By David Kopel
The New Ledger, Oct. 28, 2010.More by Kopel on late 20th century American political history.
This year, there is scarcely a Republican running in a competitive race who has not been called “an extremist” by his or her opponent, and the opponent’s allies. Often those allies have included the media. These charges are often accompanied with a claim that the allegedly extremist Republican is not like Republicans of previous decades. It is true that some of the fiscally conservative Republicans on the 2010 ballot are different from their spendthrift predecessors. But one thing that has not changed in politics is the charge of “extremism.”
When Ronald Reagan first ran for elective office, Governor of California in 1966, the opposition attempted to tar him as an extremist. Reagan was running against incumbent Governor Pat Brown, father of the 2010 Democratic California gubernatorial nominee Jerry Brown. Notwithstanding the extremist charges, Reagan won the election, and served two terms as California Governor, and then two terms of President of the United States. Let’s take a look at that the use of the extremism issue in 1966 campaign.
Incumbent Democratic Governor Pat Brown was delighted that Reagan would run against him:
When Brown heard Reagan might oppose him, he was at once incredulous and delighted: “Ronald Reagan for Governor of California?” Brown wrote in 1970. “We thought the notion was absurd and rubbed our hands in gleeful anticipation of beating this politically inexperienced, right-wing extremist and aging actor in1966.” (Matthew Dallek, The Right Moment: Ronald Reagan’s First Victory and the Decisive Turning Point in American Politics). Early in 1965, national political columnist Marquis Childs wrote that “the polls show Reagan with comparatively little strength.” Childs predicted that Reagan would have a harder time than George Murphy, an actor and conservative Republican who had won California’s U.S. Senate race in 1964.
Also running for the Republican nomination was San Francisco Mayor George Christopher. On the eve of Reagan’s declaration of candidacy, Christopher said that any candidate who needed “several paragraphs” to explain his attitude towards extremists was equivocating. (N.Y. Times, 1/4/66).
State Republican party chairman Gaylord Parkinson promulgated what he called the 11th Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any other Republican.” The rule kept Mayor Christopher from attacking Reagan for extremism, or anything else. (N.Y. Times, 10/16/66). Later, that 11th Commandment became popularly attributed to Reagan himself.
Reagan, Christopher, and their supporters were happy to abide by the 11th Commandment. They knew that Republicans would need to be united in the fall to overcome the Democrats’ 3:2 registration advantage. Christopher emphasized that he had the better chance of winning; polls showed him with a 15-point lead over Brown, while Reagan was tied with Brown. (Time, 5/27/66). Christopher said that the Republicans would have the best chance of winning by picking a candidate who was “not tainted with the extremist philosophies of either the far right or the far left.” (L.A. Times, 10/27/65).
Brown’s team resurrected charges that Christopher had long ago participated in illegal price-fixing of milk. The intent was to weaken Christopher so that Reagan would win the primary, and it worked. But by driving Republican moderates into voting for Reagan in the primary, Brown had inadvertently reduced his chance to win over those voters in the general election by frightening them about Reagan.
The June 7 primary results were exactly what Brown had hoped for. Brown turned back a strong challenge from Sam Yorty, the conservative Democratic mayor of Los Angeles. And “Brown rejoiced when Republicans gave him the opponent he craved, Ronald Reagan.” (George Will, Fresno Bee, 4/12/95).
Some old guard Republicans were not so happy. One of them reacted to Reagan’s triumphs with “a surge of frustration and a sense of impotence verging on involuntary melancholia.” (S.F. Chronicle, 6/10/66).
A State Poll asked voters to characterize the candidates ideologically. For Reagan, 6 percent chose “ultra-conservative” and another 6 chose “right-wing extremist.” Among Democrats, 16 percent picked one of those labels for Reagan. The poll showed that Reagan was drawing much more support from Democrats than Brown was from Republicans; in part this was because the public was more solid in considering Brown a liberal than they were in thinking Reagan a conservative. (L.A. Times, 6/27/66.) Clearly the voters did not believe Reagan to be out of the mainstream. The Brown campaign would do its best to change their minds
The toughest political challenge for Reagan involved the John Birch Society. While membership in the John Birch Society was small, the about a third of California Republicans thought that the Birchers were mostly fighting the right fight. These Republicans resented any candidate who denounced the Birchers, as Richard Nixon had done in his failed run against Pat Brown in 1962. (N.Y. Times, 10/16/66).
Founded in 1958 by businessman Robert W. Welch, Jr., the John Birch Society had a hundred thousand members at its peak, but because of Welch’s money for an extensive publishing program, its influence was much broader. While many people agreed with the Birch Society’s ultra-hard anti-communist philosophy, Welch discredited the society by pushing foolish conspiracy theories. For example, Welch called President Eisenhower a “conscious, dedicated agent of the communist conspiracy,” and claimed that Eisenhower was under the control of his superior in the secret Soviet hierarchy, Eisenhower’s more liberal brother Milton.
In an October 1965 issue of National Review, William F. Buckley castigated Welch for discrediting the conservative movement. Buckley did not, however, denounce the John Birch Society or its members.
A month before, Reagan had done the same thing. He told the Republican state central committee that he was in “great disagreement” with Welch. As for the Birch Society in general, “I am not a member. I have no intention of becoming a member. I am not going to solicit their support.” He said that a lunatic fringe had infiltrated the group. This was not exactly accurate, since the chief lunatic was founder Robert Welch. He also issued a public statement to the same effect, adding that “In my opinion those persons who are members of the John Birch Society have a decision to make concerning the reckless and imprudent statements of their leader, Robert Welch.” (L.A. Times 9/5/66).
Democrats tried to tie Reagan to the Birchers. State Controller Alan Cranston, who would later serve as U.S. Senator from California, claimed that Reagan was for a front for the John Birch Society. (San Jose Mercury News, 11/20/86).
Maryland Democratic Senator Joseph Tydings predicted that Reagan would receive massive funding from out-of-state “right wing extremists.” (L.A. Times, 6/21/66). (Tydings, an ardent supporter of gun control and wiretapping, would be defeated for re-election in 1972, and the defeat would frighten many Congresspersons away from gun control for years to come.)
Retired President Dwight Eisenhower, the embodiment of moderate Republicanism, warmly endorsed Reagan on June 15. The endorsement made it especially difficult for the Democrats to convince moderate or liberal Republicans that Reagan was too far-out ideologically.
Eisenhower’s former Vice-President, Richard Nixon, speaking at a Reagan rally, took up a theme which had been used by Los Angeles Mayor Yorty in the Democratic primary. Nixon said that the only extremist issue in the campaign was Brown’s refusal to repudiate the California Democratic Council. The Council had been founded by Cranston and George Miller (father of the current California Dem. U.S. Representative) in 1952, and was the organizational focus for the left wing of the state Democratic party.
Nixon said that the Council “harbors draft card burners, troop train blockers, and beatniks” who had brought the University of California at Berkeley to its knees with violent student demonstrations. Further, Nixon said that the Council “advocates appeasement of Hanoi, Havana, and Peking.” (Chicago Tribune 6/24/66).
At the state party convention in early August, the Democratic platform denounced and rejected any support from the Communist Party and the John Birch Society. (N.Y. Times, 8/14/66). Thus, in the Democratic view, Americans who supported tyranny were the moral equivalent of Americans who, in their zealous opposition to that tyranny, indulged in outlandish conspiracy theories.
Reagan meanwhile, kept Birchers out of campaign jobs, and tried to keep himself separated from the Birch Society without alienating its members. He said that he rejected support from “any blocs or groups.” He said he would be happy to have the support of Birch Society members, but that the support would show he had “persuaded them to accept my philosophy, not me accepting theirs.” (Stephen F Hayward, The Age of Reagan: The Fall of the Liberal Order, 1964-1980).
The Democrats stuck to their theme. According to Brown, Reagan was “the crown prince of the extreme right.” Eugene Wyman, a California Democratic National Committeeman, called Reagan a “staunch defender of the far right, a disgrace to the Republican Party and a threat to the politics of moderation which has given this state wise and able leadership in the past two decades.”(Dallek, The Right Moment).
