pleased to announce that Peter Robinson, Hoover Institution Senior Fellow and former speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan, will deliver the inaugural Lee Edwards Lecture in Conservative Leadership. The title of his speech is “How Ronald Reagan Won the Cold War.”The Heritage Foundation established the annual Lee Edwards Lecture in recognition of Dr. Edwards's long service as a Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at Heritage, during which time he wrote most of his 25 books about the leading individuals and institutions of the modern conservative movement. Dr. Edwards authored biographies of President Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley Jr., and Edwin Meese III, as well as histories of The Heritage Foundation, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), and the conservative movement. His books have been translated into Chinese, Japanese, Swedish, and Polish.In addition to the many books he wrote, Dr. Edwards taught politics at the Catholic University of America for more than 30 years and was named a Distinguished Lecturer by the university. Dr. Edwards was also a co-founder of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.

Mickey Edwards served 16 years in Congress, as the first Republican to represent his Oklahoma City-based district in almost 50 years. Prior to his time in the House, he'd already made a mark as a leader in early days of "New Right" conservative organizations like the Young Republicans and Heritage Foundation. In this conversation, he talks his early days as a conservative political outsider in a Democratic state, the upset victory that propelled him to 8 terms in the House, his ascent within the GOP House Leadership, and how conservatism and Congress have changed since he left elected office.IN THIS EPISODEGrowing up blue-collar in the Rust Belt, before his family moves to Oklahoma City...The incredible story of surviving three gunshot wounds while being robbed....What led him to gravitate to conservative politics in a one-party Democratic state...His roots as part of the "New Right" in the 1960s and 1970s...His early days as a newspaperman before entering politics exclusively...How he beat established Republicans and Democrats in route to becoming the first GOP House member to represent OK City in nearly 50 years...How he caused a furor from both parties in his first floor speech in the House...Why Tip O'Neil is one of his political heroes...Why he views GOP Speaker Newt Gingrich and Democrat Jim Wright as harmful to the institution of the House...His occasional role in the 70s and 80s as a conduit between the establishment and activist wings of the GOP...Memories of working with Presidents Carter, Reagan, and Bush...The entreaties he made to organized labor to try to forge common ground with the GOP...Why he considers himself a "Jack Kemp Republican"...How he became the GOP Policy Chair, the 4th highest leadership position in the House GOP...Why advocating for the Osage Tribe was his proudest moment as a House member...His analysis of how the conservative movement and Republican Party have gotten off track...His level of his pessimism that our political system will become increasingly dysfunctional...His thoughts on a career as a prominent Jewish Republican...The current projects he's most passionate about...AND Ethan Allen, the American Conservative Union, James Baker, Blair House, Lauren Boebert, cinder blocks, the Cleveland Guardians, Hillary Clinton, closed rules, Tom Delay, JR Ewing, Matt Gaetz, Barry Goldwater, Nathan Hale, Denny Hastert, Chic Hecht, Patrick Henry, The Heritage Foundation, Jewish Workmens' Circle, John Kennedy, Killers of the Flower Moon, Paul Laxalt, Look Magazine, Ed Madigan, Bob Michel, Richard Nixon, Oklahoma Sooners, night depositories, Ronald Reagan, Sandinistas, Chris Shays, shoe stores, the Sierra Club, John Sununu, tall grass praries, Marjorie Taylor Green, the Tea Party, Tinker Air Force base, Donald Trump, JC Watts, Paul Weyrich, Jim Wright, Lee Zeldin...& more!

