# Think Tank > History >  Barry Goldwater and The CRA

## T.hill

I'm just curious and I'm also not sure where to post this, but was Barry Goldwater and the rest of the Old Right/Paleoconservatives against the CRA because of the 2 titles that violate property rights or were they under the impression that state government's had the right to discriminate? 

In short was he effectively opposed to the whole bill or just the 2 titles as Ron and Rand and libertarians in general are?

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> In short was he effectively opposed to the whole bill or just the 2 titles as Ron and Rand and libertarians in general are?


According to the man himself, the 2 provisions.

----------


## TaftFan

No wonder I couldn't find any info. I was looking for Community Reinvestment Act.

----------


## T.hill

> According to the man himself, the 2 provisions.


I've seen that video actually, but I've read at the time he was running for president he was also against it because of a state right postition. If he was against only those 2 provisions you would think it would have been solely on the basis of property rights.

 I also remember Ron saying he admired MLK because of his own perceived notion that he was really only fighting institutional racism  and I watched a clip of a documentary on Goldwater and MLK was featured saying he thought a Barry Goldwater presidency would be national suicide. 
According to Wikipedia:
_In 1964, Goldwater ran a conservative campaign that emphasized "states' rights".[15] Goldwater's 1964 campaign was a magnet for conservatives since he opposed interference by the federal government in state affairs. Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation and had supported the original senate version of the bill, Goldwater made the decision to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do or not do business with whomever they chose.[16]_

----------


## T.hill

> According to the man himself, the 2 provisions.


It's a little confusing, but regardless I know his decision to oppose it was constitutionally and philosophically based, not racially motivated.

----------


## sailingaway



----------


## T.hill

> 


I understand the libertarian position, lol. I'm just wondering if there is a difference in philosophy between Barry Goldwater and Ron.

----------


## sailingaway

> I understand the libertarian position, lol. I'm just wondering if there is a difference in philosophy between Barry Goldwater and Ron.


Not on that point, I don't believe.  Goldwater was very pro civil liberties, just as Ron is.

The fact is it was a huge power grab for the federal government under then settled constitutional law. Other cases had rejected the power of the federal government over local property use in that manner.  Decisively. To keep people from rethinking the merits of state sovereignty being more representative of local people, those who want big centralized control keep trotting out the CRA to bat people down as if anyone wanted Jim Crow laws.

----------


## TaftFan

I feel very strongly that we should leave this issue alone and get the bigger fish that need to be fried.

I think the argument for repealing those two sections will be self evident before too long.

----------


## sailingaway

> I feel very strongly that we should leave this issue alone and get the bigger fish that need to be fried.
> 
> I think the argument for repealing those two sections will be self evident before too long.



I assumed they were trying to formulate a strategy to deal with the Maddow interview.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> I've seen that video actually, but I've read at the time he was running for president he was also against it because of a state right postition. If he was against only those 2 provisions you would think it would have been solely on the basis of property rights.
> 
>  I also remember Ron saying he admired MLK because of his own perceived notion that he was really only fighting institutional racism  and I watched a clip of a documentary on Goldwater and MLK was featured saying he thought a Barry Goldwater presidency would be national suicide.


Goldwater was a Constitutionalist, not an individual anarchist.  So like Ron, he would be against it because of _both_ the property rights issue and the state's rights issue.  If what you are really trying to ask if Goldwater was a racist, he was not.  He integrated his own Department Stores as well as insisting the Country Club he belonged to do the same, and he did great harm to his own Presidential campaign by largely refusing to talk about Civil Rights issues in the South even though that was the issue that was his greatest strength there.  

Regarding MLK, you have to remember that as admirable as his nonviolent civil disobedience was, when it came to politics, MLK was pretty much a fool who bought in to authoritarian socialism lock stock and barrel.  There is a reason our government schools venerate Martin L. King and largely ignore Malcom X.

----------


## XTreat

> Goldwater was a Constitutionalist, not an individual anarchist.  So like Ron, he would be against it because of _both_ the property rights issue and the state's rights issue.  If what you are really trying to ask if Goldwater was a racist, he was not.  He integrated his own Department Stores as well as insisting the Country Club he belonged to do the same, and he did great harm to his own Presidential campaign by largely refusing to talk about Civil Rights issues in the South even though that was the issue that was his greatest strength there.  
> 
> Regarding MLK, you have to remember that as admirable as his nonviolent civil disobedience was, when it came to politics, MLK was pretty much a fool who bought in to authoritarian socialism lock stock and barrel.  There is a reason our government schools venerate Martin L. King and largely ignore Malcom X.


