Goldwater had a lot in common with Taft and Bricker; although he was slightly to the right of both. To call Taft and Bricker isolationists is to parrot a Leftist lie. They were not. What they did favor was the traditional American foreign policy, see An American Foreign Policy, which was basically the same policy which Goldwater and Reagan promoted.
Much of your other issues are middle-of-the-road positions, with a moderate Conservative bias. But the following, I would suggest, may show a certain confusion:
They tend to be rather permissive on social issues up to the point that it threatens the fabric of the commonweal, but strongly believe faith and religion are a good thing, even if not religious themselves. They are strongly opposed to all forms of irrational discrimination
Traditional Conservatives are often rather permissive on social issues, I will grant--indeed, it is our belief that Government should not be defining social values, which often motivates our taking an interest in politics, when the Left pushes their Social agenda--particulary when it is in the form of an attack on traditional social values, as with the promotion of Leftist values under the guise of "life adjustment" in the public schools; or efforts to misuse the Commerce Clause, to coerce compliance with new politically determined socio/economic norms. But I am not at all sure what you mean by the reference to "discrimination."
Every choice a free man makes involves discrimination. If you mean to oppose irrational actions upon the part of the Government; then that is one thing. But if you are implying a right in the Government to deal with what the Bureaucrats consider irrational choices made by individuals in their own affairs, then that is something vastly different. In Communist Russia or Nazi Germany, the individual lost all right to make choices the State considered irrational. I trust that you are not advocating that sort of thing for America.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site