What would a Goldwater administration look like?

So, suppose Barry Goldwater somehow accomplishes the herculean task of defeating LBJ in 1964 (I don’t care how), what would his presidency look like?

How would the Arizonan approach civil rights? He had a solid track record on the issue until he voted against the CRA ‘64, which leaves the question of how he would handle the issue in office. I could still see him pushing a voting rights bill, since that doesn’t conflict with his small-government conservative beliefs.

How would a President Goldwater get along with a likely Democratic Congress? Since the president would sing to a much different tune ideologically than Congress or the rest of the country, I could see some conflict between the executive and the legislature. Who knows.

On foreign policy, Goldwater was a noted hawk, pioneering the idea of “rollback” that Reagon found success with two decades later. Vietnam would probably be the largest issue on that front, and I could see him aggressively expanding the war with the hope of ending it quickly. Or it could attract the unwanted attention of Beijing, which would be a crisis not dissimilar in stakes to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The Space Race could get interesting. I don’t know how Goldwater felt about NASA OTL, but I imagine it could be a target for budget cuts (how well that would go with Congress is up for debate). Or, he may opt to keep it in place, for prestige and national security reasons.

Overall, I don’t see Goldwater winning re-election in 1968 even if things go relatively well. At worst, I think moderates and liberals in the GOP might try to oust him from the ticket, which may or may not work. If Vietnam becomes a problem like OTL, Democrats will have the advantage of being much more united on the issue, which is great for them.
 
I think it's implausible that Goldwater wins in 1964. This is because he was deemed as too radical by moderate and liberal Republicans. He also campaigned only on the Republican base.

Let's say that Goldwater somehow narrowly loses the California Primary to the more liberal Nelson Rockefeller. Rockefeller runs a better campaign than Goldwater did in OTL, but loses to LBJ(Rockefeller wins more electoral votes against Johnson than Goldwater OTL).

President Johnson then implements his Great Society programmes per OTL, and there is a lot of disorder in the streets. Assuming that LBJ refuses to seek a second term in 1968(He had served less than 2 years of JFK's term) ,Goldwater seeks a second attempt for the nomination of President for the GOP, he then succeeds, runs a campaign of Law and Order like Nixon and wins by a decent margin ( whether segregationist George Wallace runs is up to the you the readers, although he may run and spoil the election for Goldwater)

Afterwards, Goldwater is inaugurated as President in January 1969. Depending on which party controls Congress(let's say the Republicans narrowly control the House and the Democrats control the Senate, but below sixty seats or the Democrats all may control both houses of Congress,but there is a significant number of Southern Dems), Goldwater may find it hard for Congress to pass favourable legislation to his desk. It would be impossible to totally abolish the Great Society programmes LBJ established, but Goldwater could implement welfare reform as a compromise. It also would be interesting to see what approach he would take towards Civil Rights.

Foreign Policy wise, he is considered to be very hawkish. Unlike LBJ who micromanaged the War in Vietnam, Goldwater may give the Generals(especially General Abrams) more autonomy in regards to military strategy. The War goes significantlly better for the Americans and the War in Vietnam may end earlier than OTL.

Goldwater also will not pursue detente with either the Soviet Union or Red China. He pursues the concept of Rollback and does everything to weaken both the Soviets and Red China.

If Goldwater plays his cards right and doesn't screw up badly, he is almost certain to be reelected in 1972. Of course, he may win like Nixon did in OTL in a landslide against the Dems if the Dem nominee is McGovern.
 
Last edited:
As to the question of who would have made up the members of the Goldwater administration, I think you would see many names familiar in the Nixon Administration and Republican politics later like Denison Kitchel, Bill Buckley, William Rusher and the whole National Review crowd.
 
These sorts of lists have to be taken with more than a grain of salt, but here are some possible Goldwater Cabinet choices in the unlikely event he won in 1964. Presumably some of them would also be considered in the somewhat more plausible (to me) event of his not getting (maybe not even seeking) the GOP nomination in 1964 and then winning in 1968:

***

CHICAGO, Oct. 31 — The Chicago Tribune reported today that Senator Barry Goldwater had chosen a Cabinet that would include Clare Boothe Luce and former Vice President Richard M. Nixon. If the Arizona Senator were elected, The Tribune said, this is the Cabinet he would name:

Secretary of State, Mr. Nixon; Secretary of Defense, Gen. Lucius D. Clay (Ret.), a partner in Lehman Brothers, New York investment bankers, and retired chairman of Continental Can; Secretary of the Treasury, Ralph Cordiner, retired chairman of General Electric Company; Attorney General, Denison Kitchel, chief counsel of Phelps‐Dodge Copper Company and general campaign manager for Mr. Goldwater;

Also, Secretary of Commerce, Robert Galvin, president of Motorola Company, or Gov. James Rhodes of Ohio; Secretary of the Interior, Gov. Robert Smylie of Idaho; Secretary of Agriculture, Senator Carl T. Curtis of Nebraska; Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Mrs. Luce, wife of the Time‐Life‐Fortune publisher.

The post of Chief Delegate to the United Nations was assigned to former Representative Walter H. Judd of Minnesota.

The Tribune saif no choice had been made for Secretary of Labor.

It said also that Senator Goldwater had said that he would like to have Gov. William W. Scranton of Pennsylvania in the Cabinet.

The list was printed following a letter to the editor of The Tribune that asked the editor to comment on the possible choices for a Goldwater Cabinet. It appeared on The Tribune editorial page today.

The Tribune has endorsed Senator Goldwater.

http://www.nytimes.com/1964/11/01/goldwater-cabinet-is-said-to-include-mrs-luce-and-nixon.html
 
Last edited:
If Goldwater is President in 1968 rather than Nixon, you wouldn't see the Drug War happening. Goldwater was never as big of a drug warrior as other Republicans.
Even if he were a drug hawk there's the matter of how Nixon used drugs as a means to go after black and hippie political opposition - Goldwater wasn't as insidious as Nixon was.

Goldwater may work with the Democrats on entitlements. The idea of means-testing Social Security and Medicare seems like something that could be achieved. Goldwater gets his fiscal conservatism, Democrats get their class warfare. Welfare Reform could be another means of rolling back the Great Society without completely undoing it.

Would Goldwater take the United States off of the Gold Standard the way Nixon did, or would he use the potential crisis as an opportunity to demand greater fiscal restraint? Perhaps Monetarism would take off sooner.

Richard Nixon as Secretary of State (if that NY Times article is to be believed) means there'd still be an opening of China I think. It'd be interesting if Nixon were to be Goldwater's successor come 1976 or 1980. Personally, I'm not so sure Goldwater is as hawkish as portrayed. He seems to be more of a "all in or shut up" type. I recall he was critical of Reagan mining the ports in Nicaragua.

You may not see the GOP becoming the pro-life party or the party of the religious right. Goldwater hated the religious right and he was pro-choice. More Catholics would be Democratic in this circumstance, but more urbanites would be Republican.
 
If Goldwater is President in 1968 rather than Nixon, you wouldn't see the Drug War happening. Goldwater was never as big of a drug warrior as other Republicans.

The idea of Goldwater as a libertarian on social issues, including drugs, is very misleading. At most, there is some truth to it for Goldwater's last years in the Senate and his post-Senate years. But in the 1960's and early 1970's he was not only pretty much a conventional social conservative, but he helped make law and order (not excluding drugs) part of the Republican agenda in 1964. As late as 1974, when the Senate voted 64-31 to repeal no-knock, Goldwater was one of the 31 "no" votes. https://books.google.com/books?id=cyU_fdnWhD8C&pg=PA22906
https://books.google.com/books?id=cyU_fdnWhD8C&pg=PA22907
 
Goldwater's anti CRA wasn't because he didn't agree with it, btw. It was because he was a strong supporter of Federalism.

A possibility, for welfare/etal reform, is he transfers a lot of it to the states, and says: "Go for it", getting the 80's and later's block grant concepts, et al started earlier.
 
Thanks for the correction then.

Still, it's hard to see the Drug War being as bad under Goldwater as it was under Nixon. Goldy wouldn't be trying to throw black and hippie political enemies into prison.
 
No, again, see Goldwater's stance on CRA: "State's rights" By and large, his view would be: "The Federal government supports, the states in law enforcement."

So, if several states wanted a war on drug, they'd have one, but if others didn't, they wouldn't.

With Goldwater: always default to four basic codes
Federalism leaning more towards the state side, than the balance, or Federal power
Dislike of police actions. Go big, or go home, is his view, and fight to win and defeat the enemy.
Fiscal conservatism, he'd shoot for balanced budgets, lowered taxes, et al.
Lean towards individual responsibility, helping hand, not handout, et al. He might (in fact likely would)go for Workfare, for example, but outright oh, welfare as here's your check? Nope.

He'd also be hilariously more supportive in practice of civil rights, than in name. I'll point this out: He was the first in his state not only to hire Negros (the term at the time), but promote them and do more than just 'menial labor' type work. He would most certainty end any federal level segregation or discrimination. in name or deed. Affirmative action, not likely, again.
 
No, again, see Goldwater's stance on CRA: "State's rights" By and large, his view would be: "The Federal government supports, the states in law enforcement."

So, if several states wanted a war on drug, they'd have one, but if others didn't, they wouldn't.

Let's look at Goldwater's actual voting record:

"In 1970, liberal Democrat Harold Hughes of Iowa sponsored a Senate bill to cut possession penalties in half, from one year imprisonment and $5000 fine, to six months and a $2500 fine. Typical names from the 24 Senators who supported the measure? Case, Church, Goodell (who?), Hart, McCarthy, McGovern, Mondale, Pell and so forth. By contrast, opposing forces were led by Allot, Bellmon, Dole, Hansen, Hruska, Thurmond, Tower, and . . . Goldwater."
https://tinyurl.com/ycy62tlx

Of course the federal penalties for marijuana applied to all states, whether the state wanted them or not.