Give a little to help support the Truce Podcast When did Republicans, the party of Abraham Lincoln, start courting the American South? It's a big question! For decades, Republicans were known as the party that helped black people (except, you know, for ending Reconstruction to help gain the White House). Then, with the nomination of Barry Goldwater, the tide turned. Goldwater's team promoted him as a racist when he toured the South. And... he won some ground in the traditionally Democratic region. So when it came time for Richard Nixon to run in 1968, his team decided to court the South. Not out in public like Goldwater had. Instead, they decided to operate a campaign of "benign neglect" where they would not enforce existing laws meant to protect African-Americans. Our special guest this week is Angie Maxwell, author of The Long Southern Strategy. Discussion Questions: What caused the rift in the Democratic Party that made Strom Thurmond leave (hint: it has to do with Truman)? What was the Democratic Party like before Truman? What influence did Strom Thurmond have on Nixon? Who was Barry Goldwater? How did he change the Republican Party by courting white Southerners? How might the idea of the South being "benighted" impact them as a people? Why do so many evangelicals see themselves as "benighted"? Sources: "The Long Southern Strategy" by Angie Maxwell and Todd Shields. "Reaganland" by Rick Perlstein YouTube clip of Nixon not wanting "Law and Order" to mean "racist" Nixon talking about "law and order" in a speech Nixon's campaign ad about protests and tear gas Article about Nelson Rockefeller Nixon's civil rights ad Helpful Time Magazine article "These Truths" book by Jill Lepore Bio on Strom Thurmond Article about Reconstruction "The Evangelicals" book by Frances Fitzgerald Truman's speech to the NAACP Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

[This blog will always be free to read, but it's also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: cmclymer@gmail.com. And yes, I am available for Pride Month speaking engagements. And if all this is too big a commitment, I'm always thankful for a simple cup of coffee.]This past weekend, I was invited to deliver the keynote speech at the Bonneville County Democratic Party's annual Truman Dinner in Idaho Falls, Idaho. It was my first time visiting the Gem State, and I was captivated by both the gorgeous scenery and the warmth of Idahoans. When I was invited to the Truman Dinner a few months ago by Chairwoman Miranda Marquit, I accepted immediately. And I'll tell you why.Idaho is a deeply conservative state. It has not gone for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964; that year, Lyndon B. Johnson, despite trouncing Barry Goldwater—winning 44 states (and D.C.), 486 electoral votes, 61 percent of the popular vote—won Idaho by less than two percent.Idaho has not elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate since 1974, a Democratic governor since 1990, and with the exception of a single term served by Mr. Walt Minnick in the 111th Congress (2009-2011), it has not otherwise elected a Democrat to the U.S. House since 1994.Idaho is among those states that actually increased their support for Trump from 2016 to 2020, despite his loss to President Biden.Abortion was formally banned in the state two months after the Supreme Court's Dobbs ruling (except in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother during the first trimester), and LGBTQ rights in the state are abysmal, although public polling of Idahoans illustrates a more complicated picture (about 70 percent of Idahoans support LGBTQ non-discrimination laws).So, yes, it is accurate to say that Idaho is deeply conservative.But I spent the entire weekend with Idaho Democrats, and I found myself in awe of their dedication, kindness, and unyielding pride in Democratic values. They did not feel sorry for themselves. They did not make excuses. They had no time for pity.I was in the company of so many wonderful people who get up every day and fight the good fight for their families, their neighbors, and their state. I wish that so many Democrats living in solidly progressive areas of this country had a tenth of the courage and commitment demonstrated by the Democrats I met in Idaho.I am so tired of some Democrats living in solid blue parts of the country looking down their noses at folks putting in the work in conservative swaths of our nation, questioning their sanity in living where they do, as though uprooting one's family from the only home they've ever known is a feasible option for most people.The unflappable worth ethic of these Idaho Democrats reminded me of how proud I am to be a progressive from Texas and how much I bristle when someone who lives in a solidly blue state condescends to Democrats living in conservative areas.Anyway, the full remarks of my speech are below, and if you would be so kind, I highly encourage donating to the Bonneville County Democratic Party. Please help them build the future of Democratic politics in the state.FULL REMARKSGood evening!My name is Charlotte Clymer, and I am proud to be a member of the Democratic Party.It's an honor to join y'all tonight. When your chair Miranda Marquit extended an invitation to me a few months ago, I immediately agreed. You see, I've never been to Idaho, and every person I've ever met from Idaho has said to me: “Oh, don't come here. You'd hate it. Nothing to see at all. No gorgeous scenery. No nature. It's so boring. And tell your friends not to come here, either!”Idaho is a wonderfully kept secret. So, I knew I had to come for that reason, alone.But I also accepted the Chairwoman's invitation because I know what it's like to be a proud Democrat in an area of the country where Democrats aren't so plentiful. Because let's face it: I know that there are a lot of folks in this county, maybe even some folks in this room, who look at me and only see a trans woman, a progressive trans woman, who has flown in from Washington, D.C.What could I possibly know about what it's like to live in a conservative area? What could I possibly know about having a lot of conservative friends and neighbors and constantly being in spaces with people who are not gonna see the world as I do?This is what I call box thinking. It's become one of the biggest problems for our country: this relentless need to place everyone we know in a box and call it a day. There are a lot of folks who live their lives believing there are only two boxes and you need to belong to only one of those two boxes and it had better be their box.And if you chose to place me in a box before getting to know me, you'd miss out on a lot.You'd never find out that I served in the U.S. Army for six years and I am very proud of my service. You'd never find out that my Christian faith is one of the most important things to me and that I go to church every Sunday. You'd never find out that I'm very proud to be from the South, that I come from two lines of family raised in the South. You'd never find out that I played high school football, that I grew up around firearms, that I was raised on country music, and I am proud of all these aspects of who I am.I know what it's like to be from a part of the country that people living in more progressive areas look at and say: “Oh gosh, I'm so sorry,” as though I've just told them my dog died.Actually, that's not entirely true. If I told them my dog had died, they would probably have asked about South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem's whereabouts.But it's true. We live in a nation of people who insist that there are only two boxes. And I'm not just talking about people on the right. I'm talking about people on the far-left, too. So much of the far-left can't stand me because I defy their box theory. They believe that I, as a trans woman, am not supposed to be proud of our military, that I am not supposed to go to church, that I am not supposed to disagree with them.That's the thing they still don't realize. The brutal truth is that the far-right and far-left have one thing in common: they both live in fear of talking with a reasonable adult who disagrees with them.Well, folks, here's my message to them: this country is a whole lot damn bigger than two boxes.I have not come this far in life to allow myself to be defined by strangers who are scared of reasonable disagreement. Who I am is between me and God, and no one else gets a say in that.And this goes for geography, too. I'm from the great state of Texas, and if all you knew about Texas were our state's political leadership and their incessant irresponsibility and selfishness and cruelty—if that's all you knew about Texas—you probably wouldn't want to visit.But you see, I'm very proud to be from Texas, probably for the same reasons that all of you here are proud to be from Idaho. And you should be. Because this is home. This is where you first learned about community. It's where you first understood what it means to live alongside others and take care of your neighbors and work hard to ensure that no one gets left behind.It hasn't surprised me one bit to find out that folks in Idaho are kind, hardworking, empathetic, and resilient. And I think that goes double for Idaho Democrats. It takes guts to walk up to door after door and knock on it, knowing that the person behind that door is more than likely going to be resistant to your message, knowing that you're going to have to do the thankless work of communicating a vision of solidarity and progress with your neighbor, who may have been fed a lot of disinformation and hateful propaganda.I hope you'll hear what I'm saying: it takes courage to be an outspoken Democrat in a place where few exist, but