Excellent point on King vs. Malcom X

----------


## T.hill

> Goldwater was a Constitutionalist, not an individual anarchist.  So like Ron, he would be against it because of _both_ the property rights issue and the state's rights issue.  If what you are really trying to ask if Goldwater was a racist, he was not.  He integrated his own Department Stores as well as insisting the Country Club he belonged to do the same, and he did great harm to his own Presidential campaign by largely refusing to talk about Civil Rights issues in the South even though that was the issue that was his greatest strength there.  
> 
> Regarding MLK, you have to remember that as admirable as his nonviolent civil disobedience was, when it came to politics, MLK was pretty much a fool who bought in to authoritarian socialism lock stock and barrel.  There is a reason our government schools venerate Martin L. King and largely ignore Malcom X.


No, no. Like I said before, regardless, I understand his position was of philosophical and constitutional basis. I really was just confused on Barry Goldwater's position, I thought somehow his interpretation of the constitution was different from Ron's. What I found pretty cool about that documentary is apparently a lot of people and even a lot of black leaders in 1964 understood his position was not racially motivated and they respected that his position came from a philosophical disagreement of the bill. I doubt many people now would give Rand or Ron that benefit of a doubt.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I thought Ron objected on state's rights grounds as well?  I thought that was the difference between Ron and Rand?  Although maybe I understood wrong.  I always thought Ron Paul said that the Federal Government had no right to interfere with it because of state's rights.  I'm almost certain that doesn't work correctly under the 14th, however.  So I think we should object only to the 2 titles that deal with property rights.

----------


## FrankRep

> 


Martin Luther King was anti-Goldwater because Goldwater was Pro-liberty and Pro-Constitutionalist.

LOL

----------


## KingNothing

> Martin Luther King was anti-Goldwater because Goldwater was Pro-liberty and Pro-Constitutionalist.
> 
> LOL



It isn't that simple.

When people are being oppressed, they want action.  They don't want to be told that at some distant point in the future the world will change and things will be equal.

----------


## FrankRep

> It isn't that simple.
> 
> When people are being oppressed, they want action.  They don't want to be told that at some distant point in the future the world will change and things will be equal.


Big Government to the rescue!

----------


## sailingaway

> I thought Ron objected on state's rights grounds as well?  I thought that was the difference between Ron and Rand?  Although maybe I understood wrong.  I always thought Ron Paul said that the Federal Government had no right to interfere with it because of state's rights.  I'm almost certain that doesn't work correctly under the 14th, however.  So I think we should object only to the 2 titles that deal with property rights.


Ron was fine with abolishing the Jim Crow laws.  He and Goldwater both felt property rights, as they always HAD been under the 14th amendment prior to then, were the state issue.  Now personally, in 20/20 hindsight while I agree we have to unwind the idea that federal government can interfere with private property use instead of the states, in that one case I would have made an exception, sort of the way Ron did on keeping social security for those who paid in but letting the next generation out.

On a market basis, people now could find more places that didn't racially segregate (and now those who did would as likely be against whites as for whites, and a small portion of anything).  But back then BECAUSE states had impermissibly had Jim Crow laws forbidding it, it was what people knew and to think it would have changed overnight is unrealistic imho.  The example I've heard is of a black family traveling by auto in the south and if there was only one bathroom at a small gas station, blacks couldn't use it.  Period.  There weren't that many choices in the sticks.  

I can see that BECAUSE the law had been wrong to begin with, forcing segregation for a period until integration, not segregation was the norm could be a TEMPORARY requirement, again in retrospect.  As a change in the balance of power with the federal government, it should have been a sunsetting provision, though, in a perfect world.  In a REALLY perfect world the states would have been protecting their own people, and individuals of ALL colors have more impact at the local level. Now.

The problem is there is a REASON the left uses the CRA to fight this point when what they really want is the ability to centrally take plan and use your money and life.  Because it was such a shameful period people are embarrassed to look at it logically unless they can divorce the issue from racism. So people go to the religious exclusions or just not liking people and privacy or something to discuss property rights and the left keeps saying it is about Jim Crow laws and 'secretly wanting to go back to them'.  They do it because it works.  But it doesn't make them right on the issue.

----------


## KingNothing

> Big Government to the rescue!


It's really easy to criticize people who run to Big Government for help, but you have to understand the absurdity of life in the racist south several generations ago and the overall reluctance to change that existed there.

It's very likely that a restaurant that chose not to serve black people would be more profitable than one that chose to integrate.  I reject government intervention from a principled ground, but in this instance the utilitarian benefit of federal force was a very difficult thing for limited government ideals to fight back against.

There was no easy solution to the problem.  Sitting back, saying "we'll figure this all out, in time," and trying to shame the ignorance and hate out of people just wasn't enough, politically.  To even be remotely tolerable in that sense, those who spoke against federal involvement would have probably had to dedicate their lives to peaceful integration.  Goldwater would have had to lead every march and been involved in every sit-in.  ... I don't know.  Maybe the right should have taken that route and basically demagogued the issue.

Obviously, changing people's minds is preferable to changing their actions by force.  And, as Malcolm X said, when you use force, you're just turning people into hypocrites.  But I doubt we'd have a black president today if government didn't pick up a club and try to beat the racism out of people.  I don't think we should ever argue against the utilitarian benefit of CRA-64, in and of itself, I think we should admit that it was effective at limiting overt displays of racism and offer the suggestion that we as a people must strive to always treat each other with dignity and respect so that proponents of big government never have a cause to latch onto in order to push their agendas.

----------


## sailingaway

> It isn't that simple.
> 
> When people are being oppressed, they want action.  They don't want to be told that at some distant point in the future the world will change and things will be equal.


Yeah. I can understand that.  And that is how a dictator with a pocket full of promises wins.

----------


## KingNothing

> Yeah. I can understand that.  And that is how a dictator with a pocket full of promises wins.


So, the important question to ask is, how do we overcome that?

I'd say the answer is an immeasurable amount of empathy and a tireless drive to Do the Right Thing.  I think the only cure for Big Government is to eliminate the reasons people may clamor for it.  That's no simple task!

----------


## sailingaway

> So, the important question to ask is, how do we overcome that?
> 
> I'd say the answer is an immeasurable amount of empathy and a tireless drive to Do the Right Thing.  I think the only cure for Big Government is to eliminate the reasons people may clamor for it.  That's no simple task!



There is always something they want.  I agree you have to take the goodies away from government that it gives out, to eliminate it, but there will always be something until then.

People have to learn the real cost.  but in terms of rights, of course rights have to be enforced. That is what government IS for.

----------


## robert68

> 


In such debates, it may help to give examples of colors barriers that started to fall in businesses pre CRA, such as in Major League Baseball. I’ve read some national business chains that expanded into the South didn’t discriminate based on race.

----------


## sailingaway

> In such debates, it may help to give examples of colors barriers that started to fall in businesses pre CRA, such as in Major League Baseball. I’ve read some national business chains that expanded into the South didn’t discriminate based on race.


I wouldn't dignify 'color' as an issue, at all. I'd say 'fine since slavery / color is the only thing that concerns you lets say that is the only thing the federal government can regulate, now let's talk about EVERYTHING ELSE' and let them realize how incredibly stupid their position is.

----------


## compromise

> I'm just curious and I'm also not sure where to post this, but was Barry Goldwater and the rest of the Old Right/Paleoconservatives against the CRA because of the 2 titles that violate property rights or were they under the impression that state government's had the right to discriminate? 
> 
> In short was he effectively opposed to the whole bill or just the 2 titles as Ron and Rand and libertarians in general are?


Goldwater was part of the First New Right with Buckley and Kirk, not the Old Right. He was more socially liberal, more hawkish on foreign policy and less protectionist than the Old Right.

----------


## T.hill

> In such debates, it may help to give examples of colors barriers that started to fall in businesses pre CRA, such as in Major League Baseball. I’ve read some national business chains that expanded into the South didn’t discriminate based on race.


The Jim Crowe law's perpetuated racist sentiment that existed in the south and simply repealing those racist laws would have been very effective in changing public opinion. The CRA was influenced by societal change in the first place and certain events led up to that particular legislation being introduced in congress.

----------


## T.hill

> It's really easy to criticize people who run to Big Government for help, but you have to understand the absurdity of life in the racist south several generations ago and the overall reluctance to change that existed there.
> 
> It's very likely that a restaurant that chose not to serve black people would be more profitable than one that chose to integrate.  I reject government intervention from a principled ground, but in this instance the utilitarian benefit of federal force was a very difficult thing for limited government ideals to fight back against.
> 
> There was no easy solution to the problem.  Sitting back, saying "we'll figure this all out, in time," and trying to shame the ignorance and hate out of people just wasn't enough, politically.  To even be remotely tolerable in that sense, those who spoke against federal involvement would have probably had to dedicate their lives to peaceful integration.  Goldwater would have had to lead every march and been involved in every sit-in.  ... I don't know.  Maybe the right should have taken that route and basically demagogued the issue.
> 
> Obviously, changing people's minds is preferable to changing their actions by force.  And, as Malcolm X said, when you use force, you're just turning people into hypocrites.  But I doubt we'd have a black president today if government didn't pick up a club and try to beat the racism out of people.  I don't think we should ever argue against the utilitarian benefit of CRA-64, in and of itself, I think we should admit that it was effective at limiting overt displays of racism and offer the suggestion that we as a people must strive to always treat each other with dignity and respect so that proponents of big government never have a cause to latch onto in order to push their agendas.


n,
The CRA wouldn't have even been introduced if public opinion hadn't changed through a change in culture. Society influenced legislation in this particular situation, although it could be argued that is the nature of law in any situation. 

Even in the South at that time social and economic pressure was forcing business's to adapt; with bus boycotts, Sit-ins, and other forms of protest. Civil disobedience pre-CRA was already, at least to some extent, effectively doing what that bill was designed to do.

----------


## robert68

> n,
> The CRA wouldn't have even been introduced if public opinion hadn't changed through a change in culture. Society influenced legislation in this particular situation, although it could be argued that is the nature of law in any situation. 
> 
> Even in the South at that time social and economic pressure was forcing business's to adapt; with bus boycotts, *Sit-ins*, and other forms of protest. Civil disobedience pre-CRA was already, at least to some extent, effectively doing what that bill was designed to do.


The sit-ins were a trespass on private property and an anti private property media event.

----------


## T.hill

> The sit-ins were a trespass on private property and an anti private property media event.


Yeah, your right. Sit-in's are not a legitimate form of protest in accordance to libertarian philosophy, but it was probably better than legislating morality.

----------


## T.hill

> It isn't that simple.
> 
> When people are being oppressed, they want action.  They don't want to be told that at some distant point in the future the world will change and things will be equal.


I see a lot of libertarians and people on this forum who demonize certain people and periods of American history, because of its apparent disagreements with libertarian ideology. I personally do not evaluate everything from a libertarian perspective, because I don't think people or periods can be seen solely through a cut and dry analysis. 

I actually like government experimentation, but I think the framers intended it to be at the state level. The Judge even gives Lincoln a pass because of his unique situation. The Cold War was another unique era in American history and to give a fair analysis of that time frame, it needs to be an objective evaluation. I'm a fan of history and I can't evaluate everything on the basis of libertarian sentiment.

----------


## Michael Landon

Here are some of Barry Goldwater's thoughts on civil rights and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*In Goldwater's book, Where I Stand (pages 39 and 40), published in 1964 he stated the following:*

We must always make a sharp distinction between civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution and those rights of association that are basically moral issues and cannot be resolved simply by passing new Federal laws.

The rights to vote, to equal treatment before the law, to hold property, and to the protection of contracts - these rights are guaranteed by the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.  They must receive full and fair enforcement.  Existing law demands it.

In the schools, the Attorney-General probably has the necessary authority through court decrees to effect integration.  But if it develops that more authority must be granted in this area, any additional legislation should be tightly drawn - so that it can be used only with utmost precision.

As for Federal law in the areas of public accommodations and private employment, I have grave doubts on constitutional grounds.  In my opinion, the Constitution grants neither a Federal responsibility nor Federal authority in these areas.  I feel also that this type of law will only hinder, not help, the cause of racial tolerance.

The key to racial and religious tolerances lies not in laws alone, but ultimately, in the hearts of men.  Individual action by every American, and this alone, will one day eliminate the stigma of discrimination from our society.

For my part, I helped bring about integration in the Arizona Air National Guard right after World War II.  I assisted in the desegregation of public facilities in Phoenix by local option - and just this year, I spoke out in favor of an improved public accommodations ordinance.  The Goldwater businesses are desegregated.

I am proud of the fact that I supported the civil rights acts of 1957 and 1960 and that some of my own proposals are now part of the law of the land.  I would have voted for the 1964 act, too, had it not been for the two titles - involving public accommodations and private employment - that raised grave questions of constitutionality.

Government edicts benefit no one - least of all when they might open the door to a police-state system of enforcement, thus threatening the liberties of all.  Continued public attention and moral persuasion will do more, I believe, to create the good will necessary to the acceptance of decent and enduring racial relations throughout our free society.

We cannot resolve these great moral problems by recourse to demagogy, to violence, or to contempt for law and order.  We have better and more lasting ways, within the framework of our constitutional system, to promote greater respect for the rights and liberties of all our people.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*In Goldwater's book, With No Apologies (pages 180 and 181), published in 1979 he stated the following:*

The 1964 Civil Rights Bill came up for a vote on the floor of the Senate in mid-June.  I had previously questioned the constitutionality of Titles II and VII - the so-called fair employment practices and public accommodations sections.

Before casting my vote, I told the Senators, "I am unalterably opposed to discrimination of any sort, and I believe that though the problem is fundamentally one of the heart, provisions which fly in the face of the Constitution, and which require for their effective execution the creation of a police state...

If my vote is misconstrued, let it be, and let me suffer the consequences.  My concern extends beyond any single group in our society.  My concern is for the entire nation, for the freedom of all who live in it and for all who were born in it.  This is my concern and this is where I stand."

Most of the press branded me segregationist, but not all of them.  Columnist David Lawrence call my vote "The courageous act of a man who would rather risk the loss of a presidential nomination or even election than to surrender his convictions to political expediency."  Arthur Krock of the New York Times agreed, saying, "The Senator set an example of political and moral courage that was the more admirable because of the immediate circumstances."

John S. Knight, president and editor of the Detroit Free Press, did not support me, but on June 21 he published an editorial declaring, "I can no longer stand silently by and watch the shabby treatment Goldwater is getting from most of the news media."  He said, "Their deep concern for the GOP's future would be more persuasive if any considerable number of them had ever voted for a Republican nominee - of the syndicated columnists I can think of only a few who are not savagely cutting down Senator Goldwater day after day.  Some of the television commentators discuss Goldwater with evident disdain and contempt.  Editorial cartoonists portray him as belonging to the Neanderthal age or as a relic of the nineteenth century.  It is the fashion of editorial writers to persuade themselves that Goldwater's followers are either kooks or Birchers.  This simply isn't so.  The Goldwater movement represents a mass protest by conservatively-minded people against foreign aid, excessive welfare, high taxes, foreign policy, and the concentration of power in the federal government."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*In Goldwater's book, Goldwater (pages 171-174), published in 1988 he stated the following:*

Just two weeks after the California primary, the racial issue thundered across the political scene.  Few events in the campaign created more headlines, some fair and many false, than my vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Bill.

I cast the lone Senate vote against the measure and was quickly branded a racist by various liberal and civil rights groups.  They claimed I was appealing to the Southern "redneck" vote.  Some asserted the GOP was now the "white man's party."  However, no man, woman, or child who knew me -- black or white, Indian or Hispanic, of any color or creed -- has ever accused me of such views -- never, not to this day.

During the Senate debate, I questioned the constitutionality of Titles II and VII of the proposal.  These sections were devoted to fair employment and public accommodation practices.  It's important to recall precisely what I said about parts of the bill on the Senate floor, referring to the Tenth Amendment, before voting: "I am unalterably opposed to discrimination of any sort.  I believe that, though the problem is fundamentally one of the heart, some law can help; but not law that embodies features like these, provisions which fly in the face of the Constitution....

"If my vote is misconstrued, let it be, and let me suffer the consequences.  My concern extends beyond any single group in our society.  My concern is for the entire nation, for the freedom of all who live in it, and for all who were born in it..."

I had expressed these constitutional views in the layman's language for more than a decade in the Senate.  The debate went far beyond race.  Rather, it referred to a central principle of conservatism, clear limits on the central power of Washington.  States have all the rights not specifically reserved to the federal government by the Constitution.  Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan agreed with me.  He said the racial controversy was "a clash of competing constitutional aims of high order: liberty and equality."

I believe then and still believe today that more can be accomplished for civil liberties at the local level than by faraway federal fiat.

I had voted for the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960.  That was because they sought to end government discrimination against its citizens.  Late, in 1963, I offered four amendments to the Youth Employment Act, which forbade discrimination because of race, color, creed, or national origin.

