If there was no Goldwater, then one would have been created by the angry right whose takeaway from the 1960 election wasn't that Nixon was a terrible campaigner and lost that election due to a variety of factors, but rather their takeaway was that he was not pure enough and got off base. The '64 rightward tilt would have happened with or without Goldwater. The GOP loss in '60 would have triggered it. The question, for me, though is what the South would have done in reacting to a GOP candidate who was not Goldwater in '64. The Nixon Southern strategy was born of watching puzzling returns in '64, seeing Goldwater capture states in the South that he had no business capturing. If you get a different sort of right tilt candidate in '64, then that Southern capture might not have happened. I know LBJ made enemies in the South and that twisted things, but Goldwater didn't just pick up those states by virtue of being Not LBJ. There were other factors there. Change those, and well, you get a very curious looking landscape.

If anyone wants to write this TL, I'd love to read it.

The really popular TL No Southern Strategy has a PoD where the Dixiecrats run in ‘64, capturing the Deep South and Goldwater loses his home state by a slim margin (like how he won it IRL). Goldwater losing every single state and the GOP’s reaction is a good chunk of the premise of the early TL.
 
The really popular TL No Southern Strategy has a PoD where the Dixiecrats run in ‘64, capturing the Deep South and Goldwater loses his home state by a slim margin (like how he won it IRL). Goldwater losing every single state and the GOP’s reaction is a good chunk of the premise of the early TL.

The problem with that is, as Japhy noted on the first page of it, there's absolutely no raison d'etre for a Dixiecrat ticket where Goldwater is the nominee. Goldwater was perfectly serviceable to Dixiecrats and massive resistance types, as you can see from the OTL electoral map.
 
The problem with that is, as Japhy noted on the first page of it, there's absolutely no raison d'etre for a Dixiecrat ticket where Goldwater is the nominee. Goldwater was perfectly serviceable to Dixiecrats and massive resistance types, as you can see from the OTL electoral map.
Also, Goldwater was the vp nominee for Harry Byrd in 1960, but only in Arizona
 
Without Goldwater, Rockefeller might have a shot at the 1964 nomination even with the marital scandal, or the GOP convention could deadlock and choose PA Governor William Scranton as a compromise candidate. Either man would of course have lost to Johnson, although not as badly as Goldwater. At least for a time, this would help to preserve the moderate Republican establishment and delay the Southern Strategy. I wonder - had Goldwater not taken the South in 1964, would Nixon have integrated Southern Segregationists into the GOP four years later?
 
Also, Goldwater was the vp nominee for Harry Byrd in 1960, but only in Arizona

He was a faithless Elector’s VP pick in Oklahoma, with neither Byrd/Thurmond or Byrd/Goldwater having sought the office.

But that is an excellent point and isn’t brought up enough. Goldwater was palitable to be the VP of a segregationist. That says volumes.
 
He was a faithless Elector’s VP pick in Oklahoma, with neither Byrd/Thurmond or Byrd/Goldwater having sought the office.

But that is an excellent point and isn’t brought up enough. Goldwater was palitable to be the VP of a segregationist. That says volumes.

And this is four years before the 1964 Civil Rights Act. So the excuse that "Goldwater wasn't really opposed to civil rights, he just worked with segregationists because he felt that one law was unconstitutional" doesn't fly in this case.

Also, Goldwater should have known in OTL that the 1964 Act wasn't unconstitutional, in fact it was meant to enforce the constitution's 14th amendment protections against discrimination.
 
Also, Goldwater should have known in OTL that the 1964 Act wasn't unconstitutional, in fact it was meant to enforce the constitution's 14th amendment protections against discrimination.

This wasn't by any means affirmed until SCOTUS upheld the law in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc v. United States. Frankly I agree that freedom of association does permit arbitrary discrimination and that's it better for a free society in the long run to permit private injustices rather than give the state such broad authority over our lives. It's a classic case of the ends not justifying the means but I fully acknowledge being in the minority in this opinion.