In early August, Thomas Pitts, an official with the California Labor Federation, accurately told the press that Reagan had recently had a private meeting at Lake Tahoe with an official of the National Association of Manufacturers, a business trade association which many Democrats reviled. Pitts said that the meeting had involved a joint plan to make Social Security voluntary and to elevate Reagan to the Presidency in 1968.
Pitts also noted that the NAM official, Richard C. Cornuelle, had been an official with the Fund for Voluntary Welfare. Cornuelle had written a 1965 book, Reclaiming the American Dream: The Role of Private Individuals and Voluntary Associations, which urged that the “independent sector” (voluntary civic associations) were the key to American vitality, and their role had been diminished too much by the welfare state.
Pitts said that Cornuelle has also been identified with the Volker Fund. This was also true; at the time, the Fund was the major financial backer of libertarian ideas.
Pitts pointed out that Reagan had narrated the Volker Fund’s 1962 film The Ultimate Weapon (about North Korean brainwashing of American prisoners of war during the Korean War). Pitts said that the film had been premiered in Tulsa by the racist extremist Christian Crusade of Billy James Hargis. Hargis was a prominent radio preacher, a Bircher, an anti-communist which a propensity for conspiracy theories, and a supporter of racial segregation.
Thus, according to Pitts, Reagan was in “a conspiratorial alliance with ultra-reactionaries who don’t give a damn about the little guy’s Social Security, but are all wrapped up with the big guy’s profits.”
Reagan spokesman Nofziger confirmed the meeting, but denied Pitts’ characterization of the substance of the meeting. (N.Y. Times, 8/4 & 5/66).
Being associated with Richard Cornuelle was not much a problem for Reagan. Even Franklin Roosevelt, Jr., liked Cornuelle’s ideas, as did the moderate Republican Governor of Michigan, George Romney.
But the Democrats also claimed that Reagan was associated with Gerald K. Smith, a prominent hatemonger and supporter of national socialism, including pro-Nazi organizations before and during World War II.
Reagan explained, “I have fought bigotry and discrimination all by professional life and as head of ‘the Screen Actors’ guild.” And, “Several years ago, a portion of a nonpolitical speech I made was reprinted by Smith in his publication. I had no control over that. I wrote the Anti-Defamation League that I abhorred anti-Semitism and the use by Smith of any remarks of mine, and the league accepted my explanation.” (Chicago Tribune, 8/6/66).
Speaking at a campaign rally a few days later, Reagan predicted that the Democrats “will resort to vilification, and they’ll stand in mud up to their armpits and say this is the dirtiest campaign in history.” (N.Y. Times, 8/8/66).
The California Democratic State Committee released a 29 page report, Ronald Reagan, Extremist Collaborator. A shorter version of the report was distributed as a campaign pamphlet. The thesis was that “Ronald Reagan is an extremist’s collaborator in California. He endorses their projects, promotes their policies, takes their money. He is their ‘front man.’ Meanwhile, he pretends to be a moderate, middle-of-the-roader. The record belies him. It shows that he has collaborated directly with a score of top leaders of the super-secret John Birch Society.”
The report listed Reagan supporters who were associated with the John Birch Society, or with Gerald L.K. Smith’s National Christian Crusade. The reported also listed a half-dozen appearances that Reagan had made for right-wing groups in 1964-65.
Among the charges: Reagan had helped “to keep the ultra-right wing magazine ‘Human Events’ afloat.” He had served on the national advisory board of Young Americans for Freedom. He had participated in planning sessions for the “violently rightist Project Alert.” He had campaigned in 1964 for the segregationist Louisiana gubernatorial candidate Charlton H. Lyons. He had appeared in films distributed by the Church League of America (an organization dedicated to fighting alleged communist infiltration of Protestant churches). He had appeared at a 1961 event in support of the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade.
Many of these charges were weak. They showed Reagan’s support for hardline anti-communist organizations, but that was hardly an unpopular viewpoint. The 1964 Democratic nominee for Governor in Louisiana was a segregationist, and guilt by association would have implicated much of the national Democratic party.
The report listed the members of “Reagan’s rightist braintrust”: Patrick J. Frawley, Jr. (Schick Razors), Henry Salvatori (oil exploration, and a founder of National Review), and Walter Knott (Knott’s Berry Farm amusement park). Reagan had received out-of-state contributions from Frank D. Ganahl (a Birch Society endorser), and Robert B. Dresser (a director of the conservative National Economic Council, which the report said was anti-Semitic).
Reagan’s staff denounced the report as “McCarthyism of the left.” (N.Y. Times, 8/12/66). Reagan himself called the report “reverse McCarthyism” and said that “It looks like a case of guilt by association, but in this instance, there isn’t even an association.” (L.A. Times, 8/14/66).
Democrats rejected the Reagan’s attempt to dissociate himself from the Birchers. As Northern California Democratic Chairman Spencer Coate put it, “Reagan has said ‘They buy my philosophy-I don’t buy theirs.’ If this one-way street is correct, then check the people he has worked closely with. We are not disclosing anything new about them. What we are disclosing for the first time is the comprehensive relationships among these radicals and Ronald Reagan.” (N.Y. Times, 8/12/66).
Along with the 29 page report, the Brown campaign produced a copy of the deed for the first house Reagan bought, in 1941, which included a racially restrictive covenant. (L.A. Times, 9/15/66).
Later in August, Coate announced that Reagan had been identified as an extremist by his own campaign managers. Coate pointed to a 1964 report by the campaign management firm Spencer Roberts & Associates. Spencer-Roberts was working for Reagan in 1966, and had worked for the Nelson Rockefeller presidential campaign in 1964.
New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller was very statist Republican, and his battle for the 1964 presidential nomination had come down to the California primary against Barry Goldwater. According to Coates, Spencer-Roberts wrote a memorandum claiming that the Goldwater campaign was surrounded by extremists who were perhaps “overwhelming” the campaign. Reagan was co-chair of the California Goldwater campaign.
Although the 1964 memorandum apparently did not mention Reagan, Coate cited the memorandum as proof of Reagan’s extremist ties. Reagan’s state press director, Lyn Nofziger, said that William Roberts (of Spencer-Roberts) had no memory of the memorandum, and that Reagan had no comment on the Coate smear campaign. (N.Y. Times, 8/24/66).
Were the Democratic attacks working? In late June, Reagan had led in the Mervin Field poll by 15 points. As of late August, his lead had shrunk to 3. This was corroborated by a Don Muchmore poll showing Reagan ahead by only 4. (L.A. Times 9/5/66).
But the Democrats still faced an uphill battle. The Los Angeles Times described their problems: Reagan was a fresh face, in contrast to Brown, who had been a statewide official since 1951. Voters were “sick of Vietnam, race riots, high taxes, rising prices. They may not know what they want, but they want something different.” In comparison to previous elections, Democratic volunteers were unenthusiastic, and Republican volunteers were energized. Further, Reagan had created an “unusual degree” of Republican unity, and had garnered the support of “[p]ractically the entire staff” of Christopher’s campaign, although not Christopher himself. (L.A. Times 9/5/66).
While Mexican-Americans “customarily side with Democrats almost to man,” Reagan was making inroads thanks to support from Dr. Francisco Bravo, who had headed the Spanish-speaking movement for Brown in 1962, but who thought that Brown had ignored Mexican-Americans in appointments. (L.A. Times 9/5/66).
On Sunday, Sept. 11, Brown and Reagan appeared separately on half-hour segments of “Meet the Press.” Reagan charged that the Brown administration was controlled by the California Democratic Council, which Reagan said consisted of “militant left-wing radicals.” These radicals were opposed to the Vietnam War, wanted to give diplomatic recognition to Fidel Castro and Red China, and to abolish the U.S. House Un-American Activities Committee.
As for the John Birch Society, Reagan said “I see no reason to blanket indict or repudiate an organization of which I am not a member and have no intention of joining. I have never solicited their support and understand they don’t give support to candidates.”
Brown called Reagan an “extremist” and “an enemy of the people” and said he had “a pathological fear of government.” (N.Y. Times, 9/12/66).
The Sacramento Bee (9/11/66) agreed, citing items from Ronald Reagan, Extremist Collaborator:
Among his other transgressions, Reagan had joined forces with a score of top members of the Birch society in 1964 on a committee to keep the ultra-right wing magazine Human Events afloat. He had been a member of the national advisory board of the Young Americans for Freedom. He had participated in planning sessions of the violently rightist Project Alert with John Rousselot, national public relations man for the John Birch Society.
Rousselot was a one-term U.S. Representative from southern California who had been defeated in 1962 partly because of his Birch membership. He later was elected to six more terms, starting in 1970, and then became a Special Assistant in the Reagan White House.
In mid-September, Nixon answered a reporter’s question, and said that he thought Reagan should repudiate the John Birch Society. Reagan’s staff was upset, because they thought they had put the Birch issue behind them, and Nixon’s remark put it back in the news.
Nationally-syndicated political columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak wrote that internal polls for both Brown and Reagan showed that voters did not care about the John Birch Society or the extremism issue. Rather, Reagan’s one serious vulnerability was voter concern about his inexperience.
Evans & Novak attributed the Brown campaign’s obsession with extremism to “the old political problem of campaign strategists saying what their supporters want to hear rather than what might win votes.” They explained that some of Brown’s base, particularly his “prominent Jewish supporters,” was terrified that Reagan represented a dangerously sharp turn to the right.
But, according to Evans & Novak, voters with such concerns were already in Brown’s camp. Meanwhile, Reagan was picking up the swing votes that would decide the election: the lower and lower-middle income white and Mexican-American voters who had voted for the conservative Yorty in the Democratic primary.
Private polls of heavily Democratic districts in south Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley showed the Reagan was demolishing Brown there.
The leadership of organized labor was solidly for Brown. But, as the Los Angeles Times observed, while the AFL-CIO had mounted the most intense labor campaign for a California candidate in a decade, “It is doubtful, however, to what extent union members nowadays follow their leaders’ advice in voting.” (L.A. Times 9/5/66).
One part of the effort to discredit labor supporters of Reagan was a charge that the chairman of the Long Beach committee of Labor for Reagan was “an active, functioning supporter of the John Birch Society.” According to the regional director of the United Auto Workers, UAW member Marvin Brody had been observed by other UAW members passing out John Birch literature, and attending John Birch meetings. Brody denied he was a John Birch member, but did not deny the specific facts.
Stan Nathanson, coordinator of Labor for Reagan, said that the campaign’s policy was “not to answer charges of extremism.” He pointed to Reagan’s 22 years of activism in the labor movement, and to Reagan’s opposition to Right to Work legislation in California. Nathanson predicted that Reagan would get many votes from union members, even though union leaders were disseminating lies about Reagan. (N.Y. Times, 9/28/66).
At a fund-raising dinner, Governor Brown said that Reagan meets weekly with a committee headed by two psychologists who were experts in exploiting people’s fears. Reagan was a “willing captive of extremist forces.” (L.A. Times, 9/27/66). Reagan was indeed using a behavioral research firm, headed by psychologists Stanley Plog and Kenneth Holden, to shape his message. (N.Y. Times, 2/6/66).
The Los Angeles Times observed that Brown “unceasingly” “belaboring” the extremist attack on Reagan. (10/3/66).
Speaking at a reception, Brown said that an “extremist radio commentator” (Glendale pastor W.S. McBirnie, who had a radio program called “Voice of Americanism”) had created the Reagan campaign theme of a “creative society.” According to Brown, McBirnie had said that peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union was impossible, that war was inevitable, and the newspapers had been captured by Communists. Thus, Reagan was “the captive of the radical right.” In response to press questions, McBirnie denied being the source of the campaign theme, and Brown replied that he would prove that McBirnie was the source. (L.A. Times, 10/13/66).
