What do you think?
Rate this book
A Choice Not an Echo: Updated and Expanded 50th Anniversary Edition
Over 3 Million Copies Sold!
Celebrate 50 years since the release of Phyllis Schlafly's monumental A Choice Not an Echo, the book that launched the conservative resurgence of the late 20th century. This special updated and expanded edition contains 50 percent new material placing the book in its historical context and applying the book's lessons to the issues of today.
Celebrate 50 years since the release of Phyllis Schlafly's monumental A Choice Not an Echo, the book that launched the conservative resurgence of the late 20th century. This special updated and expanded edition contains 50 percent new material placing the book in its historical context and applying the book's lessons to the issues of today.
231 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1964
45 people are currently reading
486 people want to read
About the author
Phyllis Schlafly
57 books66 followersPhyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) was an American constitutional lawyer, conservative activist, and author.
She was known for her staunch social and political conservatism, her opposition to modern feminism, and her successful campaign against the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s.
She was known for her staunch social and political conservatism, her opposition to modern feminism, and her successful campaign against the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
June 8, 2009
I read this slim book as part of my current research project. It is a concise expression of the anti-communist ideology that gripped a faction of the Republican party in the 1950s and 60s. Since the resurgent of the use of "socialism" to denounce all things Democratic, the book has a modern tinge. Schlafly blames the "kingmakers" for the disasterous presidential choices of both parties that had resulted in American foreign policy that appeased communist governments. She uses this book to promote the election of Barry Goldwater, who was not the choice of the kingmakers. He was also not the choice of the American people who soundly rejected him in 1964.
May 8, 2011
Of interest only as a historical (or perhaps hysterical) snapshot. I read it out of curiosity after hearing it mentioned during the 2008 presidential campaign. It's pretty much just a propaganda pamphlet that goes on for over a hundred pages.
October 10, 2016
You know a book is a classic when you have heard ideas and phrases your whole life and finally realize that their origins are with a book you are just now getting around to reading. The premise is that U.S. Presidential elections have been played in the center since 1940. This is not happenstance says Schlafly, but by design. As the federal government became more and more involved in private business and banking, the leaders of industry decided to hedge their bets by shaping the nominees of both parties. To do this they accommodate a certain amount of social welfare spending that pleases neither the Left nor the Right, but is designed to be palatable enough to the moderate voter. More importantly they support candidates that are either committed internationalists or malleable enough to the notion, because the elite, says Schlafly, are not really interested in national sovereignty because there is more money to be made picking and choosing the different labor conditions and markets worldwide. Sometimes this means building a plant in third world countries and importing the goods back into the United States. Other times it means favoring open border policies that allow cheap labor to come to the United States.
Now it all sounds pretty conspiratorial and that is the vein in which I have previously heard complaints about the Trilateral Commission group or the Bilderberg Group. But Schlafly criticisms aren't so much about what secret things the establishment may be trying to do, but what they are actually doing in clear view, which is blurring the lines between conservative and liberal politicians. The politicians that do not play the game such as Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders are marginalized in the media as great people with no chance to win. Meanwhile, the inevitable push toward the media's chosen duo plays out in most every election. The result is that we have an echo rather than a choice.
Objectively speaking maybe this reality has as many benefits as it has drawbacks, but the pattern is very clear and not likely to be disrupted but maybe once a generation. When looking at it historically you realize that the voter has very little say about the direction of his country. It also
explains why we might be excited when our person wins but we are gradually disappointed by how the reforms we favor are enacted superficially or even counter-productively.
Much of what is argued here could be said by one of my progressive friends that would abhor Schlafly's politics, but still find a lot of agreement in how she sees the process itself. Now maybe it's all just a coincidence and the people are choosing the vanilla candidates on their own. But either way I came away from the book with a firmer notion that we just cannot trust Washington to do much in our own interests when they have a different agenda overall. All we can do is push the ball as far as we can within the 40 yard lines.
If you decide to read the book make sure that you get the 50th anniversary edition that tackles each presidential election from 1940 through 2012 where the pattern is even more obvious. It's worth a read just because of its historical value, but it's not outdated and may help the reader see national elections in a different light.
Now it all sounds pretty conspiratorial and that is the vein in which I have previously heard complaints about the Trilateral Commission group or the Bilderberg Group. But Schlafly criticisms aren't so much about what secret things the establishment may be trying to do, but what they are actually doing in clear view, which is blurring the lines between conservative and liberal politicians. The politicians that do not play the game such as Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders are marginalized in the media as great people with no chance to win. Meanwhile, the inevitable push toward the media's chosen duo plays out in most every election. The result is that we have an echo rather than a choice.
Objectively speaking maybe this reality has as many benefits as it has drawbacks, but the pattern is very clear and not likely to be disrupted but maybe once a generation. When looking at it historically you realize that the voter has very little say about the direction of his country. It also
explains why we might be excited when our person wins but we are gradually disappointed by how the reforms we favor are enacted superficially or even counter-productively.
Much of what is argued here could be said by one of my progressive friends that would abhor Schlafly's politics, but still find a lot of agreement in how she sees the process itself. Now maybe it's all just a coincidence and the people are choosing the vanilla candidates on their own. But either way I came away from the book with a firmer notion that we just cannot trust Washington to do much in our own interests when they have a different agenda overall. All we can do is push the ball as far as we can within the 40 yard lines.
If you decide to read the book make sure that you get the 50th anniversary edition that tackles each presidential election from 1940 through 2012 where the pattern is even more obvious. It's worth a read just because of its historical value, but it's not outdated and may help the reader see national elections in a different light.
March 29, 2016
Note: The pictured book is the original 1964 edition. Get the 2014 50th anniversary edition to which the following review applies ...
A fascinating must-read that covers Republican presidential elections from 1936 through 2012.
Learn about the kingmakers, who used to be entirely grouped in the NE, but who now include that group, plus other Big Donors across the nation who basically buy politicians to enact legislation for them. Recent trade deal agreements and amnesty for illegals programs being two contemporary examples of Big Donors and Kingmakers attempting to make policy through bought-and-paid-for politicians.
Recommended reading, whether Republican or Democrat, because the kingmakers are essentially bipartisan and willingly "throw" elections from their supposed party if their party's candidate is not owned by them.
A fascinating must-read that covers Republican presidential elections from 1936 through 2012.
Learn about the kingmakers, who used to be entirely grouped in the NE, but who now include that group, plus other Big Donors across the nation who basically buy politicians to enact legislation for them. Recent trade deal agreements and amnesty for illegals programs being two contemporary examples of Big Donors and Kingmakers attempting to make policy through bought-and-paid-for politicians.
Recommended reading, whether Republican or Democrat, because the kingmakers are essentially bipartisan and willingly "throw" elections from their supposed party if their party's candidate is not owned by them.
May 1, 2014
I read this book by chance while in college imediately preceeding the 2008 elections. The content was chilling and interesting from a historical perspective.
September 2, 2017
For being someone who enjoys reading about American history, I was shocked to read this book and see the corruption that has gone on in the game of politics for many years. The book starts with the Johnson administration and ends with the beginning of the 2016 presidential race (if reading the updated edition). Phyllis Schlafly brings the reader’s attention to the kingmakers. These were famous rich men that controlled the Republican Party without the Republicans even knowing, until Schlafly wrote her book, A Choice Not an Echo, in 1964. These men chose who they wanted nominated and did everything in their power to get the candidate they disliked out of the race. Instead of the Hunger Games this was the Political Game. It showed that each choice these men made affected the presidential races that came after.
I personally would recommended this book to anyone, whether they dislike politics or enjoy it. For anyone who wants to read this book, I would suggest looking at the years that Phyllis Schlafly discusses and research the president and other country dictators of that time. Without knowing who they were could be a little confusing because Schlafly refers to them often in her book. This book was a real eye-opener for me.
I personally would recommended this book to anyone, whether they dislike politics or enjoy it. For anyone who wants to read this book, I would suggest looking at the years that Phyllis Schlafly discusses and research the president and other country dictators of that time. Without knowing who they were could be a little confusing because Schlafly refers to them often in her book. This book was a real eye-opener for me.
February 9, 2017
High-toned paranoia from a frothing polemicist.
February 28, 2024
For a research paper, not by choice :/
January 3, 2017
Schlafly's death caused me to pick up this book, and what a great look on how establishment GOP "kingmakers" as she calls them have been struggling to control our government for a long time. She is a shrewd and lively writer.
October 10, 2016
Phyllis Schlafly was a pretty good political author. I think this is a must read (up there with True Believer and Unabomber Manifesto). Actually, forget the book and read my quotes below, way easier. You will get the idea. Oh come on, it takes 5 minutes you lazy asshole!
She pretty much hated not only the left candidates but the right candidates from 52-64 (and makes good arguments as to why). She has stated that are foreign policy is what has been controlled by the Left and Right since FDR (and not surprisingly the Bushes/neocons- worst presidents!). She makes a sound argument for Barry Goldwater (Libertarian Jew) who she states was the best "choice" and not an "echo". She rips into many fake conservatives (known as cucks now) in the book. The book is relevant today as picking out the "kingmakers" and who they pick for president. She most recently died and wrote "the conservative case for Trump" which you can read elsewhere... For fun (and terror) replace Goldwater with Trump to see in many instances what the book reveals in our modern times..
Anyways, she makes some good points; quotes below:
'The ultimate purpose of our foreign policy must be to protect the liberty of the people of the U.S.'
The kingmakers' propagandists launched a potent word missile...'I like Taft, but Taft can't win.' This slogan was cleverly designed to drive a wedge between Taft and his supporters, and it probably did affect many people. Of course it was completely false, as Taft had the best vote-getting record of any Republican in the country, and had proved this ability in Ohio in his tremendous 1950 victory, in spite of dire predictions to the contrary. During the preferential primaries held in 1952, Taft polled more popular votes than any other Republican candidate. The kingmakers selected their 1952 candidate carefully- General Dwight Eisenhower. It should be made perfectly clear that nothing in these pages is meant to cast any reflection whatsoever on Eisenhower. He was an amateur in politics; he did not have the slightest idea of the tactics used by the little clique determined to steal the nomination and push him into the Presidency."p53
"First, it was the power of the New York Financial interest and a large number of businessmen subject to New York influence (Jews?)...Second, four-fifths of the influential newspapers in the country were opposed to me continuously and vociferously and many turned themselves into propaganda sheets for my opponent. The making of a moral issue out of the Texas case was only possible because every internationalist paper sent special writers to blow up a contest which ordinarily would have been settled fairly by the National Committee and the Credentials Committee...If there had not been these issues, the publicity firms would have invented others to be shouted by the pro-Eisenhower press."p63
Eisenhower did his best and loyally stood by Ezra Taft Benson and Richard Nixon when the kingmakers tried to force them out of his official family. But after eight years, the objective observer has to admit that we still had the same America Last foreign policy, there was no house-cleaning in the State Department, we accepted a stalemate instead of victory in Korea, and Federal spending was higher than ever." p66
"Herter presided over the worst blunder in the 100 year history of the Republican Party. It was under Herter that the US State Department, ignoring the reports from our Ambassadors to Cuba, assisted Castro to power."p72
"He (Goldwater) was a successful businessman (Trump also). He is a successful author; his two books were best-sellers: The Conscience of a Conservative and Why Not Victory? He had a distinguished WW2 record; he has risen to the rank of Major General in the Air Force Reserve, and he still pilots jet fighter planes, a remarkable feat for one of his age and position." p79
"Senator Goldwater gave us dramatic proof that conservatism is popular. He showed that a minority of one can ultimately be victorious against overwhelming odds (Trump also?)."p80
"Two brothers named Wright who ran a bicycle shop in Dayton, Ohio, had the ambition to invent an airplane. They received long letters from experts at the Smithsonian Institution and Professors at European universities telling them that heavier-than-air flight was impossible. But the Wright brothers had two simple solutions- the curved wing to provide lift, and the propeller-and with these simple solutions, they built and flew the first airplane. Their simple solutions dominated air travel until the perfection of the jet engine."p82
"When an American citizen named Perdicaris was captured and held hostage by a bandit named Raisuli, President Theodore Roosevelt had a simple solution: just send a cable reading "Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead." It got results; Perdicaris was promptly released. Today, American servicemen are held hostage by Red bandits from East Germany to Cuba, to Red China, and no one has tried to get them out by simple solutions." p82
"Likewise, there are numerous simple solutions for most of the problems that confront our country today. Barry Goldwater is the man who can cut through the egghead complexities in Foggy Bottom and solve these problems for us."p83
"Anyone who thought these things was quickly brought to reality in 1964. The kingmakers recognized Goldwater as a Republican they could not control. They started from the premise that the Republican Convention must nominate anybody but Goldwater."p86
**(replace Communism with Terrorism and 'Senator Goldwater' with Trump; and Lyndon Johnson with Hillary Clinton)
("How can the average person spot the kingmakers' candidates? Here is a sure litmus-paper test:
1) A kingmaker candidate does not criticize other kingmaker candidates.
2) Kingmaker candidates criticize Senator Goldwater more than they criticize Lyndon Johnson.
3) Kingmaker candidates never criticize the Democratic foreign giveaway programs
4) Kingmaker candidates never criticize the State Department or the concessions it has made to the Communist axis.
5) Kingmaker candidates hardly ever raise the issue of Communism, either foreign or domestic."p88
"Romney (Mitt Romney's father) was faithful to their wishes. On June 7, he violated his long standing rule against politicking on Sunday to announce: I will do everything within my power to prevent him (Goldwater) from becoming the party's presidential choice."p90
*Again, replace all "Goldwater" with "Trump"....eery....
"The kingmakers realized the crucial nature of the California primary on June 2 and threw their vast financial and propaganda apparatus behind Nelson Rockefeller. The San Francisco and Los Angeles newspapers, LOOK, NEWSWEEK, TIME, and LIFE Magazines, the columnists and commentators, the pollsters, etc., all attacked Goldwater in every conceivable manner. Goldwater's victory proved that even a fortune in paid workers and hidden persuaders could not match the tens of thousands of dedicated volunteer grassroots workers who didn't stop until the ballots were counted."p91
"Scranton camp followers spread shocking tales suggesting that Goldwater was perhaps in league with neo-Nazis in Germany- and this about a man whose own father was Jewish. Scranton himself attacked Goldwater, in his challenge to a 'debate', in tones plainly implying that Goldwater was not only wrong but actually evil"p97
"The communications media overdid itself in carrying out the directives of the kingmakers to attack Goldwater. On July 16 Senator Goldwater said "Newspapers like the New York Times have to stoop to utter dishonesty in reflecting my views. Some of the newspapers here in San Francisco like the CHRONICLE...are nothing but out and out lies. He said ' a CBS broadcast by Daniel Schorr that Goldwater was going to Munich to start his campaign where the fuehrer (Hitler) started his campaign was a "dirty lie." Even the mild mannered Dwight Eisenhower advised the Delegates: "Let us particularly scorn the divisive efforts of those outside our family, including sensation-seeking columnists and commentators, because my friends these are people who couldn't care less about the good of our party". p100-101
List of Kingmakers page 104 -105
"The St. Simon's meeting of DeBilderbergers holds several important lessons for Americans today
1) It proves that there do in fact exist secret groups of persons high in finance, government and press who meet secretly to make important plans they do not reveal to the public. DeBilderbergers is only one of these groups.
2) It shows that these secret meetings are heavily weighted in favor of the liberal foreign viewpoint and loaded with Americans who have important financial and business contacts and investments abroad- to the exclusion of persons with a pro-American viewpoint
3) It shows that Republicans are in a small minority in these meetings, and are always of the liberal 'me too' variety"
4)It shows that the top level 'me too' Republicans have a close social, business, and political working relationship with top-level leftwing democrats."p108
"From July 1st, 1946 to June 30, 1963, the USA gave away abroad $148,456,330,000. This is 46.7 billion more than the total assessed valuation of America's 50 largest cities. There are large profits to be made in acting as a depositary, or fiscal agent, or attorney for the foreign recipients of these immense sums, or as broker for the seller of goods purchased under the foreign aid program, both here and abroad.
The New York kingmakers, for pocketbook reasons, are extremely anxious to prevent any curtailment of the foreign giveaway program. This might come about:
1) by the election of a president who did not put the welfare of America secondary to the welfare of every other country from Albania to Zanzibar, or
2)by the collapse of the Communist system which is the sole excuse for the foreign aid program."p114-115
"Senator John J. Williams recently proved that Democratic administrations are responsible for $293 billion of the national debt while Republican administrations are chargeable with only $13 billion."p 116
"Patrick Henry in 1775: I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, adn that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past."p121
She pretty much hated not only the left candidates but the right candidates from 52-64 (and makes good arguments as to why). She has stated that are foreign policy is what has been controlled by the Left and Right since FDR (and not surprisingly the Bushes/neocons- worst presidents!). She makes a sound argument for Barry Goldwater (Libertarian Jew) who she states was the best "choice" and not an "echo". She rips into many fake conservatives (known as cucks now) in the book. The book is relevant today as picking out the "kingmakers" and who they pick for president. She most recently died and wrote "the conservative case for Trump" which you can read elsewhere... For fun (and terror) replace Goldwater with Trump to see in many instances what the book reveals in our modern times..
Anyways, she makes some good points; quotes below:
'The ultimate purpose of our foreign policy must be to protect the liberty of the people of the U.S.'
The kingmakers' propagandists launched a potent word missile...'I like Taft, but Taft can't win.' This slogan was cleverly designed to drive a wedge between Taft and his supporters, and it probably did affect many people. Of course it was completely false, as Taft had the best vote-getting record of any Republican in the country, and had proved this ability in Ohio in his tremendous 1950 victory, in spite of dire predictions to the contrary. During the preferential primaries held in 1952, Taft polled more popular votes than any other Republican candidate. The kingmakers selected their 1952 candidate carefully- General Dwight Eisenhower. It should be made perfectly clear that nothing in these pages is meant to cast any reflection whatsoever on Eisenhower. He was an amateur in politics; he did not have the slightest idea of the tactics used by the little clique determined to steal the nomination and push him into the Presidency."p53
"First, it was the power of the New York Financial interest and a large number of businessmen subject to New York influence (Jews?)...Second, four-fifths of the influential newspapers in the country were opposed to me continuously and vociferously and many turned themselves into propaganda sheets for my opponent. The making of a moral issue out of the Texas case was only possible because every internationalist paper sent special writers to blow up a contest which ordinarily would have been settled fairly by the National Committee and the Credentials Committee...If there had not been these issues, the publicity firms would have invented others to be shouted by the pro-Eisenhower press."p63
Eisenhower did his best and loyally stood by Ezra Taft Benson and Richard Nixon when the kingmakers tried to force them out of his official family. But after eight years, the objective observer has to admit that we still had the same America Last foreign policy, there was no house-cleaning in the State Department, we accepted a stalemate instead of victory in Korea, and Federal spending was higher than ever." p66
"Herter presided over the worst blunder in the 100 year history of the Republican Party. It was under Herter that the US State Department, ignoring the reports from our Ambassadors to Cuba, assisted Castro to power."p72
"He (Goldwater) was a successful businessman (Trump also). He is a successful author; his two books were best-sellers: The Conscience of a Conservative and Why Not Victory? He had a distinguished WW2 record; he has risen to the rank of Major General in the Air Force Reserve, and he still pilots jet fighter planes, a remarkable feat for one of his age and position." p79
"Senator Goldwater gave us dramatic proof that conservatism is popular. He showed that a minority of one can ultimately be victorious against overwhelming odds (Trump also?)."p80
"Two brothers named Wright who ran a bicycle shop in Dayton, Ohio, had the ambition to invent an airplane. They received long letters from experts at the Smithsonian Institution and Professors at European universities telling them that heavier-than-air flight was impossible. But the Wright brothers had two simple solutions- the curved wing to provide lift, and the propeller-and with these simple solutions, they built and flew the first airplane. Their simple solutions dominated air travel until the perfection of the jet engine."p82
"When an American citizen named Perdicaris was captured and held hostage by a bandit named Raisuli, President Theodore Roosevelt had a simple solution: just send a cable reading "Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead." It got results; Perdicaris was promptly released. Today, American servicemen are held hostage by Red bandits from East Germany to Cuba, to Red China, and no one has tried to get them out by simple solutions." p82
"Likewise, there are numerous simple solutions for most of the problems that confront our country today. Barry Goldwater is the man who can cut through the egghead complexities in Foggy Bottom and solve these problems for us."p83
"Anyone who thought these things was quickly brought to reality in 1964. The kingmakers recognized Goldwater as a Republican they could not control. They started from the premise that the Republican Convention must nominate anybody but Goldwater."p86
**(replace Communism with Terrorism and 'Senator Goldwater' with Trump; and Lyndon Johnson with Hillary Clinton)
("How can the average person spot the kingmakers' candidates? Here is a sure litmus-paper test:
1) A kingmaker candidate does not criticize other kingmaker candidates.
