DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on December 19, 2011, 04:48:29 PM
-
Senator Barry Goldwater Imagines Arizona in the Year 2012
(http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/files/2011/12/1912-grand-canyon-loc-sm.jpg)
Arizona's Grand Canyon as painted by Thomas Moran in 1908 (Library of Congress)
Next year Arizona will celebrate 100 years of statehood. Born in 1909, Senator Barry Goldwater was just three years old when Arizona became the 48th state in the Union on February 14, 1912. In 1962 — two years before he would get the Republican nomination for president (and ultimately lose to Lyndon B. Johnson in a landslide), Goldwater wrote an article for the February 14, 1962, edition of the Tucson Daily Citizen titled “Arizona’s Next Fifty Years.”
Imagining the world of 2012, Goldwater’s article looked at everything from where Arizona might get the water to support its rapidly growing population (the ocean seemed the most logical solution), to Arizona’s relationship with Mexico (he envisioned an open border). The article reads as a love letter to the state he grew up in and adored, while acknowledging that there may be some hurdles ahead.
I asked Jon Christensen his opinion of Senator Goldwater’s 1962 article. Jon is the executive director of the Bill Lane Center for the American West at Stanford University and he points out that, “Goldwater wrote in an era when the ‘new frontier’ was still something America believed in and yearned toward, before Kennedy was gunned down the next year in Dallas. Growth was the rocket fuel of that dream — population growth, economic growth, wall to wall houses filling the desert with nuclear families.”
Senator Goldwater opens the article by writing about his own family:
Fifty years from now, if things go well, I will be concerned only with heavenly surroundings, so any shortcoming or overstatements of this forecast will be of no concern for me. But my children, then ranging from 68 to 75 years of age, and my grandchildren and great-grandchildren of all ages, will be living in this heaven on earth — Arizona. So I looked into my crystal ball, determined to project the image of my native state 50 years hence with the accuracy of experience and the hope of love, trusting in the ability of man to restrain his bad side so that the good things I predict will be allowed to come true, and conversely to stimulate his good side so that man will make them come true.
Having come to that decision, I loosened my legs from the restraining ceiling of my desk and departed for another long walk across the floor of the desert which has been a part of my life.
Goldwater expresses concern about what the picturesque landscape of Arizona might look like after a growing population spreads into the more rugged and untouched areas of the state:
A desert rain, just passed, accentuated the pungency of the greasewood and I stopped my walk with the dreadful first decision that the man of 2012 would not be able to walk from his doorstep into this pastel paradise with its saguaro, the mesquite, the leap of a jackrabbit, the cholla or the smell of freshly wet greasewood, because people will have transgressed on the desert for homesite to accomodate a population of slightly over 10 million people. The forests will be protected, as well as our parks and monuments. But even they will have as neighbors the people who today enjoy hardships to visit them.
Senator Barry Goldwater in 1962 (Library of Congress)
Goldwater predicted that the city of Phoenix would be either the fourth or sixth largest city in the United States. The 2010 census places Phoenix as the sixth largest city in the country (with just under 1.5 million people) behind New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Philadelphia. Though Arizona experienced steady population growth since 1962, that growth has slowed considerably in the last five years, which is most likely attributed to the recession and a bad job market.
But it will be the deserts that will support the majority of the new homes. Phoenix will have a population of about three million and Tucson will grow to about one and one-half million. Phoenix and Tucson will remain the two largest cities in the state, with Phoenix being either the fourth or six largest city in the United States.
However, spectacular increases in population will occur in Yuma, Flagstaff, Casa Grande, Sierra Vista and some yet unborn cities in the Harqua Hala Valley, near Cave Creek and east of Tucson. The growth of Glendale, Peoria and Avondale will parallel that of Phoenix proper, so that 50 years from now all of these cities will be contiguous with each other and with Phoenix, and will form a city complex not unlike the present city of Los Angeles.
