President Barry Goldwater?

What if Barry Goldwater becomes president of the United States when he runs for president? Could Goldwater type of people become the dominant group among conservatives and republicans? How would it impact the country? How would international and domestic policies go? How do people react and work to Goldwater?

Goldwater seems to have a unique mix of views and beliefs when compared to other people. Domestically I wouldn’t describe him as libertarian but more as a classical liberal. Little government at home basically. Minimizing bureaucracy and the public sector being major points. Goldwater would believe in laissez-faire economic and be either supportive or indifferent to social issues(but against or reluctant to use federal power to enforce it). He would probably pass civil rights acts but not send national guard or military down south if he could. As long as places in the south agrees to at least officially end segregation and have technical legal equality he would not push the issue anymore. Basically, the south would have tokenism and would not have bussing and similar things put in place. He might even legalize or deregulate some industries and other things. Censorship also seems like it would be less under him. Goldwater would probably try to deal with opponents at home by private means and money instead of censorship and spying on behalf of the government.

In foreign relations, he would probably be very hawkish and interventionist. He was a extreme anti-communist and supported expanding the military. I could see Goldwater being against spying on fellow Americans but having no problem spying on foreign nations and people. Goldwater seems like the type that would try to protect and expand individual rights and freedoms at home but disregards that completely when dealing with things overseas. Goldwater is likely to be more direct with the military. Goldwater might even get rid of some of the restrictions on joining the military and raise benefits within it to help increase the number of soldiers. Restrictions on women and gays joining the military being removed being a major reforms under his presidency. Thoughts?
 
The only way this could happen is if Goldwater was VP first, then became President upon the death or resignation of his predecessor. Goldwater was too right wing (not to mention politically inept) to be elected in his own right. In fact his prescence as VP could sink his running mate.
 
You have to be desperate to vote for a man who advocated using nuclear weapons in Viet Nam (before then the war started!). To quote Steve Martin:
"I think that Goldwater will bring America back as it once was. An arctic region covered with ice".
 
I once argued that while Goldwater's chances for the presidency were negligible in 1964 (yes, even if JFK had lived), had he passed up the 1964 race he might have had a chance in 1968. (Scenario: a relatively moderate Republican loses decisively to LBJ in 1964, thereby strengthening the Right's argument that only a "true conservative" can beat the Democrats. In 1968, Goldwater becomes the GOP Right's candidate--Reagan deferring to him--and wins the nomination with centrists and progressives split among several candidates. Wallace drops his plans for a third-party candidacy and backs Goldwater, who with a solid South and most of the West defeats the candidate of a badly divided Democratic party.)
 
Last edited:
A lot of those laissez-faire policies with respect to the economy often remove levers of control that the government or Fed can use to tamp down a recession - I mean, see how often boom/bust cycles used to happen in the late 1800s and so on. One wonders how unstable Goldwateresque deregulation would make the American economy, especially if he combines that with heavy government spending on the military.
 
I once argued that while Goldwater's chances for the presidency were negligible in 1964 (yes, even if JFK had lived), had he passed up the 1964 race he might have had a chance in 1968. (Scenario: a relatively moderate Republican loses decisively to LBJ in 1964, thereby strengthening the Right's argument that only a "true conservative" can beat the Democrats. In 1968, Goldwater becomes the GOP Right's candidate--Reagan deferring to him--and wins the nomination with centrists and progressives split among several candidates. Wallace drops his plans for a third-party candidacy and backs Goldwater, who with a solid South and most of the West defeats the candidate of a badly divided Democratic party.)

The problem is that even if Goldwater is able to hold onto the entire South and most of the West, he is very likely to lose the northern states that Nixon narrowly won in OTL. A candidate like Goldwater would've been a gift to Humphrey, who I imagine would have won - but no where near as decisively as LBJ in 1964.
 
Last edited:

bguy

Donor
A lot of those laissez-faire policies with respect to the economy often remove levers of control that the government or Fed can use to tamp down a recession - I mean, see how often boom/bust cycles used to happen in the late 1800s and so on. One wonders how unstable Goldwateresque deregulation would make the American economy, especially if he combines that with heavy government spending on the military.

How much deregulation would there really be in a Goldwater Administration though? Goldwater actually strongly favored environmental regulation (though for some odd reason he seems to have wanted NASA to be in charge of environmental protection) and voted for OSHA, so it's not like he was opposed to all government regulation of business. And regardless he's still going to need congressional approval for any deregulation efforts, so most likely a President Goldwater couldn't do much more on deregulation than what Presidents Ford and Carter ended up accomplishing (deregulating the airline, rail, and trucking industries.)
 
The problem is that even if Goldwater is able to hold onto the entire South and most of the West, he is very likely to lose the northern states that Nixon narrowly lost in OTL. A candidate like Goldwater would've been a gift to Humphrey, who I imagine would have won - but no where near as decisively as LBJ in 1964.

Well, Nixon was able to get an Electoral College majority without "the northern states that Nixon narrowly lost in OTL"...

If you meant that Goldwater would lose some northern states that Nixon narrowly won, that is plausible--but OTOH Goldwater might win not only the 46 electoral votes Wallace won in OTL but also Texas where Nixon and Wallace combined got almost 59 percent of the vote. (I don't say Goldwater would win all those votes, but it is certainly possible that he would win enough to carry that state.) The 25 votes of Texas combined with the 46 Wallace votes would equal 71 electoral votes--enough so that Goldwater could lose IL, OH, NJ, MO, and WI and still win in the Electoral College.
 
Well, Nixon was able to get an Electoral College majority without "the northern states that Nixon narrowly lost in OTL"...

If you meant that Goldwater would lose some northern states that Nixon narrowly won, that is plausible--but OTOH Goldwater might win not only the 46 electoral votes Wallace won in OTL but also Texas where Nixon and Wallace combined got almost 59 percent of the vote. (I don't say Goldwater would win all those votes, but it is certainly possible that he would win enough to carry that state.) The 25 votes of Texas combined with the 46 Wallace votes would equal 71 electoral votes--enough so that Goldwater could lose IL, OH, NJ, MO, and WI and still win in the Electoral College.

Pardon me, I meant to refer to the states Nixon won. The post has since been edited.

That said, it's possible that Goldwater would do better in Texas. But in a close race, anything is possible. He could win the state, or perhaps his own shortcomings as a politician and LBJ's machine would do him in. Then there's the fact that he could not only lose IL, OH, NJ, and MO, but also CA, WI, DE, and OR as well.

As for Wallace, he might not run in 1968 if Goldwater as the nominee. But Wallace wasn't a one issue candidate in 1968, his focus was also on the economy, the war, and law and order. Plus, while Nixon did support civil rights laws he also implemented a Southern strategy that appealed to segregationists like Strong Thurmond. Yet Wallace still ran.

With all this in mind, I find it hard to believe that Goldwater would win every Southern state (or almost every Southern state), and carry enough large urban Northern states to win the election. If Nixon only barely beat Humphrey, a candidate as unpopular as Goldwater would have lost.
 
Restrictions on women and gays joining the military being removed being a major reforms under his presidency. Thoughts?

Don't think so. This will completely alienate Goldwater's conservative support, and seeing as how Goldwater's rise came with the conservative movement, I don't see Goldwater willing to do this.

As far as the other comments in the thread go: I don't see Goldwater beating Humphrey, but someone like McCarthy or McGovern could give him enough of a boost to deliver him a victory.
 
How much deregulation would there really be in a Goldwater Administration though? Goldwater actually strongly favored environmental regulation (though for some odd reason he seems to have wanted NASA to be in charge of environmental protection) and voted for OSHA, so it's not like he was opposed to all government regulation of business. And regardless he's still going to need congressional approval for any deregulation efforts, so most likely a President Goldwater couldn't do much more on deregulation than what Presidents Ford and Carter ended up accomplishing (deregulating the airline, rail, and trucking industries.)
I wasn't referring to environmental and labor regulation. I was referring to levers of financial control that the government exerts and the ability to use subsidies to stabilize prices and demand. So things like the Fed, QE, use of government-backed loans and subsidies for businesses like farms to maintain stable prices and whatnot.
I honestly haven't heard much about Goldwater's stance on things like those.
 
Don't think so. This will completely alienate Goldwater's conservative support, and seeing as how Goldwater's rise came with the conservative movement, I don't see Goldwater willing to do this.

As far as the other comments in the thread go: I don't see Goldwater beating Humphrey, but someone like McCarthy or McGovern could give him enough of a boost to deliver him a victory.
Goldwater once said “you don’t have to be straight to be in the military. You just got to shoot straight”. He was open on social issues. He always spoke out heavily against the religious and social conservatives especially in his late career. I think he was even on CNN when it first started. He was very right wing on military and economics but not on domestic social issues. Goldwater was pretty consistent and persistent on his beliefs and convection. He could use his social views and even some of his economic ones to appeal to moderates and Rockefeller republicans. His military, economic, and anti-communist views will give him a solid base among the right when dealing with those issues. Goldwater could be able to work with both parties pretty well depending on the issue. He just needs to be able to play both of them to his benefit and know when to bring up the issue or implement it. Goldwater can implement social reforms by doing them quietly or present it as an appeasement or deal with the left. If he keeps the right and public more focused on the military, war, and economics that is doable. He could also depict social reforms as a form of anti-communism policies relating to US public image abroad and at home. Segregation is a good propaganda tool for USSR. Many in US know this and this is the reason many supported desegregation. Also women rights helps capitalism and America look better among women everywhere. The USSR and Eastern Bloc can say they are ahead of the west in regards to women when they have more women serving in the military, government, public services, and even in their space program. Public image and outdoing the Soviets is a major part of US politics at the time. If you can play well enough on that you can get a lot of stuff passed
 