2) Kingmaker candidates criticize Senator Goldwater more than they criticize Lyndon Johnson.
3) Kingmaker candidates never criticize the Democratic foreign giveaway programs
4) Kingmaker candidates never criticize the State Department or the concessions it has made to the Communist axis.
5) Kingmaker candidates hardly ever raise the issue of Communism, either foreign or domestic."p88
"Romney (Mitt Romney's father) was faithful to their wishes. On June 7, he violated his long standing rule against politicking on Sunday to announce: I will do everything within my power to prevent him (Goldwater) from becoming the party's presidential choice."p90
*Again, replace all "Goldwater" with "Trump"....eery....
"The kingmakers realized the crucial nature of the California primary on June 2 and threw their vast financial and propaganda apparatus behind Nelson Rockefeller. The San Francisco and Los Angeles newspapers, LOOK, NEWSWEEK, TIME, and LIFE Magazines, the columnists and commentators, the pollsters, etc., all attacked Goldwater in every conceivable manner. Goldwater's victory proved that even a fortune in paid workers and hidden persuaders could not match the tens of thousands of dedicated volunteer grassroots workers who didn't stop until the ballots were counted."p91
"Scranton camp followers spread shocking tales suggesting that Goldwater was perhaps in league with neo-Nazis in Germany- and this about a man whose own father was Jewish. Scranton himself attacked Goldwater, in his challenge to a 'debate', in tones plainly implying that Goldwater was not only wrong but actually evil"p97
"The communications media overdid itself in carrying out the directives of the kingmakers to attack Goldwater. On July 16 Senator Goldwater said "Newspapers like the New York Times have to stoop to utter dishonesty in reflecting my views. Some of the newspapers here in San Francisco like the CHRONICLE...are nothing but out and out lies. He said ' a CBS broadcast by Daniel Schorr that Goldwater was going to Munich to start his campaign where the fuehrer (Hitler) started his campaign was a "dirty lie." Even the mild mannered Dwight Eisenhower advised the Delegates: "Let us particularly scorn the divisive efforts of those outside our family, including sensation-seeking columnists and commentators, because my friends these are people who couldn't care less about the good of our party". p100-101
List of Kingmakers page 104 -105
"The St. Simon's meeting of DeBilderbergers holds several important lessons for Americans today
1) It proves that there do in fact exist secret groups of persons high in finance, government and press who meet secretly to make important plans they do not reveal to the public. DeBilderbergers is only one of these groups.
2) It shows that these secret meetings are heavily weighted in favor of the liberal foreign viewpoint and loaded with Americans who have important financial and business contacts and investments abroad- to the exclusion of persons with a pro-American viewpoint
3) It shows that Republicans are in a small minority in these meetings, and are always of the liberal 'me too' variety"
4)It shows that the top level 'me too' Republicans have a close social, business, and political working relationship with top-level leftwing democrats."p108
"From July 1st, 1946 to June 30, 1963, the USA gave away abroad $148,456,330,000. This is 46.7 billion more than the total assessed valuation of America's 50 largest cities. There are large profits to be made in acting as a depositary, or fiscal agent, or attorney for the foreign recipients of these immense sums, or as broker for the seller of goods purchased under the foreign aid program, both here and abroad.
