To be clear, I didn’t say state-sanctioned* murder*. Some of the violence against the protesters was, either directly or by turning the other way to let bigots have some good ol’ fun.
Even today, we don’t arrest people for housing discrimination, and other enforcement is inadequate against individuals. Because if you did that, it would pretty much make us a police state.
If we can’t justify it to fight terrorism, we can’t justify it to fight housing discrimination.
People are arrested on suspicion of terrorism. It does not make us a police state.
No it doesn’t. Because terrorism isn’t a something normal, every day citizens do very often. Discrimination is. In order to “stamp it out”, as politicians often say because they feel they have to, you would need to establish a network of informers to rival anything Communist countries did.
Goldwater’s error, one commonly made by conservatives, is to assume the worst case scenario in regards to what liberals’ goals are. However, liberals have long been willing to settle for muddling along and accepting marginal improvements. That’s why rather than discrimination being stamped out in 1964, it’s gotten steadily better over time, while still being a rather significant problem. We all had to accept shoddy enforcement to slowly deal with the problem, rather than effective, but draconian enforcement that would have made us into a no longer free country.
We did and we didn’t have to.
The NAACP strongly disagrees with you.
Adaher, I rarely agree with you, but I find both these points to be astute, well articulated (if generalized) observations.
(And housing discrimination HAS diminished over time, but the NAACP is also right in that it’s still a significant problem.)
His 1960’s platform did not include gay rights or abortion, not sure on his environmental views. He was quite happy to have religious conservatives on his side in the 1960s & 70s. His 1970’s voting record on abortion was pro-life. However, he had gotten his daughter an illegal abortion.
He left Republican Conservatism to the extent he ever believed in it. It didn’t leave him.
PP had been anti-abortion. He got his daughter an illegal abortion but did not campaign or vote pro-choice in the 1960’s-70’s.
Goldwater was a libertarian who didn’t realize it until the 80s. And his principles about constitutionalism are still radical today.
Well, except for his warhawkery. A libertarian cannot in good conscience support the MIC, that’s a big part of biggummint.
It sounds exactly like something that people running a savy campaign would come up with. It’s catchy and amusing, hence memorable. Obviously, the campaign would not want to be overtly associated with it, as it is much more effective if it just goes viral.
The Johnson campaign did this sort of thing masterfully - look at the “Daisy Girl” add, that just ran once.
Depends on what your libertarianism is based on and what your values are. Goldwater was first and foremost a constitutionalist, and defense is a genuine power granted to the federal government.
“Constitutionalism” is not a form of libertarianism.
Since when? PP is primarily concerned with birth control but has always advocated for abortion rights.
I’ll have to try to find it, but I am sure it has not ALWAYS advocated for abortion rights. I know Margaret Sanger spoke against abortion as a reason she was so passionate for contraception rights.
Sanger wanted top prevent abortions because they were generally illegal and thus dangerous. Planned Parenthood wants to prevent abortions today, too. In fact, PP advocates often point out that it does more to prevent abortions than any other organization. That doesn’t mean they want to make abortion illegal, of course.
Sure it is. That’s why libertarians are such sticklers for the Constitution.
Only the libertarian interpretation of the Constitution. Not surprisingly, pretty much every American political ideology say that they are “sticklers for the Constitution”, and each group interprets it in different ways.
I heard on TV last year, in coverage of the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington, that at the time, only one-third of Americans were at all sympathetic to it and two-thirds disapproved.