Reagan biographer Matthew Dallek explained that part of Reagan’s strategy for countering the extremism charges was to use “carefully chose spokesmen” who were “nice guys and new faces.” Further, campaign co-manager Bill Roberts “helped establish the important political lesson that voters will not perceive candidates as outside the mainstream if they don’t sound and act outside the mainstream. Image, not necessarily substance, got around the extremist charge.” (L.A. Times, 8/31/03).
That same lesson, by the way, was effectively followed by Barack Obama in 2008. Whatever his past association with kooks, Obama’s campaign persona was cool, calm, and temperate.
Closely related to the extremism charge was the accusation that Reagan was a racist. Like Barry Goldwater, he had opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act on constitutional grounds. According to Dallek, “He talked about those elements of civil rights he was for, so his opposition to specific legislation became irrelevant.”
Moreover, the top civil rights issue in California in 1966 was a law which banned racial discrimination in housing sales and rentals. Enacted by the legislature in 1963, it had been repealed by the voters in 1964 by a 2-1 margin. The California Supreme Court, however, had declared the repeal unconstitutional.
Reagan had insisted that the 1966 Republican platform include a promise to “repeal” the law. The law was so unpopular that even Governor Brown, who had originally said that opponents of the law were “fascists,” was now promising to appoint a commission to recommend modifications. So to the extent that race mattered in the 1966 election, Reagan benefitted from what was termed “white backlash.”
He also benefitted from his strong stand on law and order, as most voters were appalled by the August 1965 riot in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles, the September 1966 riot in San Francisco, and the violent protests on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley.
As the election drew near, the Washington Post highlighted the views of some Republican critics of Reagan: former Governor Goodwin Knight, liberal Republican U.S. Senator Tom Kuchel, San Francisco Mayor George Christopher, and conservative state Assemblyman Joseph Shell. “Their skepticism is based partly on his lack of experience, partly on the fact that he once teamed up with extreme leftists, now is backed by extreme rightists. They wonder whether, if elected, he would prove to be a ‘revolving door’ governor, given to sudden policy reversals.” (10/27/66).
The previous year, Kuchel had blasted the conservative Republican movement in California as “A fanatical, neo-Fascist, political cult, overcome by a strange mixture of corrosive hatred and sickening fear.”
These skeptics were joined by Republican State Assemblyman Howard J. Thelin, who endorsed Gov. Brown shortly before election day. Thelin called the Reagan campaign “a conspiracy of powerful, well financed forces dominated by extreme views,” and so Reagan’s defeat was “vital to the future of the Republican Party.” (Wash. Post, 10/28/66).
A November 1 news analysis for the Newspaper Enterprise Association summed up the problems with the Brown campaign. The efforts to demonize the amiable Reagan had “failed utterly.” One flaw in the strategy was Reagan’s background as a Democrat and as Screen Actors’ Guild union president indicated that he was nondoctrinaire and flexible.
Yet the Brown campaign had stuck to extremism “tactic long after its worthlessness seemed thoroughly demonstrated.” An unnamed Brown aide explained: “At this stage of the game you are so deeply committed to what you are doing that you can’t worm out of it.” Reagan’s staff was delighted that Brown had stuck to the failed strategy. As one remarked, “They just packed themselves into cement on that one.”
Towards the end, the Brown campaign did focus more on the experience issue, but it was too late. And so on election eve, Governor Brown once again warned: “Reagan stands shoulder to shoulder with the extremists who want to halt our progress in its tracks. He stands for the tired, discredited voices of the past, with the voices of reaction and retreat.” (Chi. Trib., 11/ 8/66).
Reagan won the election in a 58-42 landslide, carrying all but three counties. His powerful coattails elected Republicans all the way down the ballot.
Dave Kopel is Research Director of the Independence Institute, a think tank in Golden, Colorado.
More articles by Kopel on Reagan:
Reagan’s infamous speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Despite what the media told you, it was not a racist speech. Volokh Conspiracy. Aug. 16, 2011.
The "San Francisco Democrats" meme. Debunking the notion that Jeanne Kirkpatrick's 1984 foreign policy speech to the Republican National Convention was anti-gay. The Volokh Conspiracy. April 4, 2011.
Ranking Reagan. How well did he accomplish his own goals? National Review Online. June 8, 2004.