Pardon me, I meant to refer to the states Nixon won. The post has since been edited.

That said, it's possible that Goldwater would do better in Texas. But in a close race, anything is possible. He could win the state, or perhaps his own shortcomings as a politician and LBJ's machine would do him in. Then there's the fact that he could not only lose IL, OH, NJ, and MO, but also CA, WI, DE, and OR as well.

As for Wallace, he might not run in 1968 if Goldwater as the nominee. But Wallace wasn't a one issue candidate in 1968, his focus was also on the economy, the war, and law and order. Plus, while Nixon did support civil rights laws he also implemented a Southern strategy that appealed to segregationists like Strong Thurmond. Yet Wallace still ran.

With all this in mind, I find it hard to believe that Goldwater would win every Southern state (or almost every Southern state), and carry enough large urban Northern states to win the election. If Nixon only barely beat Humphrey, a candidate as unpopular as Goldwater would have lost.
I’m not sure if this is a issue anymore or not at the time especially since he is half but does him having a Jewish heritage hurt him at all especially among the Wallace type of people? Was Wallace even anti-Semitic or just hated blacks? Would his Jewish background cause any conflict or accusations if he was president?
 
I’m not sure if this is a issue anymore or not at the time especially since he is half but does him having a Jewish heritage... Would his Jewish background cause any conflict or accusations if he was president?

As a child in 1960 I recall a lot of anti Catholic diatribes against Kennedy. Don't know how this affected the voting.
 
late career

You want to know why he said this in his late career? Because he was becoming irrelevant, because his career was about to be over and he had less of a need to have a filter. There is a marked difference between the face of the conservative movement 1960s Goldwater and old, increasingly irrelevant 1980s Goldwater.

If he keeps the right and public more focused on the military, war

Oh boy. Look, you do know that the debate over women in combat positions lasted to the 2010s, right? Here's the thing - when Goldwater becomes president either in 1965 or 1969 he would be faced with very little allies. Rockefeller Republicans and Democrats will frequently ally against his conservative policies, and if Goldwater decides to become socially liberal on the issue of gays and women in the military he will anger his current allies. Gays and women in the military wasn't a liberal talking point in the 1960s and 1970s, and by the time it did Goldwater would be too old to become president.
 
I once argued that while Goldwater's chances for the presidency were negligible in 1964 (yes, even if JFK had lived), had he passed up the 1964 race he might have had a chance in 1968. (Scenario: a relatively moderate Republican loses decisively to LBJ in 1964, thereby strengthening the Right's argument that only a "true conservative" can beat the Democrats. In 1968, Goldwater becomes the GOP Right's candidate--Reagan deferring to him--and wins the nomination with centrists and progressives split among several candidates. Wallace drops his plans for a third-party candidacy and backs Goldwater, who with a solid South and most of the West defeats the candidate of a badly divided Democratic party.)
I've always liked Mike D's post to the newsgroup many years ago, in which Goldwater doesn't run in '64 but goes on to run in 1980. He was younger that year than Bob Dole would be in '96, or McCain in '08, and was only two years older than Reagan. The dynamic of an 80s Goldwater administration would, for the first couple of years, IMO be pretty much the same as Reagan. But I think the same falling out he had in OTL with the religious right happens with Goldwater in the White House, and then things get really interesting. I don't know if it would happen in time for a third party candidacy from the far right in '84, but after defeating (likely as in OTL) Mondale (with Mondale picking up more states than in OTL) I predict much of the political paradigm we know today is destroyed in Goldwater's second term.

Also important to remember here is that while Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the Senate, he voted for the ones of 1957 and 1960. Once President Goldwater's social liberalism starts to alienate the SoCon base, I think it's only a matter of time before racists brand him a "n***** lover" and the American paradigm of left and right is radically altered.
 
If Goldwater has won, nukes would have been used in Vietnam and millions more would have died. LBJ’s ads weren’t just fear-mongering, as Goldwater’s policies could have easily led to WWIII.
 
Top