Introduction:
Nicholas Buccola, an esteemed historian of the United States, is certain to be a significant figure in scholarship for many years to come. His work offers valuable insights into America’s complex history, particularly regarding race and identity. In his recent publications, Buccola explores pivotal debates and figures that have shaped the nation’s discourse on freedom and equality.
Nicholas Buccola is a historian whose works will likely continue to resonate for decades. While I may not be here to witness his future contributions, it’s evident that his insights will remain relevant. In 2019, he released The Fire is Upon Us: James Baldwin, William F. Buckley Jr., and the Debate Over Race in America. This book delves into the historical context surrounding the notable debate between Baldwin and Buckley at the Cambridge Union in 1965. At that moment, both men were at the pinnacle of their respective powers. From the PUP link:
The debate focused on the statement, “the American dream is at the expense of the American Negro.” Those who have viewed it are unlikely to forget the confrontation. Nicholas Buccola’s The Fire Is upon Us is the first book to narrate the entire story, exploring the drastically different journeys of Baldwin and Buckley, the ensuing controversies, and how their clash still illuminates America’s racial divide today.
In October 2025, Buccola published One Man’s Freedom: Goldwater, King, and the Struggle over an American Ideal. Americans are often taught that freedom is the quintessential attribute of the United States, dating back to the founding days at Jamestown and Plymouth Rock. However, this perspective often overlooks significant portions of American history. As the current administration strives to reshape America, it’s essential to remember the historical nuances often ignored. The ongoing debate between Martin Luther King, Jr. and Barry Goldwater—from the Civil Rights Movement’s post-war beginnings through the 1964 presidential campaign—holds parallels to the Baldwin-Buckley debate and its aftermath. Once again, Nicholas Buccola provides an exceptional analysis.
Barry Goldwater (1909-1998) epitomizes an American archetype. Born in the Arizona Territory just three years prior to statehood, his legacy includes Goldwater’s Department Store, a family business established by his grandfather in 1860, which operated until 1989. Today, the Goldwater name is associated with Goldwater’s Foods, managed by Barry Goldwater’s granddaughter.
Similarly, Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK Jr., 1929-1968) represents another important American archetype. As the son of a Baptist pastor in Atlanta, he graduated from Morehouse College and Crozer Theological Seminary, later becoming the pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. Following the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1956, he emerged as a leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and played a crucial role in the Civil Rights Movement, which thrived despite significant opposition throughout the Civil Rights Acts of the mid-1960s and beyond.
When asked about his identity as a Republican, Goldwater stated that he opposed “appeasement,” “Communism,” and “Communist sympathizers,” while striving to uphold “the principles of honesty, integrity, devotion, and thrift.” He believed it naturally followed that his adversaries—New Dealers in Washington D.C. and Big Labor leaders like Walter Reuther of the United Auto Workers—lacked these virtues, supposedly due to a connection with Communism. Although this claim was unfounded, it gained widespread acceptance. It’s important to note that the principles of “honesty, integrity, devotion, and thrift” aren’t confined to any political label, despite Goldwater’s assertions.
Goldwater viewed “individual freedom” as being threatened by federal government power. He argued that this individual freedom is best safeguarded by “States’ rights” and “local government autonomy.” Meanwhile, in a moment of despair, 27-year-old MLK Jr. found inspiration as he contemplated life during a dark night in his kitchen, hearing an inner voice urging him to “Stand up for righteousness, stand up for truth; and God will be at your side forever.” Recalling this moment, he stated, “My uncertainty disappeared…I was ready to face anything.” And he certainly faced numerous challenges throughout his tragically brief life.
Buccola’s One Man’s Freedom offers a sensitive and well-narrated account of the struggle against racism and bigotry. All key figures, as remembered by those who witnessed the events, are present. On one side were Dixiecrats led by Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, alongside the John Birch Society founded by Robert W. Welch, Jr., and their conservative counterparts such as Buckley and Russell Kirk. On the other side stood the leaders of the SCLC, and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), which included figures like John Lewis; James Farmer of the Congress of Racial Equality; and Bayard Rustin and A. Philip Randolph, who were instrumental in the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Additionally, significant tragedies marked this era, such as the murder of James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman in Neshoba County, Mississippi, during the summer of 1964.
The differences in how Goldwater and MLK Jr. perceived freedom are profoundly captured in this passage:
In Montgomery, King began to question the validity of Goldwater’s propositions regarding freedom. Just days after his moment of revelation in his kitchen, a dynamite explosion devastated his porch and shattered windows.
Fortunately, no one was harmed in this incident targeting innocent individuals. MLK Jr. urged his followers to love their enemies, and the Montgomery police commissioner and mayor pledged their commitment to protect him from any future extralegal violence. It’s crucial to note the term “extralegal.” This theme would tragically repeat itself throughout the next twelve years. Just weeks later, MLK Jr. was indicted for purportedly conspiring to hinder a public transportation system’s operation. In 1960, he faced imprisonment in Georgia for an outstanding traffic violation. Such harassment persisted at all levels of government, with J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI infamously regarding MLK Jr. as a significant threat to American freedom, until his assassination by James Earl Ray in Memphis in April 1968.
It is hard to contest the idea that government must remain close to the people to be effective and responsible. Although I was young during the events chronicled in One Man’s Freedom, I was old enough to witness the evils of the Jim Crow South. In my neighborhood, an independent grocery store excluded access based on race; it had three restrooms labeled for men, women, and “colored.” Movie theaters and restaurants enforced segregation, and a high school friend had to order ice cream through the side window of a Dairy Queen. One summer in 1964, at the Recreation Department Pool, its director shut down the facility rather than allow Black children to swim. Local public schools remained thoroughly segregated through my freshman year, until the de jure dual system began to dissolve, sixteen years after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.
This was evil. Local and state governments that deliberately denied civil and political rights to a significant portion of the population acted illegitimately. At the 1956 Democratic National Convention, King addressed the Platform Committee and asserted:
“States’ Rights are valid only as they serve to protect larger human rights.” This isn’t about empowering the federal government to take over every aspect of life; rather, it’s about ensuring it can fulfill its essential function. “Human rights take precedence over States’ Rights, and whenever the latter trample upon the former, the Federal Government is obligated to intervene for their protection.” King succinctly captured the essential issue.
Indeed, MLK Jr. cut straight to the heart of the matter, yet much work remained. Nevertheless, MLK Jr. graced the cover of Time on February 18, 1957. Progress was evident.
While engaging with One Man’s Freedom, it becomes apparent that Goldwater and MLK Jr. were communicating across a divide concerning the primary threats to the freedom of the “common man and woman.” Goldwater posited that “the greatest threat was the public-private partnership linking union leaders with Big Government,” which compromised the “right to work.” Conversely, MLK Jr. identified the “greatest threat as the public-private partnership sustaining Jim Crow,” where intransigent local governments and individuals who profited from racial discrimination collaborated to maintain their status.
Importantly, Jim Crow’s effects also extended to White individuals. The historical factors surrounding Jim Crow reveal it as a strategic win-win for proponents of States’ Rights and Big Business. The motives behind maintaining racial segregation often aimed at curbing the rights of the working class, regardless of their ethnicity. Throughout his career as a US Senator, Barry Goldwater actively engaged with Citizens Councils, articulating their desires, explicitly denying constitutional legitimacy to the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.
While MLK Jr.’s envisioned anti-poverty programs represented “Big Government,” they aimed to address pressing issues of extreme poverty in the wealthiest country. This concern remains relevant in 2025.
As Buccola effectively articulates in One Man’s Freedom, a common argument against Civil Rights laws is that “you cannot legislate morality.” In other words, “no law can compel someone to like you.” While this statement holds some truth, Goldwater argued intelligently against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, maintaining:
“The pressing issue of our time—the new territory the (Civil Rights) Act of 1964 ventures into—is unfair discrimination in private interactions. Here, the government lacks a lasting solution. No law can force one person to like another member of society if they don’t wish to.”
However, Civil Rights laws were never intended to dictate feelings; they sought to regulate behavior, a function laws have fulfilled since ancient times. MLK Jr. acknowledged that while laws could not force a person to love him, they could prevent others from discriminating against him based on race. Although progress remains to be made, it is evident that the mid-1960s Civil Rights laws have fundamentally reshaped interactions, as we now see interracial couples in society—something that was once unimaginable. The prohibition of discriminatory behavior has transformed the moral landscape, as Buccola consistently reminds readers in One Man’s Freedom.
Furthermore, it’s important to recognize that limited government has never truly been the Right’s central concern. Over the decade preceding the 1964 presidential election and since:
The reality is that Goldwater called for restrictions on government power in some areas while seeking to expand it in others. Specifically, his vision entailed returning power to the states regarding civil rights, education, and social welfare while advocating for greater federal authority to tackle labor unions and navigate the Cold War. (italics in original)
The ongoing debate between MLK Jr. and Barry Goldwater, which continues today, pertains to differing interpretations of liberty and freedom as elements of the American Way of Life:
The essence of liberty lies at the core of liberalism, understood primarily as a political doctrine aimed at maximizing freedom for all individuals. For Goldwater, achieving this primary liberal objective necessitated a minimal welfare state. For King, realizing this objective required a robust welfare state. For Goldwater, the liberty offered by liberalism stemmed mainly from freedom from government interference; for King, it involved a freedom to engage actively in society, often needing government support to enable such empowerment. (italics in original)
The critical word in this context is “sometimes.” Following the enactment of the Civil Rights Acts in the 1960s and the establishment of industrial policies ensuring “good jobs at a family wage,” government support could have eventually become unnecessary. However, this would only be plausible if we ceased our perpetual state of conflict. MLK Jr. cautioned against this in one of his final addresses in 1968, as his dissent regarding the Vietnam War severely limited his support. Regrettably, his warnings went unheeded, leading to the current geopolitical tensions.
Barry Goldwater eventually made his mark, appearing on the cover of Time magazine on June 14, 1963, with the headline “CANDIDATE WATCHING IN THE G.O.P: Can they find a winner?” Progress was, however, limited. In a synchronistic twist, Robert F. Kennedy and John F. Kennedy featured on the subsequent week’s cover with a focus on civil rights as “THE MORAL CRISIS,” emphasizing the imperative for action in our daily lives. While the GOP struggled to find a winning candidate in 1964, The Long Southern Strategy [4]—foreshadowed by Goldwater a decade earlier—eventually prevailed with Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, maintaining its trajectory with no end in sight.
Ultimately, it’s apparent that Barry Goldwater was neither a bigot nor a racist. [5] However, he seemed to overlook the presence of his colleagues in the U.S. Senate who were, notably, beginning with Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Goldwater did not grasp that he played a crucial role in sustaining White Supremacy:
King described Goldwater’s “tragic blindness,” which manifested in civil rights discussions and economic justice issues, claiming the senator “does not realize what he is saying” when attributing poverty to “low intelligence” and “low ambition.” [6] From King’s perspective, Goldwater was not inherently bad, but morally “blind,” making him and others with similar views a danger to the freedom of all.
The most significant threat to conservatives lay in King’s proposal (for a Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged), which demanded a reckoning with our history that compelled us to confront both American racism and the enduring economic exploitation across racial lines. King argued that, while African Americans constitute the majority of the disadvantaged, “there are millions of poor whites who would also benefit from such a bill.” He pointed out that Black individuals had suffered as victims of the systemic injustices of slavery, underscoring that poor whites were derivative victims as the institution depressed labor costs. King envisioned an interracial coalition to combat systemic injustices. What could be more threatening to a conservative than that?
Indeed, nothing could be more daunting. Would the social democracy in Martin Luther King’s vision—grounded in both social equity and democratic values—have offered a superior path? Absolutely. The reality remains that affluent individuals, on both the so-called Right and Left, would continue to preserve their wealth, acknowledging that the divergence between stagnant real wages and productivity could feasibly cultivate a wealthier and more equitable society. This could have fostered a more democratic system, unlike the current “one dollar-one vote” Citizens United scenario, where disproportionate compensation for individuals like Elon Musk garners serious discussion. [7]
Barry Goldwater and Martin Luther King, Jr. were both earnest and principled leaders, emblematic of human imperfections. Reflecting on the past, one wonders how history might have diverged had the tragedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963 not prevented Senator Goldwater and President Kennedy from contesting based on principle rather than opportunism. This speculation extends to the relentless tragedies of Memphis on April 4, 1968, and Los Angeles two months later, as the tumultuous summer of my twelfth year unfolded.
While all politics can seem performative, there was a time when it signified more than mere theatrics.
We live in a society characterized by wealth yet precarious circumstances for the majority. Nicholas Buccola has produced two remarkable works in the last six years, The Fire Is Upon Us and One Man’s Freedom, which illuminate significant aspects of our societal, political, and cultural shortcomings. We would benefit from numerous historians of his caliber. I anticipate gaining even more from repeated readings of his work.
Notes
Furious Minds, from my previous essay, and The Fire Is Upon Us and One Man’s Freedom, can be purchased from Princeton University Press with a 30% discount using code PUP30. I noticed that our public library, visible from my window, has ordered Furious Minds, and I’ll suggest the other two titles as well.
[1] I was fortunate to meet James Farmer at a conference of like-minded individuals in West Virginia during the summer of 1978. His impact was unforgettable.
[2] Remember that Ronald Reagan initiated his presidential campaign a mere sixteen years later at the Neshoba County Fair, adopting States’ Rights as his theme.
[3] Right-to-Work laws, which permit workers to reject union dues even after a collective bargaining agreement has been reached, should more accurately be called Right-to-Work-for-Less laws. Nevertheless, the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 remains a significant triumph for conservatives, showcasing the Right’s long-term strategic victories, while the supposed Left retreats into identity politics and other ineffective, performative tactics.
[4] This book is crucial for understanding American politics since the 1964 presidential election.
[5] It’s important to note that in 1950, Arizona’s Black population numbered 25,974 (3.5%), compared to Georgia, where it was 1,062,762 (31%).
[6] A late-1990s exhibition of Herblock editorial cartoons at the National Portrait Gallery showcased one that has remained vivid in my memory. The cartoon portrayed Barry Goldwater before a mother and her three children, seated on the stoop of a slum neighborhood, captioned: “If you had any initiative, you’d go out and inherit a department store.” Published on December 6, 1961, in the context of the events discussed in One Man’s Freedom, this portrayal, while stark, aligns with Goldwater’s reasoning at the time—a perspective that remains frustratingly common among both Left and Right factions.
[7] I have previously addressed this issue. At the peak of the wage scale in the unionized heavy chemical plant where I worked fifty years ago, Relief Operators earned an annual salary equivalent to $192,088 today. In contrast, I made $54,185 as a 17-year-old high school graduate. This included comprehensive benefits, structured work hours, health insurance, a defined pension plan, opportunities for on-the-job training, generous vacation time, and overtime protocols. Imagine that! Calculations were made utilizing the Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator.