Never in my life had I ever advocated, suggested, or implied any form of racism.  Nor, contrary to the repeated claim of various civil rights organizations, had I ever believed I was contributing to a "racial holocaust" by my vote.  Indeed, I later promised, as the Republican Presidential nominee, to withdraw from the campaign if my presence caused racial unrest.

In organizing the Arizona Air National Guard in 1946, I acted alone to provide a desegregated unit.  That was before President Truman's desegregation order and nearly two decades before the 1964 Civil Rights Bill.  My friend Harry Rosenzweig and I were the leaders in desegregating the lunch counters of Phoenix more than a decade before the 1964 Civil Rights Bill.  I had long supported the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's campaign to test segregation laws in Phoenix.

The 1964 act was debated on the Senate floor for nearly 740 hours over 83 days.  It filled almost 2,900 pages of the Congressional Record.  During that entire time, the senator from Arizona made it abundantly clear that he wanted to vote for the measure.  Being branded a "racist" and "segregationist" in national headlines was appalling enough, but some in the media went even further.  They asserted that candidate Goldwater was motivated by a "Southern strategy," whereby the GOP would sweep the electoral votes among the Democrats' old solid South.  That was demonstrably false.  Jack Kennedy wouldn't be my opponent; a Southerner, Lyndon Johnson, would be.  Was I out to out-Southern Johnson?  Hardly.  Apart from the constitutional and moral debate, it made no political sense for me, as candidate for the Presidency, to be the only senator in the U.S. Congress to vote against the bill.  Why risk losing the general election on one issue?

Civil rights was a political issue from the start.  I became a little sick of the hypocrisy connected with it.  Everyone told me that, as a candidate, I had to vote for every civil rights bill.  Various people, black and white, wanted the 1964 Act passed for their own ends.  This was not a moral crusade in America.  This was a hard-nosed politics based on self-interest.

I found Title VII of the bill, the so-called Mrs. Murphy clause, particularly repellent.  Simply put, this said you couldn't refuse to rent your home to anybody.  The fact is, I would not rent my home to a lot of whites for many reasons.  That aspect of the bill was unconstitutional, and still is, in my opinion.

Columnist James Reston, hardly a Goldwater supporter, wrote in the New York Times that the Senate speech I had given in defense of my vote was one of the most courageous addresses he had heard in the nation's capital.  The final judgment is for history to make.

My approach is still legitimate, and the history of civil rights bears it out.  Each separate twist and turn along the road toward equality has either had to be settled on constitutional grounds in the courts or at the local level in the hearts of individual Americans.  We also have a long way to go before settling the larger issue -- the civil liberties of every American as distinct from the civil rights of minorities.  We're witnessing that today in work seniority and other disputes.

The media played a peculiar role in the racial issue.  As a matter of record, I had supported civil rights proposals while Lyndon Johnson had voted against them or eased away from the issue during most of his Senate career.  Yet much of the media saw me as a segregationist throughout the campaign, while Johnson's public record was virtually ignored.

More reflective of the actual record was the following passage in Theodore White's book The Making of the President, 1964:  "It was Barry Goldwater who, on his own initiative, approached the President....and volunteered to eliminate entirely any appeal to passion of race in the fall campaign, to which the President agreed in private compact."

I would never appeal to race, not for any reason.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Also in Goldwater's book, Goldwater (pages 193 and 194), he stated the following:*

On civil rights, perhaps it may now finally be clear that I didn't seek the so-called redneck vote in the campaign.  We repudiated such organizations as the Ku Klux Klan and were forced to repeat that we were unalterably opposed to discrimination of any kind.  I did agree with nine articles of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts.  Again and again, it was inferred that I was a racist.  No criticism of my record was so false and demeaning, however, as that of Walter Lippmann in Newsweek of June 22, 1963, in which he said: "In his extreme views on states' rights, (Goldwater) is in fact one who would dissolve the Federal union into a mere confederation of the states... he would nullify if he could the central purpose of the Civil War amendments, and would take from the children of the emancipated slaves the protection of the national union."

Never in the political arena, not in the darkest hours of the Presidential campaign, had any critic challenged my respect for the Constitution.  The attack came from one of the most honored men in American journalism.  He was wrong and untruthful and caused us unending criticism during the race.  As the record clearly shows, I voted against the Civil Rights Act because it contained "no constitutional basis for the exercise of Federal regulatory authority" in the areas of employment and public accommodations.

Civil rights was a big problem for me in the campaign -- no question about it.  Looking back today, we took a bum rap on the issue from many in the media, some minorities, and others.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- ML

----------