EDIT to clarify I'm only referring to discrimination in the private sector where there's no government services provided, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other legislation was 100% correct to force all state and local governments to be neutral on matters of race and sex.
 
Last edited:
This wasn't by any means affirmed until SCOTUS upheld the law in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc v. United States. Frankly I agree that freedom of association does permit arbitrary discrimination and that's it better for a free society in the long run to permit private injustices rather than give the state such broad authority over our lives. It's a classic case of the ends not justifying the means but I fully acknowledge being in the minority in this opinion.

EDIT to clarify I'm only referring to discrimination in the private sector where there's no government services provided, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other legislation was 100% correct to force all state and local governments to be neutral on matters of race and sex.

So basically you're saying that sure, discrimination is bad, but while it shouldn't be permissible for the government it should be permissible for the private sector? That's a double standard that I'm glad most people don't agree with. Law enforcement has every right to intervene in the private sector if businesses are doing something illegal. That's why we not only banned racial and sexual discrimination, but we made insider trading and tax fraud illegal too. There's no reason that businesses should be exempt from the rule of law and that includes discrimination.
 
That's a double standard that I'm glad most people don't agree with. Law enforcement has every right to intervene in the private sector if businesses are doing something illegal. That's why we not only banned racial and sexual discrimination, but we made insider trading and tax fraud illegal too. There's no reason that businesses should be exempt from the rule of law and that includes discrimination.

Isn't that begging the question? You're saying discrimination in the private sector must be stopped by the government because it is illegal. But it's only illegal because the government says it's illegal. This avoids the question of what limits the US Constitution imposes on the government. Taking an ultra expansive view of the Commerce Clause to justify imposing the will of the state on private individuals is, in my view, a dangerous erosion of personal liberty regardless of how laudable the goal may be.

It's not a double standard because I view government and society as two very distinct entities. The state exists with the consent of the governed to protect our rights and liberties. These liberties do include what can be called freedom of association. So while the government must treat everyone equally you cannot force individuals in their private lives to act the same even if we all agree that it's good to treat other people fairly and without malice on the basis of their race, sex, color or creed.

As Goldwater put it when he was asked about his vote on the CRA "You can't legislate morality."
 
Taking an ultra expansive view of the Commerce Clause to justify imposing the will of the state on private individuals is, in my view, a dangerous erosion of personal liberty regardless of how laudable the goal may be.

If you were talking about seizing property without due process, then I would agree. That is why the Supreme Court stopped Truman from nationalizing steel in 1952. However, I would argue that taking legal action against discrimination - whether in the private sector or elsewhere - is just as supportive of individual freedoms as the notion of protecting private property. The 1964 Civil Rights Act in particular wasn't so much the state imposing it's will on the people as it was the people imposing their will on the state. Before the act, state governments abused personal liberties by excluding blacks from white lunch counters, white restrooms, white buses, etc that were all mandated by state law. As Brown v. Board showed, Jim Crow resulted in most black people being forced to accept an inferior quality of life without the freedom of choosing to move upward. This was a freedom that white people could enjoy but one deliberately stolen from African-Americans by racist laws. So, individuals organized into a movement that demanded the federal government reverse all this. After years of pressure, the state finally relented in 1964 and black people had greater freedom to live their lives as they wished.

Here's another perspective: an individual has the right to walk into an establishment and seek any job they are qualified for. However, a certain individual is turned down by a corporate board or committee simply because they are black. Not because they have a criminal record or flunked the interview, but because the business doesn't want to hire people of a certain skin color. Although said individual is qualified to work, he/she is forced to live a life of poverty because all the white businesses in the community exclude them on account of their race. Isn't that a case of society trampling on the individual, but through the private sector instead of the state? This was the kind of social ill that the 1964 Act was meant to remedy and we are better off for it.

As Goldwater put it when he was asked about his vote on the CRA "You can't legislate morality."

Then why did we outlaw murder? Why did we abolish slavery? These laws were enacted because such actions were and are considered immoral, were they not?
 
This isn't the forum for political discussions.

Also, Goldwater should have known in OTL that the 1964 Act wasn't unconstitutional, in fact it was meant to enforce the constitution's 14th amendment protections against discrimination.

Goldwater's argument about Brown and its relationship to the 14th amendment in Conscience is basically a form of ur-originalism: the 14th amendment was never intended to effect education, and it was never intended to outlaw segregated schools at the time it was ratified, because nobody at the time mentioned that. Ergo, segregation shouldn't be challenged.

Totes not pro-segregation Barry also notes "I am therefore not impressed by the claim that the supreme court's decision on school integration is the law of the land." So not only did he totally reject Brown, he didn't even think it was law. That's pretty hardcore stuff.

He extensively invokes states' rights of course - "I am not prepared, however, to impose that judgement of mine [personal belief in integration] on the people of Mississippi or South Carolina" - and that he doesn't believe the regulation of education is any business of government.
 
I‘m not sure how Goldwater could be classified as ‚far right‘, or that the so called ‚far right‘ wing of the GOP ever had any permanent effect on the party, or the political landscape in general. The GOP has been moving to the left on almost every single issue ever since the 1930s. They‘ve made their peace with the New Deal, they‘ve made their peace with LBJ‘s Great Society, and they‘ve made their peace with the concept of Obamacare as well, as their unwillingness to truly repeal it has shown. There are almost no Republicans left who would seriously consider to abolish stuff like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Affirmative Action, the federal department of Education, Anti-discrimation laws etc.

Even Reagan, who was (and sometimes still is) perceived as some kind of radical right-winger, didn‘t change the GOP‘s longterm leftward trajectory. Even if Goldwater had become president in 1964 or 68, i doubt he would have been able to repeal any major parts of the New Deal, like Social Security for example, even if he wanted to. If Medicare and Medicaid hadn’t been introduced in the 60s, then they would have been established in the 70s instead. Modern Conservatism is just Progressivism in slow motion, and has been for a long time.

In other words, if people like Goldwater or Reagan never gain influence in the GOP, then the party‘s already ongoing move to the left would just have been sped up a bit. If anything, it‘s been Democrats like Carter and Clinton who enacted big deregulations and liberalizations.
 
I‘m not sure how Goldwater could be classified as ‚far right‘, or that the so called ‚far right‘ wing of the GOP ever had any permanent effect on the party, or the political landscape in general. The GOP has been moving to the left on almost every single issue ever since the 1930s. They‘ve made their peace with the New Deal, they‘ve made their peace with LBJ‘s Great Society, and they‘ve made their peace with the concept of Obamacare as well, as their unwillingness to truly repeal it has shown. There are almost no Republicans left who would seriously consider to abolish stuff like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Affirmative Action, the federal department of Education, Anti-discrimation laws etc.

Even Reagan, who was (and sometimes still is) perceived as some kind of radical right-winger, didn‘t change the GOP‘s longterm leftward trajectory. Even if Goldwater had become president in 1964 or 68, i doubt he would have been able to repeal any major parts of the New Deal, like Social Security for example, even if he wanted to. If Medicare and Medicaid hadn’t been introduced in the 60s, then they would have been established in the 70s instead. Modern Conservatism is just Progressivism in slow motion, and has been for a long time.

In other words, if people like Goldwater or Reagan never gain influence in the GOP, then the party‘s already ongoing move to the left would just have been sped up a bit. If anything, it‘s been Democrats like Carter and Clinton who enacted big deregulations and liberalizations.

Mmmmmm

This reads like wishful thinking at most. The GOP since at least Reagan have supported or enacted the most right wing moves they could possibly make and would be more than willing to reverse liberal moves like Roe if circumstances would allow.

In fact, perhaps the GOP electorate (not primaries, but general election Republicans) could be said to support keeping things as they are in terms of welfare and heathcare, as a great many who would have been hurt by such GOP moves are their own voters.
 
Top