When the book Inside U.S.A. by John Gunther was published in 1947, Arizona was still the youngest state in the Union. The book notes that “Only 329 square miles of its 113,909 are water, which means that water is by far its greatest problem.” Gunther writes that irrigation has made Phoenix lush: “Pass over in an airplane; the burgeoning green of the irrigated valley overlays the the desert as if painted there with shiny lacquer. This development derives from [the] Roosevelt Dam, which was one of the earliest federal reclamation projects.”
Goldwater explains in his article that he hopes water will be piped in from the ocean to alleviate the growing need for water in Arizona:
Long before this period of 50 years passes by, the large coastal cities will be getting their drinking [water] leasing the inland streams for inland consumption. But to augment our major sources of water we will also, long before 2012, be using water piped from the ocean for domestic purposes.
As farmland gives way to homesite in the central valley, farming will be done in an extensive way in the already developed areas around Yuma and in, as yet, undeveloped areas in the Centennial and Harqua Hala Valley lands with a much greater diversification of crops that we now have. Cotton, our main crop today, will dwindle in importance by the time 50 more years pass because more new man-made fibers will replace to a marked degree the need for cotton that we know today.
Goldwater understood that America’s move west would be even more pronounced in the latter half of the 20th century, and saw technology as a major factor in that growth. Christensen finds fault with Goldwater’s prediction about industry in Arizona: “What’s curious about Goldwater’s vision is that he thought the Arizona economy would be based on manufacturing. Instead Arizona made an economy fueled by service jobs, taken up by people who moved from the Rust Belt to the Sun Belt, to serve retirees following the same route, and by construction, to build those pastel Sun Cities where they would live.”
As the population center of the United States continues to move rapidly to the west, so will industry as to be near this new concentration of consumers. Arizona’s principal economic growth will be in the industrial field, with emphasis being on items of a technological nature. It will not be many years before industry will become an important part of the economies of most Arizona cities, whereas today it is more or less confined to a few.
Goldwater goes on to talk about Arizona government and interestingly believes that Indian reservations will radically transform, with the population of Native Americans growing rather than decreasing.
This industrial growth will, of course, depend upon the maintenance of a good governmental climate; but I expect the people of this state in the next 50 years will be able to maintain the same kind of good government in the state, county and local levels that the people of the first 50 years have to an almost complete degree.
Indian reservations as we know them today will no longer exist because the government will have deeded the lands to the Indians who now live on them. Indians will be with us in increasing instead of decreasing number, and as they become more and more educated, they will play a more and more important part in the life of Arizona.
Christensen is “intrigued by Goldwater’s view that Indian reservations would cease to exist, and Indians themselves would become just like other Arizonans; happy individual property owners. That was an old-fashioned view rather than a futurist vision by 1962.” Indeed, as an article in the Arizona Capitol Times noted earlier this month: “Anglos moving into the Arizona Territory during the late 1800s believed that the Native Americans already there should be acclimated into Anglo culture. During that time, Indian boarding schools were built and native children were removed from their homes and placed into these schools.”
Goldwater’s predictions of a wide open U.S.-Mexico border by 2012 may be the most surprising to contemporary readers, given the tenor of the current Republican presidential nomination debates, where candidates to various degrees have proposed tougher border controls to limit illegal immigration and narcotrafficking.
Our ties with Mexico will be much more firmly established in 2012 because sometime within the next 50 years the Mexican border will become as the Canadian border, a free one, with the formalities and red tape of ingress and egress cut to a minimum so that the residents of both countries can travel back and forth across the line as if it were not there.
Basking in the “frontier spirit” that Arizona has historically embraced, Goldwater calls on the rugged individualism that he sees as imperative to America’s progress:
Fifty years from now, even though Arizona’s population density will reach about 100 per square mile, there will still be lots of open space in which man can enjoy himself. Our watershed will improve, our forests will continue to grow, and even the Grand Canyon will be about three inches deeper.
Arizona will continue to be the haven for people who seek an outlet for initiative and a reward for work. The frontier challenges will exist then as they do today, for man’s progress never stops unless man stops it. Fortunately for our state, our men have always and will always want to go forward, not backward.
