Talk:Barry Goldwater

	This United States politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

More liberal

"More liberal than today's conservatives". From what I understand from American political history, isn't Goldwater the posterboy for how the left/right scale is flawed? Even if I'm completely wrong about this point (I'm basing it entirely off of my, admittedly faulty, memory of a book I read... 2+ years ago), an economic conservative with progressive views about gay rights and abortions isn't more liberal than today's conservatives, he's more libertarian than today's conservatives. JazzMan 01:10, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree, in general, but I would also add "more conservative than modern 'conservatives'", who mostly want to interfere in personal choices. Does the article say what you quoted? Whut bastid put that in there? ħuman 01:22, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes, also true. And yes, it does say what I quoted. Today's lesson was brought to you by the letter S. JazzMan 01:25, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

So should we change it to "more libertarian" instead of "more liberal"? Does that make more sense, or does it subvert the point? ħuman 01:29, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

"More libertarian" is more accurate, but then it also makes the statement irrelevant, at least without a much broader discussion. I never really had a good grasp on what is mission or not, so you decide what to do :) If it weren't hidden away in a box somewhere I'd get out the book I vaguely referred to earlier. It actualy does have an interesting (and likely missiony) discussion about how Goldwater changed the way we think about left/right politics, because of his social views. JazzMan 01:35, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

I'd rather see a "better" article than a more "missiony" one. What book? ħuman 01:42, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

Culture War, by Morris P. Fiorina. It's a pretty good read. JazzMan 02:20, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

It indeed looks very interesting. I added it to my wish list so I don't forget about it... thanks! ħuman 21:18, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

We're being too easy on him

Whether it was his own beliefs or the misguided interpretations of his fans, Goldwater ensured the death of the Rockefeller Republicans and the implementation of the Southern strategy. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Opposing the civil rights act to win votes in the south is apealing to racist attitudes...

No matter how the candidate justifies it on a individual level.-Flandres (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

While I don't disagree, I have added the point about Goldwater voting for the 1957 civial rights act, as it's historically accurate as far as I'm aware. (I'm also aware that a number of these landmark bills were gutted on the back end, just as an FYI for everyone). ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, I did not mean to remove the part about the 1957 act-that was accurate. He just appealed to racist atidudes by opposing civil rights during his 1964 presidential campaign, even if it was only to get votes. (also, sorry about my post above-I am not that good with computers, hmhmhm...)-Flandres (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Goldwater didn't appeal to racist attitudes, he appealed to small-government conservatism. His main opposition to the 1964 bill came from his objections to Titles II and VII, which he believed increased the size and scope of the federal government excessively. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you honestly not see why opposing the civil rights act is appealing to racist beliefs? He wanted to exploit the anger socially conservative southern whites directed at Johnson to win southern votes, so he opposed the civil rights act. You do realize even King himself called out Goldwater for enabling racists?-Flandres (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, we already mentioned his private justifications on the page before you edited it.-Flandres (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you should observe his exact words on the matter [1]:

“”I am unalterably opposed to discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color or creed, or on any other basis; not only my words, but more importantly my actions through the years have repeatedly demonstrated the sincerity of my feeling in this regard. ... I realize fully that the Federal Government has a responsibility in the field of civil rights. I supported the civil rights bills which were enacted in 1957 and 1960, and my public utterances during the debates on those measures and since reveal clearly the areas in which I feel that Federal responsibility lies and Federal legislation on this subject can be both effective and appropriate. Many of those areas are encompassed in this bill, and, to that extent, I favor it. ... I repeat again: I am unalterably opposed to discrimination of any sort and I believe that though the problem is fundamentally one of the heart, some law can help—but not law that embodies features like these, provisions which fly in the face of the Constitution and which require for their effective execution the creation of a police state. And so, because I am unalterably opposed to any threats to our great system of government and the loss of our God‐given liberties, I shall vote “no” on this bill.

UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

None of that is mutually exclusive with appealing to racist votes, as his victories in the deep south showed. After all, politicians NEVER opportunistically talk from both sides of their mouth to win an election! Remember, he does not have to be a racist to appeal to racists.-Flandres (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The important takeaway is that Goldwater didn't oppose civil rights in general, he opposed the expansion of federal government powers authorized in two titles of the bill. This distinction is very significant. He made it loud and clear in his speech that he strongly supported civil rights efforts. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not about whether or not he opposed civil rights in general. It is about whether or not he appealed to racism in order to get votes during his 1964 presidential campaign, which he did. As king himself said he gave "comfort to the racists."-Flandres (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)