People have been arguing over just exactly when the Republican Party took its big turn to the right. Some say it was 1979 and The Reagan Years. Others site 1968 and the Nixon era and many say it was 1960 and the dawn of Goldwater.

My vote is for 1960. Yup. Fifty-two years - no recent phenomenon. Let's not feign shock.

So continuing my backward look at Politics and Presidential elections, I thought I would dig through the 1964 Republican Convention held in San Francisco. Just about everyone knows that convention by the Goldwater acceptance speech (the "moderation/extremism" one). But I thought I would run a clip from just after the final vote was tallied, giving Goldwater the nomination. This is from CBS News coverage featuring Walter Cronkite, Eric Severeid and a veritable who's who of CBS News notables of the day.

Cronkite and Severeid reflect on the vote and the phenomenon of Goldwater and what was going on with the Republican Party.

Eric Severeid: “You made an interesting observation Walter, it must’ve been hours ago Walter, I don’t even know what day it is anymore, that the word Liberal was not really used anymore by the middle-of-the-road/left-of-center Republicans, those from the East and the North. That they went to great efforts, all of them, here to establish their credentials as Conservatives. The word I suppose is Moderate these days . . .

Walter Cronkite: “They use Conservatives. Scranton used Conservative. Romney used Conservative . . .

Severeid: “Milton Eisenhower went to great effort to attach the label of Conservative to Governor Scranton. I don’t know where all of them will go now. Certainly Senator Keating has a problem and I’m not sure these . . .the effect of this Negro walkout, they’re leaving the party, not just leaving the Convention.”

The Convention was a turning point for a lot of Republicans, particularly the Moderate and Liberal wing. And while the Goldwater forces were hailing it as a victory, many were of the opinion this lack of diversity within the ranks was ultimately not a good thing for either party. Something which I suspect we're weathering through right now.

But there was a lot going on in that convention. Just prior to the commentary I left in a report from outside the convention of CORE pickets and the whole Civil Rights issue, causing many Blacks within the Republican party to bolt, not only the convention but the party itself.

Fascinating piece of history and certainly one element in the giant jigsaw puzzle of politics.

CBS News coverage of the 1964 Republican Convention for July 16, 1964.

One thing I suppose you can say in favor of the Cold War Era is that it forced people to talk about issues they probably would have avoided like the plague any other time. Issues of mortality, morality, and democracy were all very much on peoples minds in that decade. Much of it was under the guise of paranoia which, as we all know is a given because our culture is fear-based anyway. So living in dread fear of "the bomb", "the retribution" or "the act of God" is just sort of The American Way.

These days it's distraction at any cost, which explains why mainstream media is twisting itself in knots in order not to let you look at the 700 pound Gorilla in the living room, namely - Occupy Wall Street.

But in 1959 was all about Totalitarian states and the easily identifiable "bad guys" and what sort of people were we, anyway? So the airwaves (both radio and Television) were filled with panel shows, talk shows, interview shows, documentaries, News Specials - all about our place in the World; What Direction Democracy - What Fresh Hell Is This?

This particular radio program, called appropriately enough, The Great Challenge, was a product of CBS Radio News. And it, like many programs of the day, sought to raise questions and find answers for this rapidly complicating society of ours. The topic for discussion was "Can Democracy Meet The Space Age Challenge?"

On the panel were Senator John F. Kennedy, Dr. Merle Fainsod of Harvard as well as Arthur Larson of Duke University and Clinton Rossiter. The program was moderated by veteran news reporter and anchor Eric Severeid. And typical of the tone of the program was this answer to the above question from Senator Kennedy.

Sen. John F. Kennedy: “ I would say that the basic problem is how a free society with its freedom of choice and breadth of opportunity, how that society can meet successfully the challenge of a totalitarian system which is able to devote all of the energies, both human and material, to the advancement of the interest of the state. And that is particularly pressing at a time when we’re moving into a new age and a new scientific age where the discovery of new weapons, with long range examinations of the outer limits of the universe as well as the most minute particle of electrical energy. So that I would say the basic issue is whether a democracy faced, I would think, with the most critical peril since the time of Lincoln. Whether that democracy can find a leadership to sustain itself and still maintain the freedom of that society over a long range period, I believe it can.”

Ironically, a little less than a year after this broadcast, Senator Kennedy made his intentions known for the White House - and that Era began.

But at the time, that March 24th in 1959, the attention was driven by the uncertain world, the looming obliteration and the terrifying new technology, lurking in the wings.

But like everything else - it came - it went - and life trudged on.

Here is The Great Challenge, as broadcast on March 24, 1959 .

(Nguyen Cao Ky and LBJ in 1966 - Tea leaves in the eye of the beholder)

Since the talk this week centers on the endless war in Afghanistan, I thought it might be a good idea to visit another endless war from another time; Vietnam.

Like Afghanistan, Vietnam wasn't instantly met with derision and questions over our involvement. Like Iraq though, we were also sold a somewhat leaky bill of goods and goaded into pledging lives and untold millions over an involvement that had no timetable and no real plan.

The difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is Iraq bears some resemblance to an organized country. Where Afghanistan is one big grab-bag of tribes, sects and factions that have been over-run, quasi-colonized and fought over for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Just like Vietnam.

In 1966 we were still getting our feet wet in Vietnam, having gone from "advisers" to "troops on the ground" in a little over a year. Support and the "domino theory" were still very much alive and our presence increased on an almost daily basis.

But also in 1966 there were the seeds of questions being sown - what was the plan? How long was it going to take? When it is supposed to end? How many troops are needed? What really was the government of South Vietnam all about?

Just like Afghanistan.

And so on June 21, 1966 Eric Severeid delivered a fifteen minute commentary on our state of siege in Vietnam.

Eric Severeid: “A crucial question: Whether our resistance in Vietnam is preventing the spread of Chinese dominance in other Asian countries, through their propaganda infiltration and subversion. The Administration points to Indonesia, where the powerful Chinese-inspired Communist apparatus was smashed not long ago. That would never have happened, we like to think were we not there in Vietnam. If this is true, all of us would feel very much better about this war in Vietnam. My personal opinion is that it’s not true.”

Needless to say, those questions only grew in number and intensity over the next several years as our justifications grew less and less feasible. It would seem we are heading in that direction again.