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 Roose-
velt, and of Eisenhower.To anyone brought up in a Repub-
lican tradition this is a preposterous claim. Senator Gold-
water 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 trans-
form the party of Theodore Roosevelt into an anti-progres-
sive 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 capital-
ism 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-