I'm not particuarly blaming Goldwater for not taking a leave-drug-policy-to-the-states outlook in 1970. Few people, Democrats or Republicans, did so at the time. But the fact remains that he did *not* take a state's-rights attitude toward the problem at the time. I noted in another post that as late as 1974 he voted against the Senate's 64-31 repeal of no-knock--thus voting against a proposal to limit the power of *federal* drug enforcement agents. ("Congress Oct. 16 cleared for the President S 3355 (PL 93-481), authorizing funds for the Drug Enforcement Administration through fiscal 1977 and repealing laws allowing federal agents to conduct “no-knock” searches." http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal74-1224651

Goldwater did eventually come around to a more state's-rights and libertarian view on drugs. But that was considerably later. In the late 1960's he was simply a conventional law-and-order social conservative--and that included *federal* action against things like drugs and pornography. The Goldwaterite 1964 platform of the Republican Party not only talked about moral decline in a manner the Religious Right would later make familiar, but called for federal action to combat moral decline, e.g., legislation "to curb the flow through the mails of obscene materials"... http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-goldwater-myth/ As that article notes, "Goldwater's move away from social conservatism came only in the twilight of his Senate career—and more starkly after he had left the Senate in 1987."

(BTW, even leavng aside social issues like drugs, Goldwater was far from being a consistent state's-rights champion throughout his career. For example, in the 1950's he wanted to go beyond Taft-Hartley (which allowed the states to determine for themsleves whether to ban the union shop) and enact a *federal* ban: "Knowland's support of right-to-work laws is limited to state legislation. Sen. Barry M. Goldwater (R-Ariz.), on the other hand, has suggested that Congress enact the equivalent of a federal right-to-work law." http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1957111300)
 
Last edited:
I have a vague idea that Goldwater was solidly against religion having a big influence on politics.... ?

Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass.

But that quote, along with all the others in that intro, is late- or even post-career Goldwater. As the article acknowledges, he was a prayer-in-school man(as in, wanted a freaking amendment) in the early 60s. I doubt very much he would have been insulting the proto-Moral Majority types, or even notably disagreeing with them, in 1964.
 
Last edited:
How would a Goldwater administration handle Rhodesian UDI in 1965 at the risk of straining Anglo-American relations?
 
Let's look at Goldwater's actual voting record:

"In 1970, liberal Democrat Harold Hughes of Iowa sponsored a Senate bill to cut possession penalties in half, from one year imprisonment and $5000 fine, to six months and a $2500 fine. Typical names from the 24 Senators who supported the measure? Case, Church, Goodell (who?), Hart, McCarthy, McGovern, Mondale, Pell and so forth. By contrast, opposing forces were led by Allot, Bellmon, Dole, Hansen, Hruska, Thurmond, Tower, and . . . Goldwater."
https://tinyurl.com/ycy62tlx

Of course the federal penalties for marijuana applied to all states, whether the state wanted them or not.

I'm not particuarly blaming Goldwater for not taking a leave-drug-policy-to-the-states outlook in 1970. Few people, Democrats or Republicans, did so at the time. But the fact remains that he did *not* take a state's-rights attitude toward the problem at the time. I noted in another post that as late as 1974 he voted against the Senate's 64-31 repeal of no-knock--thus voting against a proposal to limit the power of *federal* drug enforcement agents. ("Congress Oct. 16 cleared for the President S 3355 (PL 93-481), authorizing funds for the Drug Enforcement Administration through fiscal 1977 and repealing laws allowing federal agents to conduct “no-knock” searches." http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal74-1224651

Goldwater did eventually come around to a more state's-rights and libertarian view on drugs. But that was considerably later. In the late 1960's he was simply a conventional law-and-order social conservative--and that included *federal* action against things like drugs and pornography. The Goldwaterite 1964 platform of the Republican Party not only talked about moral decline in a manner the Religious Right would later make familiar, but called for federal action to combat moral decline, e.g., legislation "to curb the flow through the mails of obscene materials"... http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-goldwater-myth/ As that article notes, "Goldwater's move away from social conservatism came only in the twilight of his Senate career—and more starkly after he had left the Senate in 1987."

(BTW, even leavng aside social issues like drugs, Goldwater was far from being a consistent state's-rights champion throughout his career. For example, in the 1950's he wanted to go beyond Taft-Hartley (which allowed the states to determine for themsleves whether to ban the union shop) and enact a *federal* ban: "Knowland's support of right-to-work laws is limited to state legislation. Sen. Barry M. Goldwater (R-Ariz.), on the other hand, has suggested that Congress enact the equivalent of a federal right-to-work law." http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1957111300)

Goodell. Sen NY-R His son is current NFL Commish!
 
Top