Goldwater finishes his article by writing about the generations to come that he’s sure will enjoy their lives in Arizona while he’s looking down from the heavens:
My children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be as happy living here as I have been during the first 50 years of statehood, because the people will remain warm and kind and thoughtful. And even though much of what we now know as desert will have disappeared, there will remain a sufficient amount of natural beauty to satisfy all of the desires of the 10 million people who will live here.
In fact, even though I hope to be on Cloud Nine or Ten or whatever they allot me, I am sure that 50 years from now I will look down on this delightful spot on earth and be envious of the people who call Arizona their home in the year 2012.
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/2011/12/senator-barry-goldwater-imagines-arizona-in-the-year-2012/ (http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/2011/12/senator-barry-goldwater-imagines-arizona-in-the-year-2012/)
-
The only full blooded Apache I ever met was an instructor in the electronic school I attended.
A good education didn't come to him easily.
-
If Barry Goldwater were alive today and was 50 years old or so, he would be called a RINO by the base of the GOP. He did not suffer fools easily, and corrupt punks like Gingrich and goobers like Perry he would tell off in no uncertain terms.
-
And yet he is the poster boy for GOP racism, what with his states rights mantra.
You can't have it both ways.
-
What do you mean "you can't have it both ways?" Goldwater, like almost everyone, had opinions on many different issues, and did not agree at all with the "Christian right".
Arizona has a small Black population and in 1964 it was even smaller. There is an Indian minority,but they are largely isolated in reservations and have never been a factor in elections.
Goldwater was not a racist, but he was clearly catering to the Southern racists with his support for "states rights". He only carried Arizona and five Southern states, getting 87% in Mississippi. Of course, "states rights" includes the states rights to pass Jim Crow laws, literacy tests, poll taxes and all that stuff. So he supported racism just as Paul does, and was against the Civil Rights bill on Libertarian grounds.
He hated Nixon and encouraged him to resign. He believed that abortion was a personal decision and against bans on it. In 1989, he said that the GOP had been taken over by a "gang of kooks". He told Bob Dole that he and Dole were the new Liberals of the Republican Party. He was against the Clinton Whitewater and the impeachment hearing. He disliked the religious right and said Reagan's Iran contra was "the god damn stupidest foreign policy blunder in history. He was against the military banning gays. He advocated kicking Jerry Falwell in the butt.
So yeah, I CAN have it both ways.
Goldwater was opposed to many of the core beliefs of the so-called "Conservatives". I imagine that he would probably identify with Paul more, but would agree that Romney was the best chance for the GOP candidate. I don't see him as supporting Bachmann, Santorum, Perry or Gingrich.
-
States Rights also includes things like physician assisted euthanasia and medicinal marijuana, so no, states rights does not always equate to racist laws designed to keep minorities down. Those were the specialties of Democrats from Wilson on.
Because Goldwater carried the Southern States no more makes him a racist than Carter carrying the southern states in 76.
-
Because Goldwater carried the Southern States no more makes him a racist than Carter carrying the southern states in 76.
===========================================
I did not say that Goldwater was a racist. I said his support for "states' rights" clearly catered to racists.
In 1964, very few Blacks voted.
By 1976, Black people voted in large numbers, and Carter got nearly all of a large Black vote as well as the votes of the children of former racists who were tired of the stupidity of clowns like Lester Maddox. And of course, Jerry Ford pardoned Nixon and pissed off a lot of people all over the country.
The issues in 1976 were different, as was the electorate.
In 1980 Reagan again catered to racists by making a big deal of visiting Philadelphia, Mississippi, famous before that only for a very famous unpunished murder of three Civil Rights workers. His appearance there served as a promise that he was not going to punish previous acts of racist violence, and no one was punished for this until Clinton was elected.
-
His appearance there served as a promise that he was not going to punish previous acts of racist violence, and no one was punished for this until Clinton was elected.
What case was this?
-
The Mississippi Burning case, where the two White guys and the one Black guy were killed by Kluxer cops. The3 FBI gt around to investigating in 2002 or so and convicted a kluxer named De la Beckwith.
-
Err, XO, don't you mean that "no one was punished for this until Bush was elected"? After all, the investigation was not reopened until 2004, and was actually pushed by the Governor of Mississippi at the time, Haley Barbour (R).
-
d'oh ;)
-
The fact is that Reagan appeared in Philadelphia to indicate that he would do nothing, and then he did nothing.
-
The fact is that Reagan appeared in Philadelphia to indicate that he would do nothing, and then he did nothing.
He appeared at a major gathering that they hold annually there, it is like going to the state fair, caricterising it as a promise to racism is unfairly reading extra into it.
How did Carter promise to do nothing? How did Clinton promise to do nothing?
............... got nearly all of a large Black vote as well as the votes of the children of former racists who were tired of the stupidity of clowns like Lester Maddox.
Perhaps XO is aware of our point of view , but dosn't fully share it?
-
I did not say that Carter or Clinton promised to do nothing.
Reagan did nothing. There were some prosecutions under Carter.
There are many country fairs like the one in Philadelphia. The appearence of Reagan there was the work of Roger Ailes and part of his Southern strategy. He said so. This was common knowledge at the time..
-
I did not say that Carter or Clinton promised to do nothing.
Yoy DID imply nothing was done under Republican Presidents or even under any Republican leadership. That it was only under clinton that anything of substance happened. Ami demonstrated how you were wrong.....again
-
Get stuffed.
de la Beckwith was last tried in 1994. Clinton was elected in 1992.
His previous trial was in 1968.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_De_La_Beckwith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_De_La_Beckwith)
See?
-
I think Ami already did that to you, but nice try
-
It is not a nice try, it is proof.
-
Proof of what? That Ami was right, regarding the Miss Burning Case, and you were wrong?
-
The 1994 state trial was held before a jury of eight black and four white jurors; it ended with De La Beckwith's conviction of first-degree murder for killing Medgar Evers.
From your link.
Clinton had nothing to do with the case.
-
The FBI was involved in this case. The FBI is a federal agency
-
What was the FBI's role in the case?
-
speaking of apache
where the hell are the indians. I read more about them in the news than seen in real life. in ncanada you can`t swing a dead cat without hitting one. but here nada. are they scaered of getting beaten up? that does happen in canada alot. it`s even a sport.
-
It is not a nice try, it is proof.
Medgar Evars (the person De La Beckwith was charged with killing) was not killed in the Mississippi Burning case. The three killed in that case were Michael Schwerner, James Chaney, and Andrew Goodman.
-
The FBI was involved in this case. The FBI is a federal agency
What was the FBI's role in the case?
I'm curious as to the answer, as well
-
In any event, if Goldwater were alive today, he would be accused of being a RINO by at least some of the 'baggers.
-
Back to the prior event, as Bt asked, what was the FBI's role, in the De La Beckwith case? How were they involved? (excusing for the moment, its non-connection to the Mississippi Burning case)
-
Oh get lost. The fact is that Reagan made an appearance in Philadelphia to deliver a message that he was not going to prosecute past kluxer crimes, and once in office, he did not do so.
-
So you can't answer Bt's question, and was spewing nothing but your standard non-credible crud. Your students would be proud
-
Oh get lost. The fact is that Reagan made an appearance in Philadelphia to deliver a message that he was not going to prosecute past kluxer crimes, and once in office, he did not do so.
"A state trial ended in acquittal for six Nazis and Klansmen in 1980. Federal prosecutors brought civil rights conspiracy charges against nine participants in 1984. That trial also ended in not-guilty verdicts."
http://is.gd/r3hh1w (http://is.gd/r3hh1w)
I'm pretty sure that 1984 was under Reagan.
-
Oh get lost. The fact is that Reagan made an appearance in Philadelphia to deliver a message that he was not going to prosecute past kluxer crimes, and once in office, he did not do so.
I don't think this is true, and I don't see how it could be.
The FBI and other justice department parts continued to whittle away at the KKK during the Reagan administration.
And the Reagan appearance you speak of was just his stump speech wasn't it? It was given at one of the biggest gatherings that is held in Mississippi annually, does a politicians appearance in a community actually endorse all of the crimes that have ever occured in the same area?
Would an Obama appearance in Chicago be construed as a promise to never prosicute organised crime?
I don't think any such message was concieved nor understood untill later when some anti Reagan sort came up with the idea that just being there was a message.
By the way , Reagan starred in an anti -KKK propaganda movie, as a G man on their case.
Can you decode the hidden endorsement of the KKK in that?
In Storm Warning, Ginger Rogers stars as a model visiting relatives in an unnamed small town. She happens to witness the beating death of a man at the hands of the KKK. Rogers soon discovers that the whole town is controlled by this vigilante group, and that her loutish brother-in-law Steve Cochran is one of the group's members. D.A. Ronald W. Reagan is the man who breaks the stranglehold of the hooded terrorists--through the simple expedient of walking into one of their meetings and calmly identifying each of them by name. ~ http://www.fandango.com/stormwarning_v111826/plotsummary (http://www.fandango.com/stormwarning_v111826/plotsummary)
-
Oh get lost. The fact is that Reagan made an appearance in Philadelphia to deliver a message that he was not going to prosecute past kluxer crimes, and once in office, he did not do so.
I don't think this is true, and I don't see how it could be.
The FBI and other justice department parts continued to whittle away at the KKK during the Reagan administration.
And the Reagan appearance you speak of was just his stump speech wasn't it? It was given at one of the biggest gatherings that is held in Mississippi annually, does a politicians appearance in a community actually endorse all of the crimes that have ever occured in the same area?
Would an Obama appearance in Chicago be construed as a promise to never prosicute organised crime?
I don't think any such message was concieved nor understood untill later when some anti Reagan sort came up with the idea that just being there was a message.
By the way , Reagan starred in an anti -KKK propaganda movie, as a G man on their case.
Can you decode the hidden endorsement of the KKK in that?
In Storm Warning, Ginger Rogers stars as a model visiting relatives in an unnamed small town. She happens to witness the beating death of a man at the hands of the KKK. Rogers soon discovers that the whole town is controlled by this vigilante group, and that her loutish brother-in-law Steve Cochran is one of the group's members. D.A. Ronald W. Reagan is the man who breaks the stranglehold of the hooded terrorists--through the simple expedient of walking into one of their meetings and calmly identifying each of them by name. ~ http://www.fandango.com/stormwarning_v111826/plotsummary (http://www.fandango.com/stormwarning_v111826/plotsummary)
-
Reagan the actor did what he was paid to do. Reagan the President was no different. As an actor, he believed the roles he was given. He did not have the face to play a villain, and he was given no villain roles for that reason.
He was sent to Philadelphia to give the appearance that he would not prosecute Kluxers, and then he did not prosecute them. De La Beckwith stayed out of prison for a couple of decades longer.
Many a Kluxer who would have stayed home in the absence of a George Wallace to vote for, came out and voted for Reagan. I do not believe that Reagan planned anything he did. He was simply acting. Every morning the handed him a script, and every day he followed that script, He believed all the bullshit they told him. That is why he was chosen. He had proved his loyalty to Big Business by working as a spokesman for GE for over a decade.
-
Good thing we have Xo, who "obviously" was right there amongst Reagan's inner circle, to tell us what really happened, especially in light of the Federal prosecutors who, as demonstrated by Ami, DID bring up civil rights charges against "Kluxer crimes", while under Reagan's authority. I'm curious why no book deal
-
He was sent to Philadelphia to give the appearance that he would not prosecute Kluxers, and then he did not prosecute them. De La Beckwith stayed out of prison for a couple of decades longer.
Regardless of the fact that De La Beckwith was not involved in the crimes at Philadelphia, and also regardless of the fact that Reagan's administration prosecuted "Kluxers".
-
What did any president ever do about DeLa Beckwith?
-
The FBI investigated the case and cooperated with the locals in providing information to convict him.
In any event, Goldwater would be a RINO compared to many of the 'bagger bunch.