1

The Identity of the Young American for

Freedom in the 1960s

Ellen Bruegger
Colloquium: The 1960s
May 10, 2012

Young Americans for Freedom

The 1960s were a decade in American history associated with
change, the emergence of the New Left, the antiwar movement, and
radical student groups like the Students for Democratic Society (SDS).
Historians and everyday people alike look back on the decade and
remember these groups and events. However, the New Left and SDS
are not the only story of the 1960s, the decade also served as an
incubator for what would be called the New Right in the 1970s and
1980s. Students across the nation joined together to form conservative
groups such as the John Birch Society, Youth for Goldwater, and the
Young Americans for Freedom. The Young Americans for Freedom
became the most well known and accepted of the groups.
In a time of such radical and far-reaching change what would
cause young Americans to fight for conservative, and far more
unpopular values? This paper will delve into the organizations
founding document and its rhetoric, and the identity of a conservative
activist, their political and social background, and values.
YAF was formed in 1960 at the home of William Buckley, a
leading conservative of the time, in Sharon, Connecticut.1 The group
was formed as a non-partisan student organization. The founders were

1 Michael W. Flamm and David Steigerwald, Debating the 1960s

(Lantham: Towman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008), 103.

3
young conservatives who had become disillusioned with the
mainstream Republican Party and the student group they endorsed,
Young Republicans. YAF leaders believed the Young Republicans had
become weighted down with procedure and red tape and focused
much of its attention to ceremony instead of issues.2 However, YAF was
willing to receive counsel from Party members to help better organize
them. The purpose of the group was to provide a voice for young
people with conservative opinions.
YAFs founding document, which became known as the Sharon
Statement, states in clear language the ideologies of the group, most
of which center around the evils of communism and an individuals
need for freedom. The text begins, In this time of moral and political
crisis, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain
eternal truths3 This line allows the reader to understand the sense
of urgency these young people felt in respect towards their ideological
beliefs and immediately know what issues the group would be focusing
its attention on. The traditionalists were concerned with creating a
virtuous society and the libertarians with the protection of individual
freedom. For both groups this was impossible in the current political
and social environment, with communism expanding its reach in
Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia and the immoral youth culture that
was beginning to develop across America. This combination of both
2 Michael W. Flamm and David Steigerwald, 102.
3 M. Stanton Evans, The Sharon Statement, 1960.

4
groups ideals was an example of the fusionism used throughout the
Sharon Statement in an attempt to unite them.
In the Sharon Statement, YAF sets a firm stance on the resistance
of communist expansion, since to many YAF members communism and
the Cold War represented a decline of American international prestige.4
With regards to personal freedom YAF believed that the purpose of the
national government was to protect God-given personal freedoms,
through internal order, national defense and the proper use of the
justice system.5 YAF praised the founding fathers for creating the
Constitution, which they believed to be the best arrangement for
creating a government that would fulfill its duties. According to YAF the
genius of the American Constitution was the division of powers that
limited the federal government while protecting States rights.
The market economy was as vital to YAFs belief of freedom as a
limited government; members believed that it was the only system
that defended personal freedom within the bounds of the Constitution.
The Sharon Statement clearly outlines YAFs opposition to government
interference into individuals money by claiming that government
interference in the economy weakens the moral and physical strength
of the nation. Saying, taking from one to give to another takes
incentive from the first, integrity from the second and moral autonomy

4 Rebecca Klatch, A Generation Divided (Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1999) 23.
5 Michael Flamm and David Steigerwald, 11.

5
of both, this statement explains many members hostility to
government aide programs like welfare and social security.6
The final lines of the Sharon Statement can be used to explain
the groups anticommunist stance and their support of the Vietnam
War. After addressing the necessity of freedom the document reads,
history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when
free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies7
This statement was clearly pro-war, saying that the only way for the
United States to remain a free, independent nation was to defend itself
by fighting any country that threatens those freedoms. This statement
also coincides with the groups core belief in the preservation of
personal freedom. Following the aforementioned quote the document
reads, That the forces of international Communism are, at present,
the greatest single threat to these liberties8 The YAFs placing
priority over battling Communism rather than any other social or
political concern shows just how fervently the group fought the issue.
Many members cited fear of communism as the reason they were not
more involved in other issues because fighting communism required
their full attention.
One of the biggest issues YAF would face in the 1960s was an
internal divide; tensions and disagreements between YAFs two

