Overview of Freedom through the eyes of foes: Rev. Martin Luther King and Sen. Barry Goldwater
This Code Switch episode (host B.A. Parker) features Nicholas Buccola, a professor at Claremont McKenna College and author of One Man’s Freedom, discussing how Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Barry Goldwater—contemporaries in the 1950s–60s—championed radically different conceptions of “freedom.” Buccola uses their clash (especially around the 1964 presidential campaign and passage of the Civil Rights Act) to show how the same language of freedom can mean very different political projects, and why that history still matters today.
Key points and takeaways
- Two competing visions of freedom:
- Martin Luther King Jr.: concrete, collective freedom tied to civil rights and economic justice (King promoted a “Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged” and emphasized lived, material freedoms—access to public accommodations, dignity, economic opportunity).
- Barry Goldwater: individualist, anti-collectivist freedom focused on limited government, skepticism of New Deal-style programs, and opposition to “hyphenated” identities (the “forgotten American” rhetoric).
- Both leaders were viewed as threats by their opponents: each was labelled “the most dangerous man in America” by adversaries because each threatened the other's political order.
- 1964 was pivotal: the Civil Rights Act had just passed; Goldwater opposed it and courted or emboldened extreme right elements (e.g., John Birch Society, segregationists migrating to the GOP), while King saw a Goldwater presidency as an existential threat to civil and economic progress.
- Goldwater’s rhetoric mixed libertarian freedom talk with law-and-order and culture-war appeals—an uneasy blend that helps explain later conservative trajectories.
- King’s politics anticipated a fusion of racial and economic justice (social-democratic elements) that transcends simple partisan labels.
- Contemporary relevance: modern politicians and movements sometimes co-opt King’s image while undermining the policies and principles he advanced. Historical patterns in rhetoric and strategy are repeating.
Topics discussed
- Brief political biographies: Goldwater’s rise from Arizona businessman to U.S. senator and 1964 GOP nominee; King’s civil-rights leadership and moral-political thought.
- Goldwater’s “Forgotten American” speech (1961) and his 1964 Republican convention acceptance speech.
- King’s activism in St. Augustine, FL (demonstrating the daily, tangible denials of freedom) and his warning about a possible Goldwater presidency.
- The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and national reactions (urban unrest, protests).
- The role of extremist groups and the rightward migration of segregationist forces into the Republican Party.
- Connections between racial justice and economic policy (King’s economic agenda).
- How King’s legacy is invoked or misused in modern politics.
Notable quotes and ideas
- King's famous line (from his I Have a Dream passage used in the episode): “free at last, free at last…”
- Goldwater: “extremism in defense of liberty is no vice” — a key line from his 1964 convention speech that alarmed many.
- Goldwater’s 1961 “forgotten American” idea criticizing hyphenated identities and championing a bland “just American” identity.
- King’s critique: Goldwater “gave aid and comfort to the most vicious racist in American politics,” and King warned of a “dark night of social disruption” under a Goldwater presidency—language invoking very severe consequences.
- Buccola’s synthesis: both men were “leaders of freedom movements” for their supporters, and “symbols of unfreedom” for their opponents—showing freedom’s contested, symbolic force.
Historical context and contemporary relevance
- 1964 context: passage of the Civil Rights Act; urban unrest (e.g., Harlem uprisings); strong reactionary currents on the right. These converged to make Goldwater’s candidacy uniquely fraught.
- Goldwater’s opposition to civil-rights legislation and sympathy with hard-line anti-communist and segregationist groups made his candidacy seem aligned with reactionary forces.
- King’s civil-rights work was inseparable from his economic agenda; this combination made him threatening to defenders of the status quo.
- Today’s parallels: political actors reuse freedom language and sometimes invoke King’s name while pursuing policies that would undo gains he sought. Recognizing historical patterns helps identify and challenge those maneuvers.
Recommendations / Actionable takeaways
- When politicians claim the mantle of “freedom,” examine what policies and outcomes their rhetoric would actually produce—liberty is contested and consequential.
- Be wary of simplistic or token invocations of MLK; check whether rhetoric aligns with King’s commitments to both racial and economic justice.
- Study 1960s debates to better identify rhetorical patterns and strategies that reappear in contemporary politics.
- For deeper reading: consider Nicholas Buccola’s book (One Man’s Freedom) for a fuller treatment of the King–Goldwater contrast.
Episode credits and where to find it
- Host: B.A. Parker (NPR Code Switch). Guest: Nicholas Buccola, professor at Claremont McKenna College, author of One Man’s Freedom.
- Production credits (from episode): produced by Xavier Lopez; edited by Leah Dinella and Dalia Mortada; plus the Code Switch team.
- Available: subscribe to Code Switch via NPR or wherever you get podcasts; follow @nprcodeswitch or email codeswitch@npr.org.