Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:05:07.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Politics of Party Renewal: The “Service Party” and the Origins of the Post-Goldwater Republican Right

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2013

Brian M. Conley
Brian M. Conley*
Affiliation:
Suffolk University
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The rise of the Republican Right in the 1960s reshaped not only the politics of the Republican Party, but ultimately that of the country as well. What had started as an improbable movement to draft Goldwater for president in 1964 emerged, amid the political and social turmoil of the decade, as the dominant force within the Republican Party. But what has not received as much attention is the significant role that the national Republican Party leadership and the emphasis it placed on party renewal, rather than reform, played in the Right's rapid post-Goldwater ascent. This article examines how the process of party renewal, specifically the emergence of a national “service party” structure, helped not only to unify the GOP after the 1964 Goldwater loss, but also led to the development of a more conservative Republican Party during the second half of the 1960s.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in American Political Development , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , April 2013 , pp. 51 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See, for example, Reinhard, David, The Republican Right Since 1945 (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Brennan, Mary C., Turning Right in the Sixties: The Conservative Capture of the GOP (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Diamond, Sara, Roads to Dominion: Right-wing Movements and Political Power in the United States (New York: The Guilford Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

2. In the ensuing conflict, Burch, a personal friend and trusted ally of Goldwater, came to represent not only Goldwater's place as the head of the party, but the long-term desire of party conservatives to control the Republican Party itself. Indeed, given their odds of winning the presidency, many top Goldwater aides understood early on that control of the RNC was crucial to preserving their leadership role in the event of the senator's defeat. As one Goldwater operative explained at the time, “I know we probably won't win in November and I don't give a damn. Winning control of one of the two parties is victory enough for me.” It was for this reason that during his brief tenure as party chair, Burch, with the help of his executive assistant, John Grenier of Alabama, sought to pack RNC headquarters with dedicated Goldwater supporters. Quoted in Klinkner, Philip, The Losing Parties: Out-Party National Committees, 1956–1993 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 72Google Scholar. See also “Goldwater Supporters Hold Key Professional GOP Posts,” Congressional Quarterly 11 (October 1963): 1770–74; and Lamb, Karl, “Under One Roof: Barry Goldwater's Campaign Staff,” in Republican Politics: The 1964 Campaign and Its Aftermath For the Party, ed. Cosman, Bernard and Huckshorn, Robert (New York: Frederick Praeger Publishers, 1968), 20–45Google Scholar.

3. Quoted in Earl Mazo, “Two-Thirds of National Body Oppose Goldwater Aide, Survey Shows,” New York Times, November 11, 1964, 25. For an account of Thurman's switch to the Republican Party in fall 1964, see Dent, Harry, The Prodigal South Returns to Power (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978), 64–68Google Scholar.

4. For an analysis of the Right's postelection position, see Polsby, Nelson W., “Strategic Considerations,” in The National Election of 1964, ed. Cummings, Milton (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1966), 82–110Google Scholar; as well as Donald Janson, “Rightists Buoyed by the Election; Open New Drives,” New York Times, November 23, 1964, A1; and Earl Mazo, “Moderates in G.O.P. Challenge Goldwater Control of Party; Romney Makes Plea for Unity,” New York Times, November 5, 1964, 1.

5. For analysis of the organization and function of the service party concept, see, for example, Aldrich, John H., Why Parties: The Origins and Transformation of Political Parties in America (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Frantzich, Stephen, Political Parties in the Technological Age (New York: Longman, 1989)Google Scholar; Bibby, John, “Party Renewal in the National Republican Party,” in Party Renewal in America: Theory and Practice, ed. Pomper, Gerald (New Brunswick: Praeger, 1980): 102–15Google Scholar; Herrnson, Paul, “National Party Organizations at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century,” in The Parties Respond: Changes in American Parties, ed. Maisel, L. Sandy (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2002), 47–78Google Scholar; Bibby, John, “State Party Organizations: Strengthened and Adapting to Candidate-Centered Politics and Nationalization,” in The Parties Respond: Changes in American Parties and Campaigns, ed. Maisel, L. Sandy (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2002), 19–46Google Scholar; Sabato, Larry and Larson, Bruce, The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future (New York: Longman, 2002)Google Scholar.

6. Quoted in “How Bliss Plays the Card for the GOP,” Business Week, March 9, 1968, 28.

7. Bliss, Ray, “Chairman's Report,” January 31, 1966, in Papers of the Republican Party, ed. Kesaris, Paul (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1986), 95Google Scholar, microfilm; Quoted in Thompson, Howard, “GOP Planning Super Drive in '56,” Ohio State Journal, October 10, 1955Google Scholar.