6 M. Stanton Evans.
7 M. Stanton Evans.
8 M. Stanton Evans.

6
prevailing ideological beliefs, Libertarians and Traditionalists. The
Sharon Statement tried to unite the two with a fusionist system,
which combined the primary ideal each group was working towards:
individual freedom for libertarians and a virtuous society for
traditionalists. Frank Meyer, a leading political activist of the time,
claimed that the two were essential for the other to exist and that
libertarianism or traditionalism alone were only ideological
abstractions.9 This interpretation received a lot of critique because
many believed the two could not exist together without placing
precedence over one. The opposition to Meyer was correct and in
1969 libertarians would be purged out of the group.
The Sharon Statement with all of its positive qualities was vague.
It declared communism as the ultimate evil in the world, and the
division of powers in the American Constitution the documents
genius because of the way it limited federal government. But for
many members the documents general language about the issues the
group would fight for meant that it was open for interpretation. This
caused for internal division when more specific details of the groups
ideology were brought to the forefront of discussion. YAF members also
had troubles setting aside their own personal goals for the greater
good of the group, which caused the group to quickly fall into the
hands of power-hungry youth that allowed personal desire for
9 John A. Andrew III, The Other Side of the Sixties. (New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press, 1997) 109.

7
leadership to overshadow ideological matters.10 The conflicts caused
by personal ambitions and ideological differences would plagues YAF
throughout the sixties.
The differences between Libertarians and Traditionalists were not
only ideological. In her interviews Klatch discovered differences, which
united the two groups separately but divided them as a whole. A
majority of Libertarians were Protestants, raised by upper-middle class
families. Traditionalists were split between Catholicism and
Protestantism, male members overall came from lower-middle class
families while females came from middle-class families. The
differences led to the groups placing emphasis on different social
movements during the 1960s.
The YAF members Klatch interviewed cited different reasons for
becoming politically active, aside from the core value of staunch
anticommunism all of their parents had instilled in them growing up.11
These events included the Civil Rights Movement, Barry Goldwaters
campaign for presidency in 1964, the Vietnam War, and various
international events dealing with the Cold War and Communism.
Members also claimed their religious upbringing provided them with
the ethical framework for activism.

10 John A. Andrew III, 125.

11 Rebecca, Klatch, 44.
12 Rebecca, Klatch, 55.

12

8
The effect of YAF members parents values is widely seen in the
members. Members parents were often politically active while they
were growing up and taught at a young age the evils of Communism
and the superiority of democracy. Their parents were extremely
suspicious of big government and hated FDR and his New Deal; the
connection of the youths opposition to Johnson and the Great Society
can be directly seen. Members were also taught by their parents to be
suspicious of any type of centralized power because of tendency to
infringe on the rights on the individual, which was a belief that
remained at the center of YAF.13
Many traditionalist YAF members grew up in home that placed an
importance on religion, especially Catholicism. At this time Catholic
preaching had a strong anticommunist sentiment to them, prayers
were frequently said for people suffering because of communism. 14
Many Traditionalists basic belief in God regardless of religious
denomination made them view Communists as godless atheists,
suppressing the church. This belief in combination with values of good
work ethic, patriotism, and faith in God and country impressed upon by
their family provided Traditionalists with a firm background of
anticommunism.15 Libertarians came from a completely different
religious background, many of them growing up in families who placed

13 Rebecca, Klatch, 45.

14 Rebecca, Klatch, 49.
15 Rebecca, Klatch, 50.

9
only minimal value on religion, attending services but rarely being
more involved. The few Libertarians that cited religious reasons for
becoming politically active said it was out of a disillusion with religion
and recognizing the contradiction between Christian beliefs in a pure,
holy, and good God with the evils in the world.16
With regards to the Civil Rights Movement Traditionalists and
Libertarians could unite on the type of protesting they supported,
YAFers supported the use of economic protest, boycotts and bus
strikes but opposed the movements reliance on the state to enforce
equal rights.17 Libertarians and their desire for personal, God-given
freedoms supported the desegregation of public facilities, but strongly
opposed the forced desegregation of private facilities because it was
an infringement of individual property rights.18 However, few members
claimed sympathy for the Civil Rights movement is what pushed them
into activism.
The most common event that spurred activism in young
conservative was the Goldwater Presidential Campaign. Barry
Goldwater was a beacon of hope for them.19 Rob Tyler, a YAF member
during the 1960s became involved in the Goldwater campaign in high
school described the symbolism of Goldwater to Klatch saying,

16
17
18
19

Rebecca, Klatch, 51.

Rebecca, Klatch, 78.
Rebecca Klatch, 77.
Rebecca, Klatch, 81.

10
He represented a rebel. He represented a challenge to the
eastern establishment. He represented West versus East.
He represented a new approach toward international
communism. He represented freedom from the growth of
the federal bureaucracy20
Goldwaters rigid anticommunist stance and belief in the
limitation of federal government would be the cornerstone of YAF
for the rest of the 1960s. Many young conservatives felt a strong
pull towards Goldwater and even though he lost the election,
used the experience they had gained during the campaign
throughout the rest of the decade to promote YAFs values. The
mass mobilization of young conservatives around Goldwater
would provide the conservative movement with ample members
who would lead the movement into a dominant role in American
politics for the next three decades.
YAFs official stance on the Vietnam War was in support of it,
because of the anticommunist justification the government was
supporting. YAF supported the war by organizing rallies, making
phone calls, door-to-door pamphleting, and giving speeches in
support of the cause.

21

YAF members, unlike their SDS

counterparts, never experienced violence in result of their

20 Rebecca, Klatch, 83.

21 James Hijiya. The Conservative 1960s, Journal of American
Studies 37, no. 2 (2003): 212. http://search.ebscohost.com

11
demonstrations. This could be the result of the far less radical
feelings throughout YAF, some of their most spirited activism
activities was comprised of attempts to block SDS from
occupying buildings and counter-demonstrations.22
Although YAF is often associated with the Republican Party, it was
founded as a nonpartisan student organization that was fighting
for conservative values. The group struggled with maintaining its
status as nonpartisan, even after his presidential race was over
Barry Goldwater remained active with the group. In a New York
Times article from May 10, 1966 Goldwater warned the group to
stay out of politics, Goldwater said, their greatest contribution
to the preservation of freedom would come through educational
efforts aimed at other young people.23 The group had been
receiving criticism because local chapter leaders had supported
conservative candidates that were running against another
conservative candidate. When preparing for their annual rally in
1962 the group had asked former Major General Edwin A. Walker
to speak, however, when Walkers intention to run for the
Democratic nomination for Governor of Texas the group
regretfully withdrew his invitation to speak.24

22 James Hijiya. 213.

23 Goldwater Advises Conservative Group to Avoid Politics, New York
Times, May 10, 1966, http://www.proguest.com.
24 Talk By Walker Is Canceled Here, New York Times, February 13,
1962, http://proquest.com.

12
YAF was established in the 1960s as a way to oppose the New
Left and radical, liberal ideals and has since used the power,
prestige and experience they gained in their inaugural decade to
push conservative ideals in American politics. The group
however, was not a monolithic identity and faced many setbacks
and hardships when trying to unite opposing factions within the
group. These factions and their differences can be explained
through their lives prior to becoming politically active and the
values their parents engrained in them. Members of the group
also had different catalysts that propelled them into activism and
different opinions on how best to fight for their ideals. While the
group may not have seen much success in the 1960s they would
lead the conservative movement that would dominate politics for
the next three decades.

13

Bibliography
Andrew III, John A., The Other Side of the Sixties. New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press, 1997.
Evans, M. Stanton, The Sharon Statmement. 1960.
Flamm, Michael W., and David Steigerwald. Debating the 1960s.
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008.
"Goldwater Advises Conservative Group to Avoid Politics." New
York Times (1923-Current File), May 10, 1966,
http://search.proquest.com. (accessed May 10, 2012).
Hijiya, James A., The Conservative 1960s, Journal of American
Studies 37, no. 2 (2003): 202-227.
http://search.ebscohost.com.
Klatch, Rebecca E., A Generation Divided. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1999.
"Talk by Walker is Canceled here." New York Times (1923-Current
File), Feb 13, 1962, http://search.proquest.com. (accessed
May 10, 2012).