more than that, in states like Idaho and Texas, it takes courage to swallow your pride and meet people where they are and get them to see how the Democratic Party has their best interests at mind. It takes courage to do the hard and necessary work of constantly extending a hand to folks who don't agree with you on most things.But it is necessary. It is absolutely necessary. You are doing the work that needs to be done, and thank god for that.I think it's quite appropriate that we're gathered this evening at a dinner named for a president who understood, better than most presidential candidates of the 20th century, what it means to be the underdog.Harry Truman was not supposed to win the 1948 presidential election. The winner that year was supposed to be New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey, who was very popular with his base and very charismatic. Of the 500 newspapers in the country at that time, nearly 80 percent endorsed Dewey. One famous pundit said two months before Election Day that the race was basically over.Most of that campaign can be summed up this way: the press thought Dewey was going to win, the pollsters and pundits thought Dewey was going to win, and Dewey thought Dewey was going to win. In fact, even President Truman's closest aides and his wife Bess privately thought Dewey was likely to win. So, it was clear that Dewey was going to win. It seems the only person who thought Truman could win was Truman.You see, President Truman was an incredibly capable commander-in-chief. He had successfully led the United States out of World War II and began the process of rebuilding Europe. He had common sense and stood up for working class families. He was a great chief executive.But he wasn't flashy. Many folks didn't find him very exciting. Around this time that year, in mid-May, his approval rating was 36 percent. He was challenged by people in his own party. He was doubted by the press. There were some folks who openly wondered if it wouldn't be a bad idea for Mr. Truman to drop out of the race and give another Democrat a shot.There were third party candidates like vicious racist Strom Thurmond, who threatened to take votes from President Truman and weaken him against Dewey.And meanwhile, Thomas Dewey was saying nothing much at all. He wasn't articulating any new or interesting policy ideas. He wasn't laying out a vision for all Americans. He was pandering to his base and playing it safe otherwise.So, an incumbent who's a great leader but isn't considered very exciting, a challenger who isn't saying anything new but is considered by many to be charismatic, a bunch of third party clowns mucking up the process, and a political press that seems to be asleep at the wheel.Does any of this sound familiar?President Truman went on aggressive whistle stop tours of the country, giving speeches at train stations all over, hammering the GOP and Dewey, refusing to back down, refusing to give up, and absolutely certain he was gonna win.I want to read you a quote from a speech President Truman delivered by radio in St. Paul, Minnesota about three weeks before the election:“Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. ...They think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.”You could take that quote and put it in a speech by President Biden now, and you wouldn't miss a beat. Mr. Truman didn't play it safe. He didn't hesitate to fight for his values. He didn't try to pander to zealots and clowns. He was a warrior for democracy and working families.Three weeks after that speech, President Truman won. The pundits were apoplectic. All night, radio announcers told the public that Truman's lead in the national vote was temporary. There's no way he could win. Political reporters said he couldn't win, so how could this happen?The day after the election, President Truman held up the front page of the Chicago Tribune that had been printed and distributed erroneously, with that iconic headline in big bold letters:DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMANAnd he didn't just win. He got two million more votes than Dewey and trounced him in the Electoral College.I want to be very clear about something tonight. If you walk away with anything from this event, I want you to walk away with this: Joe Biden is going to be reelected President of the United States. We are gonna win in November. And it's not just because our party has ideas that actually help working class families. It's not just because President Biden's policies have saved our economy. It's not just because Republicans don't have any new ideas or new solutions.No, here's why President Biden is going to win: because he trusts the American people to understand what's at stake.We don't want to live in a country where any elected official believes he's above the law and should be treated like a king. We don't want to live in a country where the state gets to decide what women do with their bodies. We don't want to live in a country where politicians get to tell parents what health care they're allowed to provide their children. We don't want to live in a country where the richest people still get unfair tax breaks while working families struggle to provide for their children. We don't want to live in a country where those in power turn their backs on the labor movement and working class families.We don't want to live in a country in which life-saving and comprehensive health care is only accessible to those earning six figures or more.That's it. That's all that matters. And the leadership of the Republican Party lives every day in fear that more and more working families are gonna realize that.The polls don't matter. Listen, y'all, I've been following politics all my life and working in politics for most of my career, and I can tell you beyond the shadow of a doubt that polls don't worry me.What did the pollsters say in 2018? That Democrats were right to be anxious. What happened? Democrats took back control of Congress in an enormously embarrassing defeat for Trump.What did the pollsters say in 2020? That Democrats were headed for a catastrophic defeat at the polls. What happened? President Biden was elected, and Democrats took back control of Congress.What did the pollsters say in 2022? Do y'all remember? They said a “red wave” was coming and Democrats were about to be wiped out in Congress. What happened? President Biden had the best midterms performance of any first term Democratic president in six decades. The red wave turned out to be a red trickle.Folks, I say again: there is no doubt in my mind that we are going to win in November. President Biden and Vice President Harris will be reelected, we will take back the House, and you know what? I'm feeling cautiously optimistic that we'll hold the Senate, too.And when this all happens, the pundits and pollsters will make excuses like they always do. And the Republican Party will make excuses like they always do. And the press will make excuses like they always do.Let it be known right now: the Democratic Party ain't got time for excuses.There are working families to support, homeless veterans to house, minimum wage workers to be helped, children to be fed and educated, and a country, a proud country, to believe in.That starts right here in places like Bonneville County. It starts in places like my home state of Texas. It starts in the places in this country most in need of building bridges by folks like yourselves who are doing that thankless work because it needs to be done.I am grateful for you, and I want you to know there are Democrats all across this country who are grateful for you.Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your hospitality. Have a wonderful evening.Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Charlotte's Web Thoughts at charlotteclymer.substack.com/subscribe