The New York kingmakers, for pocketbook reasons, are extremely anxious to prevent any curtailment of the foreign giveaway program. This might come about:
1) by the election of a president who did not put the welfare of America secondary to the welfare of every other country from Albania to Zanzibar, or
2)by the collapse of the Communist system which is the sole excuse for the foreign aid program."p114-115
"Senator John J. Williams recently proved that Democratic administrations are responsible for $293 billion of the national debt while Republican administrations are chargeable with only $13 billion."p 116
"Patrick Henry in 1775: I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, adn that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past."p121
July 25, 2018
After noticing something amiss at the 1952 Republican Convention, Phyllis Schafly began investigating the Republican Party and discovered that at least as far back as 1940, when kingmakers selected unknown Democrat Wilkie over Taft for a Republican Presidential candidate something had to be exposed. She explains how those kingmakers chose (and choose) who runs for President, until Barry Goldwater, how Conservatives found their way back with him and again with Reagan, and how the Party works and what it should stand for.
If you can put your biases aside, it's quite an interesting read. It's also an important one, given everything that is going on right now. I had to laugh at her examples of how everything Johnson did was wrong, given the awards he gave out and to whom: Edmund Wilson the author ("a Communist!"), she impugned J. Robert Oppenheimer ("a Communist!"), and several others for the same reason. The "Big Red Menace" certainly played high on her list as the difference between Liberal Democrats (and real Conservative Republicans). She also seemed to vacillate between how war was the answer to everything (sound familiar) and stopping what she called the America Last policy.
I did find some things ironic. She hated our involvement in Vietnam, but until Korea ended in a stalemate, she supported Ike. Her solution to the Congo then was to just ignore it (I wonder if she ever changed her mind.) Her solutions were very simplistic and similar to what is going on right now--except for the true Conservative message regarding less government spending. Spending right now just continues to climb.
I do also have to note that I found it interesting that her opinion, which is echoed by many Conservative Republicans, is that Republicans are to have a very specific set of ideals, stay on their side of the aisle, and never, EVER, work under, or as part of, an opposing party's administration, let alone give up any ground. To do so either means that they are not true to "the cause," or are probably working for the kingmakers. Even worse, if a Democrat is asking for a Republican to serve under them, it's not done in the spirit of cooperation....no, it's done either by the direction of the kingmakers, or to confuse the Republicans. The same goes for when a Republican President chooses any Democrats to serve under him. (I honestly didn't know whether to laugh or cry.)
I have no allegiance to any party. I hold views on both political spectrums. This extremism and isolationism is going to destroy the U.S. I also can't help but wonder if there isn't a Liberal, Democrat type of Phyllis Schafly who has written such a book as to whether or not this kind of dealing goes on on the other side (as I'm sure it does.)
If you can put your biases aside, it's quite an interesting read. It's also an important one, given everything that is going on right now. I had to laugh at her examples of how everything Johnson did was wrong, given the awards he gave out and to whom: Edmund Wilson the author ("a Communist!"), she impugned J. Robert Oppenheimer ("a Communist!"), and several others for the same reason. The "Big Red Menace" certainly played high on her list as the difference between Liberal Democrats (and real Conservative Republicans). She also seemed to vacillate between how war was the answer to everything (sound familiar) and stopping what she called the America Last policy.
I did find some things ironic. She hated our involvement in Vietnam, but until Korea ended in a stalemate, she supported Ike. Her solution to the Congo then was to just ignore it (I wonder if she ever changed her mind.) Her solutions were very simplistic and similar to what is going on right now--except for the true Conservative message regarding less government spending. Spending right now just continues to climb.
I do also have to note that I found it interesting that her opinion, which is echoed by many Conservative Republicans, is that Republicans are to have a very specific set of ideals, stay on their side of the aisle, and never, EVER, work under, or as part of, an opposing party's administration, let alone give up any ground. To do so either means that they are not true to "the cause," or are probably working for the kingmakers. Even worse, if a Democrat is asking for a Republican to serve under them, it's not done in the spirit of cooperation....no, it's done either by the direction of the kingmakers, or to confuse the Republicans. The same goes for when a Republican President chooses any Democrats to serve under him. (I honestly didn't know whether to laugh or cry.)
I have no allegiance to any party. I hold views on both political spectrums. This extremism and isolationism is going to destroy the U.S. I also can't help but wonder if there isn't a Liberal, Democrat type of Phyllis Schafly who has written such a book as to whether or not this kind of dealing goes on on the other side (as I'm sure it does.)
January 16, 2022
Confused by how great candidates seems to get overlooked in favor of bumbling fools hardly able to put a sentence together? Why your leaders are intent upon destroying your borders and selling out your country to the international elites and bankers?
In this ground-breaking book, Schlafly lays-out why incompetent people keep getting chosen and America Last is the only policy they keep pushing.
This text is the foundation of America First, the common-sense basis that saw the popular election of Reagan and later, Trump with his Make America Great Again, America First platform.
An outstanding book.
In this ground-breaking book, Schlafly lays-out why incompetent people keep getting chosen and America Last is the only policy they keep pushing.
This text is the foundation of America First, the common-sense basis that saw the popular election of Reagan and later, Trump with his Make America Great Again, America First platform.
An outstanding book.
June 29, 2022
At the time I read it I was in U. S. Supply Corps, I think about 1966-67, in Athens, Georgia. I was visit ing friends at Mercer University, Macon, Ga. at the time. Someone mentioned a party being given by a fellow who had just dropped out of college, described to me as an heir of someone "who owned a lot of downtown San Francisco. Most of this is hazy, but I remember that I went back to Athens, read the book, thought that it was too much right-wing for my politics, and gave it to a mate who read it and warmly thanked me as it was right in line with his views.
August 18, 2024
So relevant for today you will think it was written yesterday. If you want the plain simple truth and understanding of what is happening in our politics, industry, government, families, and justice system, both history and today, read this book. It is as timely as ever.
September 8, 2024
Yes I’m a Phyllis Schafly fan who just came out of the closet. :) Seriously, she was brilliant, courageous, and did it all with six kids in tow. Really enjoy her essays and can’t imagine how brutally criticized she must have been at that time. Legend!
February 10, 2020
I read this for research please don't @ me
June 18, 2020
Interesting read...wordy, but interesting.
May 15, 2023
A very old view of politics in America vintage late 50’s to late 1960’s.
March 20, 2024
Great book, extols Barry Goldwater for President in 1964. Doesn't want Nelson Rockefeller forced on the Republican party, doesn’t want to be
an echo, wants to be heard.
an echo, wants to be heard.
December 23, 2024
I would highly recommend every American Patriot read this book.
May 4, 2024
I found this an intriguing look at 20th century politics and the inner workings of the Republican Party. I did feel that it devolved into panegyric regarding Barry Goldwater at the end, but who can blame the author? Her praise for Goldwater in this short (and self-published) book helped in securing him the Republican nomination, though not the presidency.
February 27, 2021
Conspiracy peddling before it was uncool.
September 17, 2016
Interesting from a historical perspective; but primarily a 100 page propaganda pamphlet for Republican Goldwater
Issues of the 1964 presidential campaign (year after Kennedy assassinated) in which Democratic Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson defeated Republican Barry Goldwater in one of the largest landslides in U.S. history. Reveals inside story of how American Presidents are chosen, hidden issues within the Republican Party: who really picks presidential candidates; how are political conventions stolen? Who are the secret kingmakers? How do "hidden persuaders" and propaganda gimmicks influence politics?
Central to the 1964 campaign was race relations, particularly with the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which Democratic Johnson signed into law just months before and which was intended to end discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin.
Republican Goldwater made moral leadership a major theme of his campaign, placing heavy emphasis during his campaign on lawlessness and crime in big cities. The Republican Party made little effort to court the vote of African Americans, and black voters moved in great numbers to the Democrats.
Issues of the 1964 presidential campaign (year after Kennedy assassinated) in which Democratic Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson defeated Republican Barry Goldwater in one of the largest landslides in U.S. history. Reveals inside story of how American Presidents are chosen, hidden issues within the Republican Party: who really picks presidential candidates; how are political conventions stolen? Who are the secret kingmakers? How do "hidden persuaders" and propaganda gimmicks influence politics?
Central to the 1964 campaign was race relations, particularly with the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which Democratic Johnson signed into law just months before and which was intended to end discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin.
Republican Goldwater made moral leadership a major theme of his campaign, placing heavy emphasis during his campaign on lawlessness and crime in big cities. The Republican Party made little effort to court the vote of African Americans, and black voters moved in great numbers to the Democrats.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews