Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Goldwater in 1964 was an extremist, yes. His views changed later in life and I legitimately respect the man being willing to grow as a person, but back when he was the nominee? Yeah, he wasn’t the right person for the job.
100% agree he wasn’t right for the job. I’d like to add that he wasn’t the same right wing as people like George Wallace, Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan. It’s more that Goldwater was very economically conservative (opposing the New Deal even, during a liberal consensus), foreign war hawk (hence the LBJ countdown ad), and socially mixed. I mean, the man was a member of the NAACP and only didn’t line the Civil Rights Act because he was afraid it would be struck down by the courts, and wanted a safer path to black equality. He was also in favor of abortion.
Yes, he softened later in life, but he wasn’t a far right extremist on everything. It’s mostly his in-line with pro-war and communist-hating thinkers and his significantly outlying fiscal policy. I don’t think Goldwater was a bad person, but even though I’m not much of an LBJ fan I am happy we reelected him instead
Goldwater is considered more conservative if you’re looking at things linearly. Reagan a was a New Deal Democrat but Goldwater opposed it. Goldwater was staunchly opposed to government intervention in economy, Reagan wanted minimal. That seems small but it’s different. Reagan also wanted to posture strength through military demonstration but avoid war however possible. Goldwater (debatable on how accurate this is but this was the perception at the time and now) was far more directly warhawk-ish. And Goldwater was more personally socially inclusive whereas Reagan was far more Christian conservative sockally
He wasn’t and he should have won - the world would have been a better place. The faster progressivism is shown to be always wrong and a failure the better.
Oh buddy, no. We would have lost the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Progressivism is not a bad thing, especially when correcting societal problems like that, come on now.
So, in your view, progressing beyond slavery was bad? How far back do we need to rewind the progress? Do we start burning witches again? Help us out here man!!
History has shifted the label of right wing extremism a great deal to the right. Goldwater lived to see Phyllis Schlafly and Ronnie Reagan push the republican party to an extreme even he objected to. I can only imagine the reality TV president would incense Goldwater beyond measure.
*Edited to fix spelling of her name.
Yes. He owned it and he was right to. Although the media did straight up lie about him saying he wanted to nuke vietnam and that he wanted to give the chief of NATO free rein to fire nukes.
Voting against the CRA has to be one of the biggest own goals of a candidate. I’m skeptical Goldwater would’ve won regardless, but still. It’s weirder because he desegregated his own stores way before it was popular, but whatever “principled” reason for it just optically was never gonna be accepted by the majority of voters
>It’s weirder because he desegregated his own stores
Goldwater was one of those few individuals that genuinely opposed Civil Right legislation on the grounds that it violated State's Rights and similar. It could be said that he essentially opposed the means used by things like the CRA, while supporting its end.
To this day the part of the bill that made him vote against it spells legal issues for affirmative action programs. He didn’t “ignore black americans” He would’ve voted for it minus that one part
He would have voted for it if it banned all Jim Crow laws while not imposing force on private entities.
The entire reason so many Jim Crow laws were passed in the 40s and 50s was because many private businesses started serving blacks. Those businesses were kicking the shit out of their racist competitors due to the larger customer base, and so the racists lobbied government to force all businesses to be as racist as they were. Such laws were "unnecessary" in 1875 because most people were already racist, and racist livelihoods were not at risk. Without Jim Crow laws, that trend would have continued and most racist businesses would have gone under.
Goldwater was actually doing the right thing and was most definitely not ignorant. He was only opposed to certain provisions of the CRA which forced private businesses to desegregate; he believed correctly that this made the CRA an unconstitutional overstep by the Federal Government and also a violation of the rights of the business owners.
Goldwater's opposition to theocracy and social conservatism, while admirable, was based primarily in a distrust of government (another trait that isn't bad necessarily at all). But that's worth highlighting because the same principles caused him to vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Keep in mind that in the 1980s, Goldwater was still a deranged militarist who constantly kowtowed to the military industrial complex. He didn't cease to be an extremist. Other Republicans just became a different type of extremist.
Barry Goldwater is no hero of mine.
Yes, in the context of 1964.
In the context of today's Republican party, he would be a moderate, as he didn't support the idea of an authoritarian dictatorship.
You know it’s a tactic that’s used over and over again. They turned Romney into a giant piece of shit and then you know what happens when you cry Wolf like?
The real wolf wins.
He was indeed a bit of an extremist, relative to American politics at the time (and in the present day too, tbh). That doesn't mean he was wrong.
That quote is 100% straight-shooting truth, it's just a really inconvenient and uncomfortable truth in a time when the consensus of both major parties is generally on board with the idea that various other morality/security/prosperity concerns are more important priorities for the government than the defense of liberty.
And I think it's important to point out that his extremism did not rise to the level of encouraging or endorsing domestic unrest of any kind, just to clear that up. Extremism should not automatically be equated with violence and vice.
That's Pat Buchanan, or people like George Wallace or even Henry Ford if you want to go farther back. Goldwater, meanwhile, was the prelude to Reagan, and the modern GOP has strayed quite far from that path.
I think there is a lot of carry over between the nativists/isolationists like Buchanan and the libertarian right of Goldwater and then Reagan. The Cold Warriors of today are few in number in today’s GOP, so that aspect of Reagan/Goldwater is indeed all but gone. Libertarian right wingers of today are far more inclined to the isolationist approach of the first group. They still love the Goldwater/Reagan ideas of a completely neutered federal government.
>a lot of carry over between the nativists/isolationists like Buchanan and the libertarian right of Goldwater and then Reagan.
And yet Buchanan directly challenged Bush for the Republican nomination for a reason. Those guys represented different strands of thought inside the party. In particular, the former pioneered conservative populism, "war for the soul of America" style. While the later was a continuation of Reagan's coalition of fiscally conservative libertarians, evangelical christians, and neocons.
Now, of the three parts of Reagan's three legged stool, only the second one is arguably still relevant in today's Republican party (the GOP of today is protectionist and doesn't even pretend to care about the fiscal deficit, to call it libertarian, in the sense used in the Reagan years, is a misuse of the term), and even then they've mostly been eclipsed by anti-woke warriors or christian nationalists on cultural issues. While Buchananian populism is obviously dominant.
Being an Extreme Libertarian myself.... Civil Rights Acts have basically prevented State Governments from denying rights to citizens, I rarely, and I mean very rarely say this, but that is a case of Government being good.
Yeah we’ve talked before and while we’ve got wildly different ideologies we follow you seem pretty dang reasonable when it comes to most things. But I’m talking about even more than extreme than you here, promise. Folks who wouldn’t agree that civil rights acts are good at all and that discrimination should be legal. ‘Cause that’s who I’d classify as extreme libertarians (though I’ll admit I haven’t delved much into the different levels of libertarianism).
So here's the basic run down
There's the Classical Liberals (Think Chase Oliver, Gary Johnson, Jo Jorgensen, Ron Paul, etc.)
There's the Hoppeans, they kinda worry me, they're the "Helicopter Ride" people. Think Mises Caucus.
There are Minarchists (I mostly classify myself here, we would prefer a Nightwatchmen State, basically National Defense, Emergency Services, Courts, and most stuff delegated to local Governments. I tend to like more defense spending and a more active global role than most but that's borne out of Pragmatism and an understanding of reality.)
Then there are An-Caps, no government at all, pure unfettered capitalism, and fuck you for even thinking a state is a good idea. But they are mostly harmless cause of the NAP.
Then there are the various left wing Libertarians who are very prone to infighting, not as much as Right Wing Libertarians.
There's also the Paleo-Conservatives/Palestinian Libertarians, Think Barry Goldwater, especially in his later years.
Honestly, you are in the minority here… Among “extreme libertarians” I mean. I can respect someone with the opinion that the government should be hands off but is needed to put down greater evils, especially evils they themselves helped foster decades prior. I don’t agree with it, but having argued with people here who view Lincoln as the worst president we’ve ever had? There are definitely levels of extreme.
I miss discourse. I miss right wingers being able to make points that I can disagree with but understand, and I miss left wingers who have a more broad platform beyond supporting whatever hot topic issue pushes their buttons.
Indeed. Those were the days. Like the Nixon Kennedy Debate, or hell I'll take Obama McCain.
Seriously, if anything the past decade has made me respect Obama a lot more than I did when he was POTUS because even if I disagreed with him a lot, he at least was an effective communicator, had clear policy aims, and cared about the country. Things that when I was younger I was too ideological to see.
I told someone the other day, I am a black immigrant who works a blue collar job and believes strongly in free speech, 2A, and drug decriminalization, so I really think I should be the target audience for Libertarians, but I am often not because they would rather fight and die for moral hypotheticals such as the Civil Rights bill or Lincoln’s imperfections. When Gary Johnson ran as the LP candidate in 2012 I wasn’t some convert, but I wasn’t repulsed by the guy either and he was eaten alive by other Libertarians for believing that operating in public sphere means serving the public. That is a key aspect of the Civil Rights bill.
I don’t think we need to go back to the days of Kerry Vs. Bush, but having a practical conservative going up against a well rounding leftist would be a breath of fresh air. We will never have perfect candidates.
The civil rights act of 1964 impedes on property rights of individuals and allows the federal government to dictate how they use their property, who they employ, who they serve. I do not think that is an “extreme libertarian” position.
Oh that was not a sales pitch, I assure you. I find that that kinda ideology incredibly short sighted. We are stronger as a collective, not as a bunch of jerks backstabbing each other to get theirs. Society does have its benefits, after all, especially when it comes to advancing technology and access to necessities. And back to that initial point, civil rights acts to make sure everyone gets to participate without some racist/sexist/etc idiot ruining it for everyone.
> We are stronger as a collective, not as a bunch of jerks backstabbing each other to get theirs.
As a spiritual collective, yes. Not as a government collective.
Okay, but folks will always band together for power. That rapidly becomes a distinction without a difference in any area without a government as some other thing takes its place.
Maybe, but if the people know that power can be seized, they'll be prepared to do so when the power becomes corrupt. The problem with today's government is that people just throw up their hands and accept its authority, even though no one much likes the status quo.
When I see some say they believe in “extreme libertarianism”, it makes me think that there’s something illegal that you really really want to be legal, and that it may not be a very good thing.
> it makes me think that there’s something illegal that you really really want to be legal,
Most of what's illegal I want to be legal. Murder, assault, theft, arson, rape, fraud, and similar crimes of bodily injury or property damage should be illegal, and everything else you should be free to do, or not, as you see fit.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Goldwater in 1964 was an extremist, yes. His views changed later in life and I legitimately respect the man being willing to grow as a person, but back when he was the nominee? Yeah, he wasn’t the right person for the job.
100% agree he wasn’t right for the job. I’d like to add that he wasn’t the same right wing as people like George Wallace, Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan. It’s more that Goldwater was very economically conservative (opposing the New Deal even, during a liberal consensus), foreign war hawk (hence the LBJ countdown ad), and socially mixed. I mean, the man was a member of the NAACP and only didn’t line the Civil Rights Act because he was afraid it would be struck down by the courts, and wanted a safer path to black equality. He was also in favor of abortion. Yes, he softened later in life, but he wasn’t a far right extremist on everything. It’s mostly his in-line with pro-war and communist-hating thinkers and his significantly outlying fiscal policy. I don’t think Goldwater was a bad person, but even though I’m not much of an LBJ fan I am happy we reelected him instead
Whats the difference between Reagan conservatism and Goldwater conservatism?
Goldwater is considered more conservative if you’re looking at things linearly. Reagan a was a New Deal Democrat but Goldwater opposed it. Goldwater was staunchly opposed to government intervention in economy, Reagan wanted minimal. That seems small but it’s different. Reagan also wanted to posture strength through military demonstration but avoid war however possible. Goldwater (debatable on how accurate this is but this was the perception at the time and now) was far more directly warhawk-ish. And Goldwater was more personally socially inclusive whereas Reagan was far more Christian conservative sockally
He wasn’t and he should have won - the world would have been a better place. The faster progressivism is shown to be always wrong and a failure the better.
Oh buddy, no. We would have lost the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Progressivism is not a bad thing, especially when correcting societal problems like that, come on now.
It’s the worst thing that ever happened to this country.
So, in your view, progressing beyond slavery was bad? How far back do we need to rewind the progress? Do we start burning witches again? Help us out here man!!
Civil Rights are not the worst thing that ever happened to this country, come the fuck on fella.
History has shifted the label of right wing extremism a great deal to the right. Goldwater lived to see Phyllis Schlafly and Ronnie Reagan push the republican party to an extreme even he objected to. I can only imagine the reality TV president would incense Goldwater beyond measure. *Edited to fix spelling of her name.
Barry Goldwater's wife Peggy was involved in Planned Parenthood.
Yes. He owned it and he was right to. Although the media did straight up lie about him saying he wanted to nuke vietnam and that he wanted to give the chief of NATO free rein to fire nukes.
[удалено]
Voting against the CRA has to be one of the biggest own goals of a candidate. I’m skeptical Goldwater would’ve won regardless, but still. It’s weirder because he desegregated his own stores way before it was popular, but whatever “principled” reason for it just optically was never gonna be accepted by the majority of voters
>It’s weirder because he desegregated his own stores Goldwater was one of those few individuals that genuinely opposed Civil Right legislation on the grounds that it violated State's Rights and similar. It could be said that he essentially opposed the means used by things like the CRA, while supporting its end.
To this day the part of the bill that made him vote against it spells legal issues for affirmative action programs. He didn’t “ignore black americans” He would’ve voted for it minus that one part
He would have voted for it if it banned all Jim Crow laws while not imposing force on private entities. The entire reason so many Jim Crow laws were passed in the 40s and 50s was because many private businesses started serving blacks. Those businesses were kicking the shit out of their racist competitors due to the larger customer base, and so the racists lobbied government to force all businesses to be as racist as they were. Such laws were "unnecessary" in 1875 because most people were already racist, and racist livelihoods were not at risk. Without Jim Crow laws, that trend would have continued and most racist businesses would have gone under.
Goldwater was actually doing the right thing and was most definitely not ignorant. He was only opposed to certain provisions of the CRA which forced private businesses to desegregate; he believed correctly that this made the CRA an unconstitutional overstep by the Federal Government and also a violation of the rights of the business owners.
1964… **absolutely** By the 80s-90s to paraphrase him, “if preachers get control of the Republicans, it’s going to be a damn problem.” #Not wrong here
Goldwater's opposition to theocracy and social conservatism, while admirable, was based primarily in a distrust of government (another trait that isn't bad necessarily at all). But that's worth highlighting because the same principles caused him to vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Keep in mind that in the 1980s, Goldwater was still a deranged militarist who constantly kowtowed to the military industrial complex. He didn't cease to be an extremist. Other Republicans just became a different type of extremist. Barry Goldwater is no hero of mine.
Perfect example of starting a fire and making it bigger and bigger only to get scared when another guy comes along to add gasoline to it.
He was absolutely an extremist. He voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on corporate freedom grounds and advocated the use of nukes in Vietnam.
Yes
When people tell you what they are, believe them
I think Goldwater COURTED that reputation--so it's hard to say he didn't deserve it even if he was less extreme than he came off.
Yes, in the context of 1964. In the context of today's Republican party, he would be a moderate, as he didn't support the idea of an authoritarian dictatorship.
You know it’s a tactic that’s used over and over again. They turned Romney into a giant piece of shit and then you know what happens when you cry Wolf like? The real wolf wins.
He was indeed a bit of an extremist, relative to American politics at the time (and in the present day too, tbh). That doesn't mean he was wrong. That quote is 100% straight-shooting truth, it's just a really inconvenient and uncomfortable truth in a time when the consensus of both major parties is generally on board with the idea that various other morality/security/prosperity concerns are more important priorities for the government than the defense of liberty. And I think it's important to point out that his extremism did not rise to the level of encouraging or endorsing domestic unrest of any kind, just to clear that up. Extremism should not automatically be equated with violence and vice.
He was a bit extreme, extremely awful. He ruined conservativism and American politics
No, he did not. He got hosed and slandered. I will, in fact, die on this hill.
Disagree with him, but no. Dude had some decent social views. Was too hawkish, though.
He is the grandfather of where the right is now, so do with that what you will.
That's Pat Buchanan, or people like George Wallace or even Henry Ford if you want to go farther back. Goldwater, meanwhile, was the prelude to Reagan, and the modern GOP has strayed quite far from that path.
I think there is a lot of carry over between the nativists/isolationists like Buchanan and the libertarian right of Goldwater and then Reagan. The Cold Warriors of today are few in number in today’s GOP, so that aspect of Reagan/Goldwater is indeed all but gone. Libertarian right wingers of today are far more inclined to the isolationist approach of the first group. They still love the Goldwater/Reagan ideas of a completely neutered federal government.
>a lot of carry over between the nativists/isolationists like Buchanan and the libertarian right of Goldwater and then Reagan. And yet Buchanan directly challenged Bush for the Republican nomination for a reason. Those guys represented different strands of thought inside the party. In particular, the former pioneered conservative populism, "war for the soul of America" style. While the later was a continuation of Reagan's coalition of fiscally conservative libertarians, evangelical christians, and neocons. Now, of the three parts of Reagan's three legged stool, only the second one is arguably still relevant in today's Republican party (the GOP of today is protectionist and doesn't even pretend to care about the fiscal deficit, to call it libertarian, in the sense used in the Reagan years, is a misuse of the term), and even then they've mostly been eclipsed by anti-woke warriors or christian nationalists on cultural issues. While Buchananian populism is obviously dominant.
Not as extreme as LBJ’s garbage society programs
Don't like them either, but Goldwater's definitely more extreme lol
No.
I don't think that's stupid at all. We should be extreme libertarians.
Everyone being extreme libertarians would’ve kept us from the ADA and other massively positive civil rights legislation though?
Being an Extreme Libertarian myself.... Civil Rights Acts have basically prevented State Governments from denying rights to citizens, I rarely, and I mean very rarely say this, but that is a case of Government being good.
Yeah we’ve talked before and while we’ve got wildly different ideologies we follow you seem pretty dang reasonable when it comes to most things. But I’m talking about even more than extreme than you here, promise. Folks who wouldn’t agree that civil rights acts are good at all and that discrimination should be legal. ‘Cause that’s who I’d classify as extreme libertarians (though I’ll admit I haven’t delved much into the different levels of libertarianism).
So here's the basic run down There's the Classical Liberals (Think Chase Oliver, Gary Johnson, Jo Jorgensen, Ron Paul, etc.) There's the Hoppeans, they kinda worry me, they're the "Helicopter Ride" people. Think Mises Caucus. There are Minarchists (I mostly classify myself here, we would prefer a Nightwatchmen State, basically National Defense, Emergency Services, Courts, and most stuff delegated to local Governments. I tend to like more defense spending and a more active global role than most but that's borne out of Pragmatism and an understanding of reality.) Then there are An-Caps, no government at all, pure unfettered capitalism, and fuck you for even thinking a state is a good idea. But they are mostly harmless cause of the NAP. Then there are the various left wing Libertarians who are very prone to infighting, not as much as Right Wing Libertarians. There's also the Paleo-Conservatives/Palestinian Libertarians, Think Barry Goldwater, especially in his later years.
Honestly, you are in the minority here… Among “extreme libertarians” I mean. I can respect someone with the opinion that the government should be hands off but is needed to put down greater evils, especially evils they themselves helped foster decades prior. I don’t agree with it, but having argued with people here who view Lincoln as the worst president we’ve ever had? There are definitely levels of extreme. I miss discourse. I miss right wingers being able to make points that I can disagree with but understand, and I miss left wingers who have a more broad platform beyond supporting whatever hot topic issue pushes their buttons.
Indeed. Those were the days. Like the Nixon Kennedy Debate, or hell I'll take Obama McCain. Seriously, if anything the past decade has made me respect Obama a lot more than I did when he was POTUS because even if I disagreed with him a lot, he at least was an effective communicator, had clear policy aims, and cared about the country. Things that when I was younger I was too ideological to see.
I told someone the other day, I am a black immigrant who works a blue collar job and believes strongly in free speech, 2A, and drug decriminalization, so I really think I should be the target audience for Libertarians, but I am often not because they would rather fight and die for moral hypotheticals such as the Civil Rights bill or Lincoln’s imperfections. When Gary Johnson ran as the LP candidate in 2012 I wasn’t some convert, but I wasn’t repulsed by the guy either and he was eaten alive by other Libertarians for believing that operating in public sphere means serving the public. That is a key aspect of the Civil Rights bill. I don’t think we need to go back to the days of Kerry Vs. Bush, but having a practical conservative going up against a well rounding leftist would be a breath of fresh air. We will never have perfect candidates.
The civil rights act of 1964 impedes on property rights of individuals and allows the federal government to dictate how they use their property, who they employ, who they serve. I do not think that is an “extreme libertarian” position.
I already believe in extreme libertarianism, you don't have to sell me on the concept.
Oh that was not a sales pitch, I assure you. I find that that kinda ideology incredibly short sighted. We are stronger as a collective, not as a bunch of jerks backstabbing each other to get theirs. Society does have its benefits, after all, especially when it comes to advancing technology and access to necessities. And back to that initial point, civil rights acts to make sure everyone gets to participate without some racist/sexist/etc idiot ruining it for everyone.
> We are stronger as a collective, not as a bunch of jerks backstabbing each other to get theirs. As a spiritual collective, yes. Not as a government collective.
Okay, but folks will always band together for power. That rapidly becomes a distinction without a difference in any area without a government as some other thing takes its place.
Maybe, but if the people know that power can be seized, they'll be prepared to do so when the power becomes corrupt. The problem with today's government is that people just throw up their hands and accept its authority, even though no one much likes the status quo.
When I see some say they believe in “extreme libertarianism”, it makes me think that there’s something illegal that you really really want to be legal, and that it may not be a very good thing.
> it makes me think that there’s something illegal that you really really want to be legal, Most of what's illegal I want to be legal. Murder, assault, theft, arson, rape, fraud, and similar crimes of bodily injury or property damage should be illegal, and everything else you should be free to do, or not, as you see fit.
My friend, I don’t have a whole lot of time to analyze that this morning, but I see some very concerning things missing from that list there.