Opinion of Barry Goldwater

[RINO Tom]

FF for creating the spark that led to Reagan, HP for being a racist.

I didn't know you were racist for founding an NAACP branch and voting for the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960

I seem to recall him opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

I don't think there was such a bill?

And, opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1965 1964 wouldn't necessarily mean that someone "was a racist."  Then again, we are in Wulfric's incredibly simple universe here.

[SATW]

RINO Tom is on the mark here. Wulfric lives in some bizarro world where everything is so simplified with no grey area.

Goldwater was far from a racist. One can say that and can still disagree w/ his vote, like I do.

[Kingpoleon]

RINO Tom is on the mark here. Wulfric lives in some bizarro world where everything is so simplified with no grey area.

Goldwater was far from a racist. One can say that and can still disagree w/ his vote, like I do.

In hindsight, I would have voted for the bill at the time and proposed re-authorization every fifty years as an amendment, and if such a bill was produced now I would vote against it.

[AN63093]

I voted neither.  On one hand, he was a principled and respectable person whose views are quite a bit more nuanced than is taught in your typical US History class.

On the other hand, his version of conservatism, and the movement he helped usher in (whether he intended it or not).. I find rather objectionable, to say the least.  As well as, shall we say, tacky and very petit bourgeois.  (It should be noted that Goldwater did oppose some of the more tacky elements that emerged in this new movement).

The "Old Right" and paleoconservatism is much more to my liking, although I hesitate to necessarily call myself an ardent believer in either.  

That being said, I still find myself, from time to time, voting for modern conservatives, the Reagan-ites, and so on, though it is frequently a question of the lesser of two ghastly choices.

[Keep cool-idge]

I love pre 1970 Goldwater
Also if he was a *RACIST* then he was really bad at being one he was Jewish first of all second of all no way the KKK grand wizard would vote for him since he's Jewish.

[RINO Tom]

I voted neither.  On one hand, he was a principled and respectable person whose views are quite a bit more nuanced than is taught in your typical US History class.

On the other hand, his version of conservatism, and the movement he helped usher in (whether he intended it or not).. I find rather objectionable, to say the least.  As well as, shall we say, tacky and very petit bourgeois.  (It should be noted that Goldwater did oppose some of the more tacky elements that emerged in this new movement).

The "Old Right" and paleoconservatism is much more to my liking, although I hesitate to necessarily call myself an ardent believer in either.  

That being said, I still find myself, from time to time, voting for modern conservatives, the Reagan-ites, and so on, though it is frequently a question of the lesser of two ghastly choices.

I've opined this many times in the past, but if MODERN "paleoconservatives" are being attracted to Republicans in the early 1900s who appear "nationalist" (specifically via their support of protectionism), I think you're REALLY making the wrong bedfellows.  The "Old Right" of the GOP had a decidedly less "populist" attitude - and one much closer to the traditional conservatism of Hamilton, IMO - than your Pat Buchanan types.  Let's keep in mind that the GOP adopted protectionism at a time when the American business community was pushing for it.

[Santander]

I love pre 1970 Goldwater
Also if he was a *RACIST* then he was really bad at being one he was Jewish first of all second of all no way the KKK grand wizard would vote for him since he's Jewish.

Being Jewish doesn't mean you cannot also be racist. Anyway, Goldwater was not a racist, but he was fully aware that he excited many racists.

[RINO Tom]

I love pre 1970 Goldwater
Also if he was a *RACIST* then he was really bad at being one he was Jewish first of all second of all no way the KKK grand wizard would vote for him since he's Jewish.

Being Jewish doesn't mean you cannot also be racist. Anyway, Goldwater was not a racist, but he was fully aware that he excited many racists.

Exciting racists without being one yourself would pretty much damn every Presidential candidate in US history, in one way or another.

[Santander]

I love pre 1970 Goldwater
Also if he was a *RACIST* then he was really bad at being one he was Jewish first of all second of all no way the KKK grand wizard would vote for him since he's Jewish.

Being Jewish doesn't mean you cannot also be racist. Anyway, Goldwater was not a racist, but he was fully aware that he excited many racists.

Exciting racists without being one yourself would pretty much damn every Presidential candidate in US history, in one way or another.

I don't fault him for it, but I'm just saying that's what happened.

[vanguard96]

Definitely compared to the two other presidents elected in the decade post JFK, Nixon & Johnson he's a much more preferable figure.

[dw93]

Mixed. I strongly disagree with him on economics and Civil Rights and I'm not into hawkish foreign policies, but I can respect the fact that he was principled and like the fact that he felt the religious right was dangerous. Also, didn't he support allowing gays to serve in the military in the 1960's?

[Goldwater]

Mixed. I strongly disagree with him on economics and Civil Rights and I'm not into hawkish foreign policies, but I can respect the fact that he was principled and like the fact that he felt the religious right was dangerous. Also, didn't he support allowing gays to serve in the military in the 1960's?

I don't think that issue came up in the 1960s...

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I voted neither.  On one hand, he was a principled and respectable person whose views are quite a bit more nuanced than is taught in your typical US History class.

On the other hand, his version of conservatism, and the movement he helped usher in (whether he intended it or not).. I find rather objectionable, to say the least.  As well as, shall we say, tacky and very petit bourgeois.  (It should be noted that Goldwater did oppose some of the more tacky elements that emerged in this new movement).

The "Old Right" and paleoconservatism is much more to my liking, although I hesitate to necessarily call myself an ardent believer in either. 

That being said, I still find myself, from time to time, voting for modern conservatives, the Reagan-ites, and so on, though it is frequently a question of the lesser of two ghastly choices.

I've opined this many times in the past, but if MODERN "paleoconservatives" are being attracted to Republicans in the early 1900s who appear "nationalist" (specifically via their support of protectionism), I think you're REALLY making the wrong bedfellows.  The "Old Right" of the GOP had a decidedly less "populist" attitude - and one much closer to the traditional conservatism of Hamilton, IMO - than your Pat Buchanan types.  Let's keep in mind that the GOP adopted protectionism at a time when the American business community was pushing for it.

The term "Old Right" refers to something neither identical nor limited to the Republican party of its time.  Generally anti-interventionist both domestically and internationally, and thus opposed strongly to FDR. It's true they were not populist in that they were generally skeptical of mass democracy, and believed in the importance of a sound currency. But at the same time there was a bias against the rule of "experts" and centralization in both government and the economy, sometimes combined with agrarianism.

[SATW]

Also, Goldwater's father side had some Jewish ancestry, but he himself was a christian his whole life. Just wanted to put that out there

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Both.

[SNJ1985]

Too socially liberal for me.

[AN63093]

I voted neither.  On one hand, he was a principled and respectable person whose views are quite a bit more nuanced than is taught in your typical US History class.

On the other hand, his version of conservatism, and the movement he helped usher in (whether he intended it or not).. I find rather objectionable, to say the least.  As well as, shall we say, tacky and very petit bourgeois.  (It should be noted that Goldwater did oppose some of the more tacky elements that emerged in this new movement).

The "Old Right" and paleoconservatism is much more to my liking, although I hesitate to necessarily call myself an ardent believer in either.  

That being said, I still find myself, from time to time, voting for modern conservatives, the Reagan-ites, and so on, though it is frequently a question of the lesser of two ghastly choices.

I've opined this many times in the past, but if MODERN "paleoconservatives" are being attracted to Republicans in the early 1900s who appear "nationalist" (specifically via their support of protectionism), I think you're REALLY making the wrong bedfellows.  The "Old Right" of the GOP had a decidedly less "populist" attitude - and one much closer to the traditional conservatism of Hamilton, IMO - than your Pat Buchanan types.  Let's keep in mind that the GOP adopted protectionism at a time when the American business community was pushing for it.

Tom, your post is confusing me.  I don't think I've ever described myself as a "populist," and I can't recall ever expressing an opinion on Pat Buchanan on this forum.  What exactly is a "modern paleocon?"  Are you talking about alt-Right people?  Trumpists?  Dixiecrats like Santander?  Pat Buchanan?  People that read The American Conservative?  Not sure what any of these have to do with myself.  Well, admittedly, there are some good articles in the The American Conservative from time to time, so I can't proclaim I never read it.  So does that make me one of these peculiar modern paleocons?

Sure, I'm well versed in the history of the GOP's position on the tariff, Tom.  I even typed up a book-length post about this and you thought it was a good one.  Or at least you did at the time.

Why exactly is nationalist in quotes?  Are you arguing that politicians like McKinley weren't nationalists?

Hamilton is a "traditional conservative?"  Really?  Can we even use that term to describe politicians of the time?  Would people in his era describe him as conservative?  I mean, we're talking about a guy who was the illegitimate son of someone who had a very distant line to Scottish title, but no real claim, and he grew up lower middle class (at best), with no estate, no title, and for goodness sake, he worked as a clerk and was something of a self-made man.  Not particularly aristocratic in my mind, but he was a bit of a monarchist so I guess there's that.

In any case, I digress.  I'm not sure what about my post, expressing some disdain for the modern conservative movement, and my belief that it's tacky and petit bourgeois (but reluctantly voting for it, maybe 50% of the time), triggered this response from you... do you have me confused with somebody else, Tom?

[Sumner 1868]

Rarely do politicians leave a legacy as toxic as that of Barry Goldwater. May his name be cursed by all future generations forever.

[Phony Moderate]

Rarely do politicians leave a legacy as toxic as that of Barry Goldwater. May his name be cursed by all future generations forever.

It is worth pointing out that he wouldn't be respected to the extent that he is if he had actually been elected president. The same goes for the man who succeeded him in the Senate.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Great politician, albeit one who reached national stature at the worst possible time. He deserved better than to be associated with segregationists by virtue of the fact that he genuinely supported states' rights as a matter of principle.

[smoltchanov]

Principled, respectable, and still an HP. Warmongering and civil rights are the only things stopping me from switching my vote, because in every other way he was better than any presidential candidate the GOP has put forward since.

Exactly my views too