To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Senator Goldwater's acceptance speech may well have been a "string of platitudes, empty words, and obscure philosophical meanderings," but I think that it was a mistake to dismiss the content of his speech as "hardly worth mentioning."...

The emotions attached to those "empty" words are important to millions of Americans. For them there is nothing obscure or ambiguous in the Senator's 'philosophy"; nor, in the sense in which they think of philosophy, should there be, for the man's life is the amazing expatiation of his "philosophy." The emotions involved may be simple and unrealistic, but they are not uncommon.... For a few the critical question for our time may be "Abundance for What?"; but for many it is undoubtedly "Why Not Victory?"

Those who mourn the fate of the Republican party--the reports of its "death" have been greatly exaggerated--may be unpleasantly surprised by Goldwater's showing in the election. Not only bigots will vote for Goldwater in November, but, many others who will be attracted by his fervent statement of an ideology which seems most expressive of American ideals.

Lest it be supposed that cries of "freedom", while good for a round of applause, do not have the impact of "pocket-book" issues on the voter, one may recall last year's Wheat Referendum in which over a million wheat growers participated. Secretary of Agricultture Freeman warned that the defeat of the wheat control program would mean a thirty per cent drop in farm income, but the farmers followed the Farm Bureau's slogan, "for freedom, vote 'no'", and a majority voted against the Administration's proposal. It may be difficult for Eastern liberals to understand, but in those states from which Goldwater gathered his principal support at the convention the nostalagia for "laisseslaire" freedom is as real as the hope and the demand of the Negro for "freedom now".

Whether you attribute it to prejudice or prosperity, whether you call it bigotry or backlash, anxiety or anomie, there is obviously a discontent in this country of considerable proportions. To counter it will require more than statistics on economic growth, and more than charges of "extremism"....

I am not suggesting that President Johnson and the liberal press forget about the "issues," but do say that to minimize the Goldwater vote they will have not only to argue the "issues", but also to formulate an ideology as appealing as Goldwater's. One might prefer to reject everything about Goldwater, including his method of appeal, but to do so would be to indulge a sentiment no more rational than those which the Senator peddles. John E. Diehl '65