"The Speech" is what Ronald Reagan called it. Today we call it, "A Time for Choosing," and it was a pivotal turning point in Ronald Reagan's life. Ronald Reagan began a long side-career of public speaking as his acting career closed out. He traveled across the country meeting Lions Clubs, Rotary Clubs, Chambers of Commerce and any other civic-minded local groups. This continued and intensified during his service as the General Electric spokesperson while hosting their sponsored television series. "The Speech" was delivered in various forms and to different audiences as each word was honed, measured and memorized. During the 1964 Presidential campaign, Republican party officials in California, who knew Reagan's powerful message and delivery, asked him to film a speech on behalf of the Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater. The speech was aired on October 27, 1964 and it was electrifying. Donations to the Republican party and candidates increased dramatically. The Republican Party took note and they targeted Reagan as a candidate from that point forward. He agreed in 1966 to run for Governor of California. He won two terms, and eventually won the Presidency.

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we delve into the intricacies of the MAGA movement with Isaac Arnsdorf, a national political reporter for The Washington Post. Isaac shares insights from his new book, "Finish What We Started: The MAGA Movement's Ground War to End Democracy," examining the evolution of MAGA from its roots in earlier American political ideologies to its transformation post-January 6th. Join us as Isaac explains the movement's shift towards more extreme elements and its strategy to infiltrate the Republican Party from the ground up, as well as discussing potential scenarios for future elections and the ongoing impact on American democracy.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:1️⃣ Historical Continuity and Evolution: The MAGA ideology connects back to older political traditions in America, such as the non-interventionist "America First" ethos of the 1930s and the conservative backlash against the New Deal. This historical perspective helps explain the resurgence and transformation of these ideologies in today's political landscape.2️⃣ Transformation of the MAGA Movement Post-January 6th: Isaac elaborates on how the MAGA movement became more radicalized and inclusive of extreme right elements post-January 6th. This was driven by grassroots efforts rather than Trump himself, with significant influence from figures like Steve Bannon aiming to deeply integrate the movement within the Republican Party.3️⃣ Impact and Strategies for Future Elections: Arnsdorf expresses concerns about potential disruptions in future elections, noting preparations for legal strategies that could make elections contentious and the worrying prospect of political violence or disruptive actions at crucial electoral stages.Follow Our Host and Guest: @LevinsonJessica @Iarnsdorf

LBJ speaks out against extremism; Communist atrocities in Vietnam; Barry Goldwater wins the Illinois primary; history is made at the Oscars; Shea Stadium opens for business. Newscaster: Joe Rubenstein.  Support this project on Patreon!

This week we continue on our RSS journey from G. Gordon Liddy to Phyllis Schafly, and now Barry Goldwater.  Barry was an interesting guy with some of the most perplexing views in politics. Amanda and Jason spend this episode trying to get to the bottom of this weird figure who changed the American political landscape forever.    email: carolinasnowflakes@gmail.com website: carolinasnowflakes.com

There were no orcas or rollercoasters, but there were ‘seamaids' serving tropical drinks when Sea World San Diego first welcomed guests on 22nd March, 1964.  Originally conceived as a themed restaurant with a marine show inside, the founders had pivoted to build a seaquarium instead, drawing thousands of eager visitors, including, bizarrely, Senator Barry Goldwater. It wasn't until the acquisition of the famous killer whale, Shamu, that SeaWorld's identity truly solidified, but the park's success sparked ethical debates about the treatment of animals, from ‘Free Willy' to ‘Blackfish'. In this episode, Arion, Rebecca and Olly weigh up the park's achievements in sealife conservation with the cruelty of keeping orcas in captivity; explain why the city of San Diego was so keen to back this innovative new attraction; and reveal how the Shamu phenomenon can trace its origins to one man's dream of riding a whale like a waterski…   Further Reading: • ‘The Fantastical Vision for the Original SeaWorld' (The Atlantic, 2014): https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/03/the-fantastical-vision-for-the-original-seaworld/284561/ • ‘Obituary: Milton Shedd, 79, Co-Founder of SeaWorld' (The New York Times, 2002): https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/28/business/milton-shedd-79-co-founder-of-seaworld.html?searchResultPosition=24 • ‘The Complete "One Ocean" Shamu Show at SeaWorld' (Money Saving Videos, 2013): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as93_fvdYyk We'll be back on Monday - unless you join

Robert McNamara briefs LBJ on Vietnam; Barry Goldwater speaks out; Robert Kennedy goes on the Jack Paar Show; Malcolm X defects from the Nation of Islam; the Celtics set another record. Newscaster: Joe Rubenstein.  Support this project on Patreon!

This week on the Mark Levin show, the Democrat party and the media have a long history of labeling people they do not like as Hitler, from Ronald Reagan to Barry Goldwater to Donald Trump. Also, there is only one way to bring the Hamas hostage issue to an end in Gaza, and that is for Israel to take hostages too for them to make a swap. Hamas only takes hostages in order to get money from the Biden administration and to get their own terrorists back. Chris Christie finally suspended his Presidential campaign. Christie is an angry, ruling-class establishment Republican from the Bush administration, and is doing what establishment Republicans always do – sabotage their opponents. The same was done in 1980 with Ronald Reagan, who won a landslide victory even with a third-party candidate. We cannot let people like Christie and John Sununu destroy real conservatives like Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis while pushing the establishment candidate, Nikki Haley. President Biden is re-arming our terrorist enemies in the Middle East through his appeasement, and as a result, the war in the Middle East has expanded because of our unwillingness to take out military sites in Iran. Iran has come out from behind Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, and has now seized an oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman with U.S. interest. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On Monday's Mark Levin Show, the Democrat party and the media have a long history of labeling people they do not like as Hitler, from Ronald Reagan to Barry Goldwater to Donald Trump. The Republican establishment and the Democrat media tried to destroy Goldwater from within just as they are doing to Trump today with people like Chris Christie and John Sununu. It is a huge problem for the American people to have a corrupt media like we have today. Also, Fulton County DA Fani Willis had a relationship with and financially benefitted from the special prosecutor in the Trump case in Georgia. Over the weekend there was a big leak out of the special prosecutor's office in D.C. that helps the government and harms Trump. Trump is being gagged while at the same time, the Department of Justice is poisoning jury pools by selectively leaking information. Meanwhile, the DOJ is now looking to prosecute anyone who was simply outside of the Capitol on January 6, but Democrat “peaceful” protestors like Antifa and BLM get a slap on the wrist. Later, Mark is joined by Dave McCormick, Senate candidate for PA, about Biden's pressure on Israel to surrender to Hamas and how Israel is the tip of the spear in the fight against a terrorist ideology that threatens us all. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The former governor argues that beating up on businesses "is only sharpening the knife that the left will eventually use on us."

Savage speaks with conservative firebrand Kari Lake whose gubernatorial campaign inspired and captivated the nation. Kari tells Savage how a near fatal flight would change the direction of her life. A former news anchor, Kari reveals the corruption in the media, motivated by greed and globalism. Hear how she once took a trip with Cindy McCain to Cambodia. Lake and Savage share their admiration for Barry Goldwater; the original MAGA candidate. Listen as she details: how she survived being canceled, what we must ALL do to save America, and why she was labeled 'The Most Dangerous Politician in America.' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices