Why is Barry Goldwater Considered a Libertarian?

[Tywysog Cymru]

This is something that really pisses me off. Barry Goldwater is often referred to as a Libertarian Republican and freedom-minded philosophically. I don't understand why anyone would consider him such, He seems to me like the father of the NeoCon movement.

He advocated for nuclear weapons to be used as conventional weapons, suggesting that they be used in Vietnam to defoliate trees (saying this while 'Nam was still under French occupation). I would prefer Lyndon Johnson, or even George W. Bush than this guy. If he had won I believe that a nuclear WWIII would have taken place.

(John McCain adored him btw).

[AuH20]

I think it is time to be properly educated on the great man known as Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater a neoconservative? I thought I heard it all:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
The Conscience of a Conservative (1960), ghostwritten by L. Brent Bozell, p. 15

I told Johnson and old colleagues on Capitol Hill that we had two clear choices. Either win the [Vietnam] war in a relatively short time, say within a year, or pull out all our troops and come home.

Barry M. Goldwater with Jack Casserly, Goldwater (Doubleday, 1988), p. 222

Vietnam is about halfway around the world from Washington. It's as large as the major European nations, with nearly 130,000 square miles... Its ancient recorded history goes back to 111 B.C... We entered (that country) with considerable ignorance.

Barry M. Goldwater with Jack Casserly, Goldwater (Doubleday, 1988)

Most Americans have no real understanding of the operations of the international moneylenders... the accounts of the Federal Reserve have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and... manipulates the credit of the United States

With No Apologies (1979)

Goldwater, Mr. Neocon as you mischaracterized him as, despised AIPAC:

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/10/goldwa...oot-of-it.html

[Maximilian American]

+rep

I think it is time to be properly educated on the great man known as Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater a neoconservative? I thought I heard it all:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater









Goldwater, Mr. Neocon as you mischaracterized him as, despised AIPAC:

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/10/goldwa...oot-of-it.html

[Michael Landon]

I think it is time to be properly educated on the great man known as Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater a neoconservative? I thought I heard it all:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater


Goldwater, Mr. Neocon as you mischaracterized him as, despised AIPAC:

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/10/goldwa...oot-of-it.html

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to AuH20 again."

- ML

[Michael Landon]

Some time this upcoming week, I'll go into great detail why Goldwater is considered a libertarian Republican and why he is NOT a neo-con.

I just don't have the time right now.

- ML

[Keith and stuff]

Goldwater wasn't a libertarian. He was fiscally libertarian, though. In other words, he wanted a decent amount of economic freedom.

Perhaps by the standards of his day he was considered a libertarian.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I think it is time to be properly educated on the great man known as Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater a neoconservative? I thought I heard it all:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater









Goldwater, Mr. Neocon as you mischaracterized him as, despised AIPAC:

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/10/goldwa...oot-of-it.html

He supported the Vietnam War, seems pretty un-Libertarian to me.

And I support, before anyone gets the wrong idea, as does my party, as do all Americans, the President's firm action in response. But I must point out that it was just that, I must point out that it was just that a response--an incident not a program or a new policy; a tactical reaction, not a new winning strategy.

Yes, all of us support the President in this strong, right action. No, we will not let this one action obscure a multitude of other needed actions.

[FrankRep]

Before They Hated Ron Paul, They Hated Barry Goldwater
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...arry-Goldwater

[AuH20]

He supported the Vietnam War, seems pretty un-Libertarian to me.

We had an assistance pact with South Vietnam that was tested years before the manufactured Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The main problem with the Vietnam War was that it went on aimlessly for 20 years after previous bungling by the state departments in the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations. It should been 8-12 months and out. But the MIC and the global community never wants brief resolutions to conflicts.

[69360]

He supported the Vietnam War, seems pretty un-Libertarian to me.

He supported what the Vietnam war should have been, not what it was. Goldwater wanted to use overwhelming force, win the war and get our troops out. Not the limited engagement rules that doomed the war to failure. Big difference.

