Goldwater versus Reagan
Submitted by Cameron_DeHart on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 18:13
Can someone please answer the following:
Compare Barry Goldwater's version of conservatism to Ronald Reagan's version of conservatism.
So far I have come up with both of them being anti-communist, against the Civil rights Act, and staunch fiscal conservatives. Goldwater was not, however, a social conservatives. During the 1964 election, and in the years before his death, he proclaimed abortion to be a personal choice. He supported the legalization of gay marriage, admission of gays into the military, and was often at odds with the Religious Right. On the other hand, Reagan was able to court this group.
Anyone else care to articulate an answer? This doesnt really have anything to do with Ron Paul, just a question of political history.
Thanks.
In general
this is probably a correct statement.= in general. There may be other minor differences. Note that they were against the 1964 Civil Right Act - like Paul - NOT because of universal voting rights for all, but because of the private property rights that it violated, saw it as unconstitutional. Note that there are previous Civil Right Act (drafts), that Goldwater supported.
Reagan spoke at Goldwater's 1964 RNC nomination. Goldwater did not support Reagan in 1976. He also criticized Reagan about Iran-Contra etc. Gerald Ford also offered Goldwater the VP position. Goldwater was a very honest and beloved man and he left senate/politics with less money than before.
Ronald Reagan was an
Ronald Reagan was an absolute failure as a president. Ron Paul has stated as much.
Goldwater had a libertarian
view on almost everything. Not to mention...his daughter had an abortion and his grandson was gay. By the way, he was a great man in my opinion.
In my opinion, individual
In my opinion, individual civil rights outweigh states rights. But aside from that, I love his stances on abortion, gay rights, and legalization.
my quick 2 cents: Reagan
my quick 2 cents:
Reagan black and white, i.e. Reagan in the time when black and white television was widespread.....made great speeches. Still a sizable amount of chest thumping on the global military front, but excusable to some degree.
Reagan as president, (and in full blown color, I might add)....is just another president. Not the worst not the best. If you look at the direction our government is taking, decade after decade....it's clear (to me anyway), that he did nothing to even slow down the tide. And he couldn't.
This is why I am not fazed by DPers urgent call to vote for this person or that person to be president. A president is not a solution. In fact he's just more of a problem.
This is the contradiction of the century.
We're supposed to have a Republic. (All dead)
We're supposed to have state's rights. (Mostly dead)
We're supposed to follow the constitution. (Mostly dead)
We're not supposed to have an all powerful king. (Alive and well, unfortunately)
Obama is playing the messiah role, because WE have given that office damn near the power of messiah...and king, and dictator.
As far as I'm concerned, there were only presidents, and bad presidents.
No good or great presidents. This century.
The biggest problem...
Is that our lawmakers, for the past two centuries have believed that it is there job to do something. So they all "do something" even though most everything was sufficient already. In the meantime, now that we need someone to "undo something", none are willing to step up to the plate for fear that "undoing" anything will make them look bad.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If thinking is a prerequisite for existence, then please double check whether or not you exist before you expect others to respond - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIrn8OchcLg "
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
I would argue that racial
I would argue that racial discrimination, wage inequality between races and genders, and poverty were not positive things.
So the *answer* to those
So the *answer* to those problems is affirmative action, minimum wage laws, and welfare???
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4341
Check out Walter Williams.
"Property rights are human rights to use economic goods and services. Private property rights contain your right to use, transfer, trade and EXCLUDE others from use of property deemed yours. The supposition that there's a conflict or difference between human rights to use property and civil rights is bogus and misguided."
You should have the right to tell someone to get out of your store because you don't like their race/sex/religion or any other thing you might deem as suitable for discrimination in the exchange of your private property with another person. In a truly free market, word would get around that you are a racist and you'd go bankrupt or lose massive amounts of business.
"If we buy into the notion that somehow property rights are less important, or are in conflict with, human or civil rights, we give the socialists a freer hand to attack our property."
Property rights and the respect thereof are no less important than other forms of rights. It is the lack of respect for private property why our nation is bankrupt, why we have poverty and why we have unemployment.
The Power Of Nightmares goes
The Power Of Nightmares goes into detail on when the conservative movement adopted the religious, socially conservative stance. And it was to get enough votes to finally start winning, is the short answer.
Google it, and don't skip any parts if you have time to watch the whole thing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If thinking is a prerequisite for existence, then please double check whether or not you exist before you expect others to respond - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIrn8OchcLg"
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf