leader went even further. "I keep thinking," he said about Goldwater, "that sometime he's going to be asked about a specific country, and he's not going to know whether it's in Asia or Africa.That could be embarrassing."

In the press, the reaction was equally shocked. Frank Coniff, columnist of the Hearst papers and a man hardly to be accused of any anti-Goldwater bias, wrote bluntly: "Sen. Goldwater's appearance on Meet the Press was a disaster." And Walter Lippmann, of the New York Herald‐ Tribune, long the sage of political commentators, was even more appalled.He wrote that Goldwater's insistence he could not, if President, sever relations with Russia "shows how little he understands the Constitutional powers of the office for which he is now an avowed candidate."

Lippman added:

"The essential Goldwater theme is the claim that he speaks the true and fundamental principles of the party of Washington and Hamilton, of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, and of Eisenhower.To anyone brought up in a Republican tradition this is a preposterous claim. Senator Goldwater would transform the party of Hamilton into an anti‐ Federal party.He would transform the party of Lincoln into the party of the white supremacists.He would transform the party of Theodore Roosevelt into an anti-progressive party of uncontrolled and unregulated businessmen, each man for himself and the devil take the hindmost."

Barry Goldwater, Lippmann wrote, "is not a conservative at all.... He is a radical reactionary who would, if we are able to believe what he says, dismantle the modern state.His political philosophy does not have its roots in the conservative tradition but in the crude and primitive capitalism of the Manchester school.It is the philosophy not of the conservators of the social order but of the newly rich on the make."

-20-