[AuH20]

He supported what the Vietnam war should have been, not what it was. Goldwater wanted to use overwhelming force, win the war and get our troops out. Not the limited engagement rules that doomed the war to failure. Big difference.

He told LJB point blank to be prepared to win it in 1 year or don't get involved. Obviously, that advice was dismissed.

[FrankRep]

He supported the Vietnam War, seems pretty un-Libertarian to me.

No. Goldwater supported either winning the war or Withdrawn. Goldwater didn't support the war itself.


Goldwater attacks Johnson's Vietnam policy
Sept. 22, 1964:

Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, Republican senator from Arizona, charges that President Lyndon Johnson lied to the American people and that he is committing the United States to war "recklessly." Having previously called the war "McNamara's War," he now described it as "Johnson's War."

Goldwater said that the United States should do whatever it took to support U.S. troops in the war and that if the administration was not prepared to "take the war to North Vietnam," it should withdraw.

[Antischism]

Don't be mistaken, Goldwater was an interventionist.

[A Son of Liberty]

The main problem with the Vietnam War was that it went on aimlessly for 20 years after previous bungling by the state departments in the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations. It should been 8-12 months and out.

Yeah... no.

That was NOT the "main problem" with the "Vietnam War".

The main problem with the "Vietnam War" was that, you know, there were American troops involved... at all.

[A Son of Liberty]

No. Goldwater supported either winning the war or Withdrawn. Goldwater didn't support the war itself.


Goldwater attacks Johnson's Vietnam policy
Sept. 22, 1964:

Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, Republican senator from Arizona, charges that President Lyndon Johnson lied to the American people and that he is committing the United States to war "recklessly." Having previously called the war "McNamara's War," he now described it as "Johnson's War."

Goldwater said that the United States should do whatever it took to support U.S. troops in the war and that if the administration was not prepared to "take the war to North Vietnam," it should withdraw.

Quite a bit different from the man who said, "WE MARCHED RIGHT IN... WE CAN MARCH RIGHT OUT!"

[Tywysog Cymru]

He told LJB point blank to be prepared to win it in 1 year or don't get involved. Obviously, that advice was dismissed.

Ron Paul would never have gotten involved.

Anyway, I'd rather have a drawn-out war than one where our commander-in-chief supports using tactical nukes as "conventional weapons."

Had I lived in 1964 I would have either voted Johnson or cast a blank ballot. (interestingly enough, my county* voted for Johnson in 1964, the last time they voted for a Democrat).

*My county is in Thomas Massie's district, so they supported Liberty when it manifested itself in it's true form.

[A Son of Liberty]

He supported what the Vietnam war should have been, not what it was.

What it "should have been" was NOTHING AT ALL. And that is NOT what Goldwater supported.

Bunch of MIN-terventionists around here anymore...

[cajuncocoa]

What it "should have been" was NOTHING AT ALL. And that is NOT what Goldwater supported.

Bunch of MIN-terventionists around here anymore...

Beware of those trying to twist libertarianism into something it's not. Their goal is to co-opt the Ron Paul movement. They have been quite critical of Dr Paul's ideas.

[AuH20]

Yeah... no.

That was NOT the "main problem" with the "Vietnam War".

The main problem with the "Vietnam War" was that, you know, there were American troops involved... at all.

It's called an assistance pact. It's simple to understand. South Vietnam gets attacked and the U.S. is OBLIGATED to Assist. And this subversion from the North happened well before Gulf of Tonkin which was the cherry on top. In 1956, Ho Chi Minh called for a reunification of both South and North Vietnam and the Viet Cong was born. A series of skirmishes and corresponding propaganda campaign preceded the Gulf of Tonkin incident by 8 years. Just come out and say you don't like entangling alliances. That would be fine. But don't say the U.S. had no rightful claim to assist the republic of South Vietnam. Per their treaty they were well within their right.

[A Son of Liberty]

Beware of those trying to twist libertarianism into something it's not. Their goal is to co-opt the Ron Paul movement. They have been quite critical of Dr Paul's ideas.

