Negative vs positive freedom as core disagreement

What unites America, it used to be said, is a common commitment to “freedom”. But in our disunited times, it's worth remembering that two incompatible versions of freedom have actually divided rather than brought the United States together. As the historian Nicholas Buccola notes in his intriguing new book One Man’s Freedom, these competing freedoms are represented in the thinking of the two icons of modern American conservatism and liberalism: Barry Goldwater and Martin Luther King. For Goldwater, freedom meant liberation from government interference—the right to be left alone to pursue economic success without federal meddling. For King, it meant empowerment—ensuring people had genuine capacity to participate fully in society. And as Buccola demonstrates, these competing visions persist in today’s debates over everything from healthcare to voting rights. When conservatives champion ‘medical freedom’ to refuse vaccines while liberals demand ‘reproductive freedom’ through government-protected abortion access, they’re not just disagreeing on policy—they’re wielding incompatible definitions of freedom itself. When some see voter ID laws as protecting electoral freedom while others view them as destroying it, they’re replaying the Goldwater-King divide: Is freedom merely the absence of federal interference, or does it require active measures to ensure everyone can meaningfully participate? Two freedoms, two Americas—no wonder the United States now feels so bitterly divided.

1. Freedom Isn’t One Thing

Goldwater championed “negative freedom” (freedom from government interference), while King advocated “positive freedom” (empowerment to actually participate in society). Both men claimed to seek “authentic liberalism,” but their visions were fundamentally incompatible. You can’t just say you’re “for freedom” without specifying which kind.

2. Goldwater’s Consequential Silence

Throughout his career, Goldwater had numerous opportunities to speak out on civil rights from his libertarian perspective but repeatedly chose silence. His refusal to use what King called “the moral power” of leadership to support racial justice—even while claiming personal opposition to segregation—helped set a pattern for the modern conservative movement’s approach to race.

3. The 1964 Pivot Point

The 1964 Republican Convention was a watershed moment when race and “extremism” tore the party apart. When Goldwater sided with the far right and voted against the Civil Rights Act in the name of “freedom,” it drove Black Republicans like George Parker from the party and reshaped American political coalitions in ways that persist today.

4. Economics Was Central to the Divide

King saw Goldwater’s economic philosophy as almost as dangerous as his stance on civil rights. While Goldwater focused on protecting economic freedom from “big government,” King advocated for an economic bill of rights that would address inequality across racial lines. This wasn’t just about race—it was about whether economic empowerment is necessary for genuine freedom.

5. These Divisions Persist in 2025

The Goldwater-King debate isn’t historical trivia. Today’s arguments about the role of government, economic inequality, and racial justice still break along these same philosophical lines. When politicians invoke “freedom,” they’re usually choosing sides in this 60-year-old debate without acknowledging that their opponents are using the same word to mean something entirely different.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe