A Choice Not an Echo

{{italic title}}
[[File:A Choice Not an Echo.jpg|165px|thumb|Cover of ''A Choice Not an Echo''.]]
{{books}}
'''''A Choice Not an Echo''''' was a bestselling self-published 1964 book by [[John Birch Society]] member{{efn|Schlafly is believed to have resigned from the John Birch Society in the same year that she published the book.<ref>''Birchers: How the John Birch Society Radicalized the American Right'' by Matthew Dallek (2023) Basic Books. {{isbn|1541673565}}.</ref>{{rp|213}}}} [[Phyllis Schlafly]] that argues that the "secret kingmakers" are screwing over her preferred candidates and stopping them from saving the nation from the evils of [[socialism]] or something.<ref name=Choice>''A Choice Not an Echo'' by Phyllis Schlafly (1964) Pere Marquette Press. {{isbn|0686114868}}.</ref> According to Schlafly, all [[Republican]] candidates from 1936 until 1952 "snatched defeat from the jaws of victory"<ref name=Choice/>{{rp|24}} through not talking about her pet issues. Oddly, her only exception is [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]], whom she says "offered the voters a clear-cut choice over the [[liberalism]] of Adlai Stevenson",<ref name=Choice/>{{rp|25}} in spite of Eisenhower being so famously moderate that both parties originally asked for him to run for President on their ticket both when he first ran in 1952,<ref>[https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_529457 Badge, Dwight Eisenhower, 1952]</ref> with the popular newspaper ''U.S. News & World Reports'' suggesting it again in 1956.<ref>''One Man's America: The Pleasures and Provocations of Our Singular Nation'' by George Will. Crown Publishing Group, 2008.</ref>{{rp|9-10}}

In what amounts to [[anti-intellectualism]], Schlafly blamed the "egghead" [[elite]] for coming up with complex solutions to complex problems, rather than the one-sentence solutions that Senator [[Barry Goldwater]] was notorious for.<ref name=Choice/>{{rp|81}}<ref>''How the South Won the Civil War: Oligarchy, Democracy and the Continuing Fight for the Soul of America'' by Heather Cox Richardson (2022) Oxford University Press. {{isbn|019758179X}}.</ref>{{rp|166}}

==Kingmakers==
Schlafly makes frequent reference to "secret kingmakers" (including a whole chapter, "Who are the Secret Kingmakers?") whom she claims "selected every Republican presidential nominee from 1936 through 1960."<ref name=Choice/>{{rp|7}} Mind you, Schlafly is far from wrong when she complains about the lack of [[democratic]] control that average Republicans had over who was nominated for President (funnily enough, this lack of democracy would lead the other party to riot at their convention just four years later,<ref>[https://www.history.com/topics/1960s/1968-democratic-convention 1968 Democratic Convention]</ref>) but the main issue with the book is her assumption of [[conspiracy]] when it is simply not needed.

For example, she wrote regarding the selection of the Republican Presidential Nomination process of 1936 that "It was not mere coincidence that the kingmakers passed over [[Herbert Hoover]] as too conservative."<ref name=Choice/>{{rp|31}} However, Schlafly shows no evidence that Hoover was rejected because of how conservative he was.{{efn|Doing so would be especially odd on the part of the kingmakers given Hoover was not all that conservative, even compared to his own party at the time. In fact, many progressives were fans of Hoover's presidency, and many of the ideas that were put into action by [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]'s [[New Deal]] originally came from Hoover,<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/hoover-as-the-father-of-new-deal-liberalism-and-modern-conservatism/2017/12/01/51392ddc-ad11-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html Hoover as the father of New Deal liberalism and modern conservatism] by Michael Taube (December 1, 2017 at 3:04 p.m. EST) ''The Washington Post''.</ref> with Hoover doing what many historians now call the "Hoover New Deal" while President.<ref>[https://www.history.com/news/great-depression-herbert-hoover-new-deal Before FDR, Herbert Hoover Tried His Own ‘New Deal’]</ref>}} Instead, the more likely situation is that Hoover was rejected as the nominee because he would be going up against the man whom he could not even win forty percent of the vote against in 1932.<ref>[https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/elections/1932 1932] ''The American Presidency Project, UC Santa Barbara''.</ref> Hoover was also at least in enough of an ideological agreement with Landon&nbsp;— the actual Republican nomination in 1936&nbsp;— to actively campaign for him.<ref>David E. Hamilton, [https://millercenter.org/president/hoover/life-after-the-presidency Herbert Hoover: Life After the Presidency]. Miller Center, University of Virginia.</ref> It's also [[ironic]] given that the same [[wingnuts]] whom Schlafly claim these kingmakers disenfranchise would disagree with her view that Hoover is a conservative.{{efn|Examples of this include people like Tom Woods<ref>''The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History'' by Tom Woods (2004) [[Regnery Publishing|Regnery]]. {{isbn|0895260476}}.</ref>{{rp|140-144}} and Lee Ohanian.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfeHWnaK7rY Hoover and the Great Depression]</ref>}}

However, according to Schlafly, no person has been more screwed over by these kingmakers than [[Robert Taft]]. The fact that doing this would mean that the kingmakers&nbsp;— who are supposed to be [[oligarch]]s and establishment politicians&nbsp;— are fighting against the son of a former President<ref>[https://www.senate.gov/senators/FeaturedBios/Featured_Bio_Taft.htm Robert A. Taft: A Featured Biography]</ref> is a contradiction that in no way bothered her. This also begs the question as to why Eisenhower got a free pass from her list of people selected by the "kingmakers," given Eisenhower only decided to enter the 1952 Presidential race because of "Taft’s strident commitment to isolationism."<ref>[https://www.hoover.org/research/what-1952-republican-primary-teaches-us-about-todays-primary What The 1952 Republican Primary Teaches Us About Today’s Primary]</ref>

At one point she wrote that "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."<ref name=Choice/>{{rp|53}} However, she never explains what metric she's using to justify this. It's worth noting that Taft barely won Ohio in 1944 (his home state)<ref>[https://profilbaru.com/article/1944_United_States_Senate_election_in_Ohio 1944 United States Senate election in Ohio]</ref> and although he did win in a landslide in 1950,<ref>[https://profilbaru.com/article/1950_United_States_Senate_election_in_Ohio 1950 United States Senate election in Ohio]</ref> he was far from the only Republican to do so. [[Richard Nixon]] of California,<ref>[https://profilbaru.com/article/1950_United_States_Senate_election_in_California 1950 United States Senate election in California]</ref> Herman Welker of Idaho,<ref>[https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=49578 ID US Senate]</ref> Milton Young of North Dakota,<ref name=Stats>[https://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electioninfo/1950election.pdf "Statistics of the Presidential and Congressional Election of November 7, 1950"]</ref> Wayne Morse of Oregon,<ref name=Stats/> Francis Case of South Dakota,<ref name=Stats/> and George Aiken of Vermont<ref name=Stats/> all did better in their elections than Taft did. None of this is even getting into the fact that succeeding in one state does not inherently mean you will win nation wide, Thomas Dewey, for example, was "reelected governor by a whopping 680,000-vote margin" in 1946,<ref>[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/new-faces-of-1946-135190660/ New Faces of 1946]</ref> two years before his loss to Harry Truman during the following Presidential Election.<ref>[https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1948 United States presidential election of 1948]</ref>

==Goldwater '64!==
{{main|Barry Goldwater}}
Easily the thing this book is most famous for is its unapologetic promotion of Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign, to the point where many credit this book as the reason he won the Republican nomination in 1964,<ref>[https://www.britannica.com/biography/Phyllis-Schlafly#ref1115400 Phyllis Schlafly]</ref> and due to this the book was especially popular in Goldwater-supporting circles. The book itself got its title from a line from Goldwater's 1964 announcement speech, where he declares "I will offer a choice, not an echo."<ref>[https://www.4president.org/speeches/barrygoldwater1964announcement.htm Goldwater Announcement Speech]</ref> Theodore White notes in his famous book ''The Making of the President, 1964'' that "the Goldwater banners in blue and gold read, 'we want a choice, not an echo.'"<ref>''The Making of the President, 1964'' by Theodore White (1965) Atheneum Publishers.</ref>{{rp|117}} 

Throughout this book, Schlafly portrays Goldwater as the only person who can get a true conservative into the White House, and hindsight has not been kind to this book. Seeing Schlafly write that "Barry Goldwater is the one Republican who can and will win"<ref name=Choice/>{{rp|80}} is downright cringe-worthy if one is reading this knowing that Goldwater not only won the nomination in 1964, but lost to Johnson in a landslide.<ref>[https://www.270towin.com/1964_Election/ 1964 Presidential Election]</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Choice Not an Echo}}
[[Category:Anti-intellectualism]]
[[Category:Books]]
[[Category:Conservative deceit]]
[[Category:Conspiracy theories]]
[[Category:Propaganda]]

Categories: Anti-intellectualism, Books, Conservative deceit, Conspiracy theories, Propaganda