8. See, for example, Crotty, William, Decisions for the Democrats: Reforming the Party Structure (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), 256Google Scholar.

9. See, for example, Aldrich, Why Parties, 254; and Sabato and Larson, The Party's Just Begun, 83.

10. For accounts of how shifting public policy in the 1960s, notably the advance of a liberal social agenda at the national, state, and local levels was believed to have strengthened conservative attacks on government and weakened the standing of the Democratic Party, particularly among white working-class voters, see Berman, William, America's Right Turn from Nixon to Clinton (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1998)Google Scholar; Rieder, Jonathan, “The Rise of the Silent Majority” in The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order, 1930–1980, ed. Fraser, Steve and Gerstle, Gary (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), 243–69Google Scholar; Thomas and Edsall, Mary, Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991Google Scholar); and Skocpol, Theda, “Sustainable Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs,” The American Prospect (Summer, 1990): 58–70Google Scholar.

11. “The Bliss style of leadership, as demonstrated in Ohio,” write John Bibby and Robert Huckshorn, “stressed strong party organization, recruitment of attractive candidates, unified fund-raising, a high degree of personal staff loyalty, and a commitment not to ideology but winning elections.” Bibby, John and Huckshorn, Robert, “Out-Party Strategy: Republican National Committee Rebuilding Politics, 1964–66,” in Republican Politics: The 1964 Campaign and Its Aftermath for the Party, ed. Cosman, Bernard and Huckshorn, Robert (New York: Frederick A. Praeger Publishers, 1968), 214Google Scholar.

12. For an insightful comparative analysis of Bliss and Brock, see Klinkner, Philip, “A Comparison of Out-Party Leaders: Ray Bliss and Bill Brock,” in Politics, Professionalism and Power: Modern Party Organization and the Legacy of Ray C. Bliss, ed. Green, John (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1994), 135–48Google Scholar. For an overview of Brock's party-building efforts, see Bibby, “Party Renewal in the National Republican Party,” 107–14.

13. See, for example, Teles, Steven M., “Transformative Bureaucracy: Reagan's Lawyers and the Dynamics of Political Investment,” Studies in American Political Development 23 (2009): 61–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14. For accounts of the “rise” of the Right in the 1960s, see Reinhard, The Republican Right Since 1945; Brennan, Turning Right in the Sixties; Diamond, Roads to Dominion; Miles, Michael W., The Odyssey of the American Right (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Berman, America's Right Turn from Nixon to Clinton; Schuparra, Kurt, Triumph of the Right: The Rise of the California Conservative Movement, 1945–1966 (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1998)Google Scholar; Evans, M. Stanton, The Future of Conservatism: From Taft to Reagan and Beyond (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968)Google Scholar; Critchlow, Donald, Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Right Made Political History (Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Reichley, A. James, Conservatives in an Age of Change: The Nixon and Ford Administrations (Washington DC: The Brookings Institution, 1981)Google Scholar; Lowndes, Joseph, From the New Deal to the New Right: Race and the Southern Origins of Modern Conservatism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Lesher, Stephen, George Wallace: American Populist (Reading. PA: Addison-Wesley, 1994)Google Scholar; and Perlstein, Rick, Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus (New York: Hill and Wang, 2001)Google Scholar.

15. Brennan, Turning Right in the Sixties, 1. See also Diamond, Roads to Dominion, 112; and Reinhard, The Republican Right, 216.

16. For an analysis of the key role played by the National Review in the development of the postwar Right in the United States, particularly its “originalist” constitutional and political philosophy, see Kersch, Ken, “Ecumenicalism Through Constitutionalism: The Discursive Development of Constitutional Conservatism in National Review, 1955–1980,” Studies in American Political Development 25 (2011): 86–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17. Reinhard, The Republican Right, 216.

18. Brennan, Turning Right in the Sixties, 119.

19. See, Brennan, Turning Right in the Sixties, 126, and Lowndes, From the New Deal to the New Right, 111, 126. Indeed, for an analysis of the lengths to which Nixon went as a candidate and as president to appeal to conservatives, particularly in the South, while also trying to appear as a national rather than partisan leader, see Frymer, Paul and Skrentny, John David, “Coalition-Building and the Politics of Electoral Capture During the Nixon Administration: African Americans, Labor and Latinos,” Studies in American Political Development 12 (1998): 131–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20. See, for instance, Lowndes, From the New Deal to the New Right, 110–11.

21. Diamond, Roads to Dominion, 109.

22. Critchlow, Conservative Ascendancy, 78.

23. See, Klinkner, Philip A., The Losing Party: Out-Party National Committees, 1956–1993 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

24. For more on the study of factions, see Rose, Richard, “Parties, Factions and Tendencies in Britain,” Political Studies 12 (1964): 33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Belloni, Frank and Beller, Dennis, Faction Politics: Political Parties and Factionalism in Comparative Perspective (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio, 1978)Google Scholar; Ranney, Austin, Curing the Mischiefs of Faction: Party Reform in America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975)Google Scholar; Medvic, Stephen K., “Old Democrats in New Clothing: An Ideological Analysis of a Democratic Party Faction,” Party Politics 13 (2007): 587–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Green, John and Guth, James L., “Controlling the Mischief of Faction: Party Support and Coalition Building Among Party Activists,” in Politics, Professionalism, and Power: Modern Party Organization and the Legacy of Ray C. Bliss, ed. Green, John (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1994): 234–64Google Scholar; Boucek, Francoise, “Rethinking Factionalism: Typologies, Intra-Party Dynamics and Three Faces of Factionalism,” Party Politics 15 (2009): 455–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reiter, Howard, “Intra-Party Cleavages in the United States Today,” Western Political Quarterly 34 (June 1981): 287–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reiter, Howard, “Factional Persistence within Parties in the United States,” Party Politics 10 (May,2004): 251–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; DiSalvo, Daniel, “Party Factions in Congress,” Congress and the Presidency 36 (2009): 27–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Koger, Gregory, Masket, Seth, and Noel, Hans, “Cooperative Party Factions in American Politics,” American Politics Research 38 (2010): 33–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25. Wildavsky, Aaron, “The Goldwater Phenomenon: Purists, Politicians, and the Two-Party System,” Review of Politics 27 (1965): 386–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an analysis of the factional split exacerbated by the Goldwater nomination and subsequent defeat, see Brennan, Turning Right in the Sixties; as well as Klinkner, The Losing Party, 41–43, and Mayer, George H., The Republican Party, 1854–1966 (New York: Oxford University, 1967), 545–48Google Scholar.

26. See Brennan, Turning Right in the Sixties, 22–24, 28–37.

27. Howard Reiter, “Intra-Party Cleavages in the United States Today,” 293–94.

28. Rae, Nicol C., The Decline and Fall of the Liberal Republicans: From 1952 to the Present (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 7Google Scholar.

29. Rae, The Decline and Fall of the Liberal Republicans, 8. See also, A. James Reichley, Conservatives in an Age of Change, 22–37.

30. Green and Guth, “Controlling the Mischief of Faction,” 258.

31. See Herrnson, Paul S., “Party Leadership and Party Organizational Change,” in Politics, Professionalism, and Power: Modern Party Organization and the Legacy of Ray C. Bliss, ed. Green, John (Lanham, MA: University Press of America, 1994), 186Google Scholar; as well as Longley, Charles H., “National Party Renewal,” in Party Renewal in America: Theory and Practice, ed. Pomper, Gerald M. (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1980), 69–86Google Scholar.

32. Such changes to the Democratic Party included increased transparency and representation in the party's nominating process and convention rules as well as the drafting of a party charter. (See Crotty, Decisions for The Democrats;” Casey, Carol, “The National Democratic Party,” in Party Renewal in America: Theory and Practice, ed. Pomper, Gerald M. (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1980), 87–101Google Scholar; as well as Arden, Caroline, Getting the Donkey Out of a Ditch: The Democratic Party in Search of Itself (New York: Greenwood Press, 1988), 1–14Google Scholar; and Price, David E., Bringing Back the Party (Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1984), 145–52)Google Scholar.

33. Herrnson, “Party Leadership and Party Organizational Change,” 188. “The end,” explains Austin Ranney, “from what he calls the “competitive” perspective “is winning elections, [and] the primary means is ‘combat effectiveness.’” As such, “reform or anti-reform alike,” he continues, “are judged according to whether they contribute to or detract from that effectiveness.” See Ranney, Curing the Mischiefs of Factions, 135.

34. See Rae, The Decline and Fall of the Liberal Republicans, 126–27, as well as Ranney, Austin, “The Political Parties Reform and Decline,” in The New American Political System, ed. Beer, Samuel H. and King, Anthony S. (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1978), 213–47Google Scholar. Although there has been some debate over when, and who, in terms of party chairs, was able to achieve party renewal within the post-Goldwater Republican Party, few dispute that the party's response to the 1964 defeat was primarily “organizational” rather than ideological in nature. See, for example, Herrnson, “Party leadership and Party Organizational Change,” 186–202.

