During the 1964 Civil Rights Act debates, Barry Goldwater opposed the bill due to 3 specific problems with it's "Titles", even though he had been a long supporter of the removal of racial discrimination laws. Barry Goldwater argued that in addition to several of the Titles granting sweeping authority to the federal congress that it never had the authority to have in the first place, he also pointed out that it seemed like several proponents and congressmen were going to try and introduce racial discrimination programs of their own, including racial quotas and possibly anti-white racial discrimination rules, laws, or edicts from bureaucrats.
He was called Hitlerian by MLK Jr, he was called an avowed racist, a conspiracy theorist, a supporter of the Klu Klux Klan, he was declared to be a paranoid schitzophrentic by over 5,000 psychologists as part of an CIA psy-op campaign, and he was spied on by the FBI. To this day, some "historians" will tell you this is the moment the Republican Party supported racism on it's platform, all of it stemming from LBJ smearing him during that years election.
In 1965, several Democrats proposed instituting race quotas and affirmative action policies; just as Goldwater had warned. That was 58 years ago.
It's actually hard to find what he said because the propaganda was so fierce.
Basically 3 specific parts of the bill that give congress apparently unlimited power to regulate private transactions. Several of which were later reduced and limited by courts because, yeah, congress can't regulate private home sales and the like.
The rest is what he suspected would come next, which did.
Which is why the left figured out they should just do whatever they want because by the time the supreme court catches up it's already been de jure "constitutional" for at least a generation.
My understanding is that they admitted it was in the past affirmative action cases. It's just that they first ruled it was actually OK because diversity was a 'compelling state interest' (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1974 - the specific affirmative action program being challenged there was found to be too obviously racist, but otherwise AA was upheld) and then secondly that while it was racist, it was the just and necessary kind of racism that needed to go on for some more time as basically an additional form of reparations to the 'historically disadvantaged' sort of diverse vibrancy (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003 - the writer of the majority opinion, Sandra Day O'Connor, opined that AA should go on for another 25 years or so).
I can't fucking believe it took them 20+ years to realize affirmative action is blatant fucking racism.
During the 1964 Civil Rights Act debates, Barry Goldwater opposed the bill due to 3 specific problems with it's "Titles", even though he had been a long supporter of the removal of racial discrimination laws. Barry Goldwater argued that in addition to several of the Titles granting sweeping authority to the federal congress that it never had the authority to have in the first place, he also pointed out that it seemed like several proponents and congressmen were going to try and introduce racial discrimination programs of their own, including racial quotas and possibly anti-white racial discrimination rules, laws, or edicts from bureaucrats.
He was called Hitlerian by MLK Jr, he was called an avowed racist, a conspiracy theorist, a supporter of the Klu Klux Klan, he was declared to be a paranoid schitzophrentic by over 5,000 psychologists as part of an CIA psy-op campaign, and he was spied on by the FBI. To this day, some "historians" will tell you this is the moment the Republican Party supported racism on it's platform, all of it stemming from LBJ smearing him during that years election.
In 1965, several Democrats proposed instituting race quotas and affirmative action policies; just as Goldwater had warned. That was 58 years ago.
I had heard he was an evil racist til I researched him and learned what he actually said. His fears have definitely come true
It's actually hard to find what he said because the propaganda was so fierce.
Basically 3 specific parts of the bill that give congress apparently unlimited power to regulate private transactions. Several of which were later reduced and limited by courts because, yeah, congress can't regulate private home sales and the like.
The rest is what he suspected would come next, which did.
I have his book on my pile to read. I remember someone telling me he was racist and I educated him about how he got a lot of blacks hired in AZ
It took them 50 years to realize that abortion is not referenced at all in the Constitution.
Lol why was this downvoted.
Probably just the baby-killers when they saw it. Normal people reversed the score since, heh.
Which is why the left figured out they should just do whatever they want because by the time the supreme court catches up it's already been de jure "constitutional" for at least a generation.
But mah equity!
My understanding is that they admitted it was in the past affirmative action cases. It's just that they first ruled it was actually OK because diversity was a 'compelling state interest' (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1974 - the specific affirmative action program being challenged there was found to be too obviously racist, but otherwise AA was upheld) and then secondly that while it was racist, it was the just and necessary kind of racism that needed to go on for some more time as basically an additional form of reparations to the 'historically disadvantaged' sort of diverse vibrancy (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003 - the writer of the majority opinion, Sandra Day O'Connor, opined that AA should go on for another 25 years or so).