Friedman endorsed Goldwater’s states’-rights framing of civil rights

Evidence

Goldwater had argued in The Conscience of a Conservative in 1960 that although he was “in agreement with the objectives of the Supreme Court as stated in the Brown decision,” he was not prepared “to impose that judgment of mine on the people of Mississippi or South Carolina.” Asserting that the Constitution did not permit any federal interference in the fi eld of education, he had concluded that the issue was “their business, not mine.” Goldwater built on that argument when he prominently announced his opposition to the civil rights bill of 1964. At the time Friedman expressed a belief that Goldwater’s perspective was “excellent” and a true manifestation of the concept of “equal treatment of all, regardless of race.” — Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion, 508

Categorization

• XREF: Complicates the colorblind-economics narrative of Friedman; connects to debates about racism encoded in federalism arguments. Relevant to the reader’s adjacent work on how libertarian ideology handled civil rights. — connects to: Friedman opposed civil rights legislation because he trusted markets to solve segregation — Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free…, 509; Goldwater framed black civil rights protests as criminal mob violence.; Goldwater’s 1964 campaign made Friedman a public figure but tainted his reputation — Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free…, 506

Broader Connections

• Friedman opposed civil rights legislation because he trusted markets to solve segregation #contradicts (0.80) — Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion, 509
• Goldwater framed black civil rights protests as criminal mob violence. #complicates (0.75)
• Goldwater’s 1964 campaign made Friedman a public figure but tainted his reputation #expands (0.70) — Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion, 506