:thumbs:

Some apparently need to familiarize themselves with the non-aggression principle.

[FrankRep]

Barry Goldwater, Jr. on Ron Paul


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVoYhlZIiGQ


Barry Goldwater, Jr. Endorses Ron Paul for President


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPyEgYH4UPs

[A Son of Liberty]

It's called an assistance pact. It's simple to understand. South Vietnam gets attacked and the U.S. is OBLIGATED to Assist. And this subversion from the North happened well before Gulf of Tonkin which was the cherry on top. In 1956, Ho Chi Minh called for a reunification of both South and North Vietnam and the Viet Cong was born. A series of skirmishes and corresponding propaganda campaign preceded the Gulf of Tonkin incident by 8 years. Just come out and say you don't like entangling alliances. That would be fine. But don't say the U.S. had no rightful claim to assist the republic of South Vietnam. Per their treaty they were well within their right.

Yeah, it's not like I'm hiding the fact that I find entangling alliances reprehensible. Sons and daughters are not subject to the slaughter because some politician signed a piece of paper that had the words, "assistance pact" at the top of it... sorry to burst your bubble.

There is no "U.S."... but even if there were, the politicians who "run" it were in violation of the rights of the people the sent to do their killing, as well as the people whom they killed.

Every single one of them should be tried by a jury and if justice be served found guilty and executed for their GROSS violations of human rights.

[cajuncocoa]

So? And Rand endorsed Romney...what does Goldwater's son's endorsement prove?

[AuH20]

:thumbs:

Some apparently need to familiarize themselves with the non-aggression principle.

Yup. The Viet Cong needed a lesson in the NAP. Frankly, Eisenhower was an idiot to continue on the path laid down by the French and alienate Ho Chi Minh. The second catastrophic mistake was Kennedy installing Catholic tyrant Ngo Dinh Diem as the president of South Vietnam.

[AuH20]

Yeah, it's not like I'm hiding the fact that I find entangling alliances reprehensible. Sons and daughters are not subject to the slaughter because some politician signed a piece of paper that had the words, "assistance pact" at the top of it... sorry to burst your bubble.

There is no "U.S."... but even if there were, the politicians who "run" it were in violation of the rights of the people the sent to do their killing, as well as the people whom they killed.

Every single one of them should be tried by a jury and if justice be served found guilty and executed for their GROSS violations of human rights.

I agree with you. No entangling alliances since it's fraught with peril. But if you have a pact of assistance already signed, you can't simply abandon it at the last second.

[A Son of Liberty]

Yup. The Viet Cong needed a lesson in the NAP. Frankly, Eisenhower was an idiot to back the French and alienate Ho Chi Minh. The second catastrophic mistake was Kennedy installing Diem as president.

Half a planet away. Why do you or I know ANYTHING at all about the history of Vietnam?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Barry Goldwater was atrocious concerning Foreign Policy, but pretty good domestically. You have to go back to Robert Taft though for the last time a libertarian was close to the WH. As bad as Taft was drifting by the early 50s, he was still better than Goldwater, and MUCH better than that crony Eisenhower who ended up barely beating him in the Primary.

[FrankRep]

So? And Rand endorsed Romney...what does Goldwater's son's endorsement prove?

Watch the first video before making stupid comments.

[A Son of Liberty]

I agree with you. No entangling alliances. But if you a pact of assistance already signed, you can't simply abandon it at the last second.

Had I been president, I would have ignored this so called "assistance pact" in a heartbeat. If you think I would have sacrificed millions of human lives over the formality of a signed piece of paper, you're insane. In short, sir, yes you absolutely can abandon war at the last second.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yup. The Viet Cong needed a lesson in the NAP. Frankly, Eisenhower was an idiot to continue on path laid down by the French and alienate Ho Chi Minh. The second catastrophic mistake was Kennedy installing Diem as president of South Vietnam.

The first mistake was Eisenhower beating Taft. We would have never have gotten involved in that hellhole or a bunch of other foreign interventions had he won.