35. See, for example, Aldrich, Why Parties; Frantzich, Political Parties in the Technological Age; Herrnson, “National Party Organizations at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century;” Sabato and Larson, The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future (New York: Longman, 2002Google Scholar).

36. See, for instance, David Price, Bringing Back the Parties (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1984), 32–38.

37. Aldrich, Why Parties, 269.

38. Herrnson, “National Party Organizations at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century,” 52.

39. Aldrich, Why Parties, 273, 269.

40. Price, Bringing Back the Parties, 297.

41. See Conley, Brian, “States and the Making of the ‘Service’ Party: The Case of the Postwar Ohio Republican Party,” Journal of American Studies 45, 3 (2011): 519–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42. Bliss, Ray, “The Role of the State Chairmen,” in Politics U.S.A: A Practical Guide to the Winning of Public Office, ed. Cannon, James (New York: Doubleday, 1960), 160Google Scholar.

43. Bliss, “The Role of the State Chairmen,” 161.

44. Bliss, “The Role of the State Chairmen,” 170, 161–62.

45. See Bliss, Ray, “Remarks of Ray Bliss before the Republican National Committee,” January 22, 1965, in Papers of the Republican Party, ed. Kesaris, Paul (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1986), 56Google Scholar, microfilm.

46. See Bliss, Ray, “Looking Ahead,” June 29, 1965, in Papers of the Republican Party, ed. Kesaris, Paul (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1986), 106–7Google Scholar. Microfilm.

47. “Bliss Announces New Campaign School,” RNC News Release, January 21, 1966, 1–2.

48. Ray Bliss, “To the Participants in the Republican Campaign Managers' Seminar,” December 2, 1965; box 91, “Education and Training–Campaign Seminars, 1965–1966,” Ray C. Bliss Papers, MSS 768. Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio. (Hereafter cited as Bliss Papers.).

49. Ray Humphreys to Bliss, June 22, 1965, box 91, “Education and Training Division, 1965–1966,” Bliss Papers.

50. Ray Humphreys to Bliss, June 22, 1965.

51. Peterson, Arthur, “Research Division: Status and Plans,” June 29, 1965 in Papers of the Republican Party, ed. Kesaris, Paul (Frederick: University Publications of America, 1986), 108Google Scholar. Microfilm. See also, “facilities of the Research Division,” August 25, 1965, box 103, “Research Division,” Bliss Papers.

52. Bob Smalley to Ray Bliss, April 5, 1965, box 80, “Memos and Plans, 1965–1966,” Bliss Papers

53. Walter Pincus, “The Fight Over Money,” Atlantic Monthly (April 1966) 72.

54. Lucius Clay, June 22, 1965, box 120, “RCB's File, 1966–1967,” Bliss Papers.

55. See Green and Guth, “Controlling the Mischief of Faction,” 234–35; Aldrich, Why Parties, 254 and Sabato and Larson, The Party's Just Begun, 83.

56. See, Earl Mazo, “Moderates in G.O.P. Challenge Goldwater Control of the Party: Romney Makes Plea for Unity,” New York Times, November 5, 1964, A1.

57. See, for example, Critchlow, Conservative Ascendancy, 80–81; Hess, Stephen and Broder, David, Republican Establishment: The Present and Future of the G.O.P. (New York: Harper and Row, 1967), 81–83Google Scholar; as well as Mary Brennan, Turning Right in the Sixties, 112–13.

58. For accounts of the formation and changing organizational structure of the RCC, see Earl Mazo, “G.O.P. Governors Demand Shake-Up in Party Control,” New York Times, December 6, 1964, 1; Julius Duscha, “Ev and Jerry Show Proposes GOP Coordinating Committee,” Washington Post, January 12, 1965, A1; and Russell Freeburg, “Leaders Propose G.O.P. Unit on Policy,” Chicago Tribune, January 12, 1965, 13; as well as “Republican Coordinating Committee,” Box 110, “Organizational Chart, 1968,” Bliss Papers.

59. Klinkner, The Losing Party, 71.

60. Klinkner, The Losing Party, 71.

61. Stephen Hess and David Broder, Republican Establishment, 52.

62. “Republican Coordinating Committee,” Box 110, “RCC, 1965,” Bliss Papers.

63. Robert Albright, “GOP Finds Unity Hard to Come By,” Washington PostJune 4, 1965, A15. See also “Long Downtrend in Party Base Reversed,” The Republican, January 2, 1967, 2–7, Box 110, “RCC, 1965,” Bliss Papers.

64. “How Bliss Plays the Card for the GOP,” Business Week, March 9, 1968, 30.

65. See, for example, Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, “Nixon and the Birchers,” Washington Post, October 12, 1965, A17.

66. See, for example, David Broder, “South Asks Voice on Top G.O.P. Unit,” New York Times, June 27, 1965, 54. On Bliss's statement denouncing Welch, see Bliss, “Statement on Extremism,” RNC News Nov. 5, 1965, Box 105, “Splinter Groups – RCB on Extremism [1965–1966],” Bliss Papers. On the anti-Birch RCC resolution, see Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, “Why the GOP Pulled Its Punch,” Los Angeles Times, December 20, 1965, A6; and “Argues Radical Charge Excludes John Birchers,” Chicago Daily Defender, December 15, 1965, 4.

67. See Klinkner, The Losing Party, 85; as well as Hess and Broder, Republican Establishment, 51.

68. See, Hunger, John M., “Statement of Dr. John M. Hunger,” January 23, 1967, in Papers of the Republican Party, ed. Kesaris, Paul (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1986), 53Google Scholar, microfilm.

69. “Bliss Advises Young Republicans to Widen Appeal to Gain Recruits,” Newark Sunday News, June 15, 1965, 24, Box 108, “Young Republicans, 1965,” Bliss Papers.

70. Robert Lewis, “Bliss Carrying Ball on GOP Youth Kick,” Jackson Citizens Patriot, December 11, 1966, 6, Box 94, “ABH, 65–69,” Bliss Papers.

71. See Lewis, “Bliss Carrying Ball;” and Hunger, “Statement of Dr. John M. Hunger,” 54.

72. “Bliss Advises Young Republicans to Widen Appeal to Gain Recruits,” 24.

73. See, for example, Lowndes, From the New Deal to the New Right, 62–63.

74. Evans, The Future of Conservatism, 113.

75. For a detailed account of the 1963 Young Republican Convention in San Francisco, see Perlstein, Before the Storm, 215–21.

76. See Hess and Broder, Republican Establishment, 80–81; Perlstein, Before the Storm, 176–86; Evans, The Future of Conservatism, 112–15.

77. “Bliss Advises Young Republicans to Widen Appeal to Gain Recruits,” 24.

78. Elly Peterson to Ray Bliss, October 21, 1965, Box 108, “Young Republicans, 1965,” Bliss Papers.

79. “Young Republicans Hold ‘Count-Down-365 to Launch ’66 Campaign,” RNC News, September 20, 1965: 30, box 108, “Young Republicans, 1965,” Bliss Papers.

80. “Young Republicans Hold ‘Countdown-365’ Dinners,” 30. See also “Anti-Semitism Charged to Young GOP Faction,” Los Angeles Times, January 28, 1966, 14.

81. For an analysis of the South's role in the 1964 election, see Lowndes, From the New Deal to the New Right.

82. For accounts of the “Rat Fink” scandal, see Ronald Sullivan, “G.O.P Chiefs Act to Oust Jersey Racist Faction,” New York Times, January 28, 1966, 12; as well as Ronald Sullivan, “Rat Fink Inquiry Nearing a Crisis,” New York Times, April 16, 1966, 12; “GOP Deplored ‘Rat Fink’ Image Spread by Young Republicans,” Washington Post, June 12, 1966, A4.

83. See, for example, Mary Brennan, Turning Right in the Sixties, 113.

84. Harrower, Tina, “Statement of Tina Harrower,” January 23, 1967, in Papers of the Republican Party, ed. Kesaris, Paul, 150–51Google Scholar, microfilm. See, also, Sickle, Tom Van, “Statement of Tom Van Sickle,” January 23, 1967, in Papers of the Republican Party, ed. Kesaris, Paul, 69–72Google Scholar, microfilm.

85. See, for example, Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, “GOP Slips Bridle on YRs,” Los Angeles Times, January 24, 1966, A6.

86. See Van Sickle, “Statement of Tom Van Sickle,” 69–72, microfilm.

87. Harrower, “Statement,” 154.

88. Quoted in Thomas Foley, “Both Parties Have Young Rebel Woes,” Los Angeles Times, February 19, 1967, D6.

89. Apparently frustrated by Bliss's machinations, Van Sickle pushed back at the RNC in Omaha. “We don't want to serve in the trenches but have no voice in headquarters,” he told the YR convention. (Quoted in Jack Bell, “Young Republicans Ask Greater Voice in Party,” Washington Post, June 23, 1967, A8.) See also Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, “Muddle of Young Republicans,” Washington Post, April 19, 1967, A21; Richard Bergholz, “Early Plans Paid Off for YR Victors,” Los Angeles Times, June 25, 1967, D16.

90. In his work on the postwar Right, Reinhard notes that the Young Republicans only became more conservative after the Goldwater loss, but he does not discuss how the party leadership's response to the factional conflict within the group may have encouraged such a trend. See Reinhard, Republican Right, 216

91. Warren Weaver, “Jersey Chiefs Resist Pressure to Ease Fight on Young G.O.P.,” New York Times, August 23, 1967, 21.

92. Bliss, Ray, “Discussion in Relation to Young Republicans,” September 7, 1967, in Papers of the Republican Party, ed. Kesaris, Paul, 35–36Google Scholar, microfilm.

93. Quoted in Rymph, Catherine, Republican Women: Feminism and Conservatism From Suffrage Through the Rise of the New Right (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006), 162Google Scholar. See also Goldberg, Robert, Barry Goldwater (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 125–32Google Scholar.

94. By the 1960s, the role women, and specifically the NFRW, should play in the party had been the subject of controversy for several years. For many women, the Federation had been permanently regulated to a secondary and largely subordinate role by the mostly male national leadership. Bliss was partially aware of such gender inequities, given ongoing efforts within the RNC itself to expand women's representation. But he nonetheless uncritically celebrated women's traditional role as grassroots organizers. (For a discussion of this debate, see Rymph, Republican Women, 183–87.)

95. Bliss, Ray, “Report of Committee on Big City Politics,” June 1, 1961, in Papers of the Republican Party, ed. Kesaris, Paul, 40Google Scholar, microfilm.

96. See Hess and Broder, Republican Establishment, 81.

97. See Schlafly, Phyllis, A Choice, Not an Echo (Alton, IL: Pere Marquette Press, 1964)Google Scholar. Schlafly would also dedicate a chapter of her 1967 book, Safe—Not Sorry, to what she saw as the “purging” of Goldwater supporters from the NRFW. (See Schlafly, Phyllis, Safe—Not Sorry (Alton, IL: Pere Marquette Press, 1967)Google Scholar). See also, Marie Smith “Mrs. Schlafly Charges ‘Purge’,” Washington Post, March 9, 1967, B1.

98. Marie Smith, “Mrs. Schlafly Charges ‘Purge,’” Washington Post, March 9, 1967, B1; and Louise Hutchinson, “Denies Purge of Women Who Backed Barry,” Chicago Tribune, March 9, 1967, 18.

99. Critchlow, Donald, Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism: A Women's Crusade (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), 137Google Scholar.

100. Thomas Foley, “GOP Women's Group Picks Southlander,” Los Angeles Times, March 8, 1967, 16.

101. Thomas Foley, “GOP Women Hopefuls Debate Face to Face,” Los Angeles Times, May 13, 1967, 6.

102. Rumors circulated of illegal delegates from New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania being spirited into the convention hall through a backdoor, and of pro-O'Donnell forces being put up in the homes of Republican congressmen, including that of George H.W. Bush, where they were treated to a catered breakfast on the day of the vote. (See Critchlow, Phyllis Schlafly, 156.)

103. Quoted in Russell Freeburg, “Mrs. Schlafly Asks Women's Vote Probe,” Chicago Tribune, May 9, 1967, A5.

104. Quoted in Critchlow, Phyllis Schlafly, 159.

105. See “GOP Chairman Refuses Election Probe,” Washington Post, May 11, 1967, D2.

106. Gladys O'Donnell, “The Role of the National Federation of Republican Women: 1968,” February 22, 1968, in Papers of the Republican Party, ed. Paul Kesaris, 53, microfilm.

107. Critchlow, Phyllis Schlafly, 159.

108. Reinhard, The Republican Right, 216.

109. Brennan, Turning Right in the Sixties, 111.

110. Quoted in Brennan, Turning Right in the Sixties, 111.

111. See Donald Janson, “Rightists Buoyed by the Election,” New York Times, November 23, 1964, A1.

112. Ronald Reagan, “The Republican Party and the Conservative Movement,” National Review, December 1, 1964, 1055.