Barry Goldwater’s The Conscience of a Conservative
EDITOR’S NOTE: This was posted over the weekend but due to a technical glitch comments were not allowed. We are therefore reposting it today in the hopes that it will generate discussion on conservatism’s past and present.
The Conscience of a Conservative is one of the most (politically) inspiring books I have ever had the pleasure to read. Barry Goldwater describes the conservative ideology almost perfectly. He doesn’t just describe what policies conservatives favor, instead he emphasizes and explains the reasons behind conservative policies.
The edition I read, Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1990, has a foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan. In this foreword, Buchanan describes the importance of Goldwater’s conservative manifest: he describes the impact this little book had on him and like minded college students, how it made them politically engaged, how this led to a pure conservative movement in the GOP that would, 20 years after the appearance of The Conscience of a Conservative, lead to the conservative Reagan Revolution which would change America (and the world).
Barry Goldwater’s own introduction is meant to explain what his goal is, why he wrote the book. He goes on to describe the situation of conservatism in the time he was writing the book, which was not good. In his short passionate style, Goldwater lists what was then, in the 1950′s, in essence, not conservative about America. Reading these first three pages, one cannot help but notice that, with a couple of ‘updates’ here and there, this could have been written and published today as well.
The first official chapter carries the same name as the book and is one of the most inspiring chapters of it, at least in a general sense. Progressives who do not find themselves able to read the entire book should, at the very least, read this chapter. It’s a description of conservatism in general: what is the general reasoning behind conservatism? How do conservatives think? What is the essence of conservatism? Why does conservatism matter? What drives conservatives? Questions asked by many back then, and still by many today. Barry Goldwater’s answers, given in the 1950′s are still relevant as well: they are the answers I would give as well, be it – of course – far less eloquently, inspiring and thoughtful.
What drives conservatives? What is the conservative ideology in its purest essence? What’s the role of the government according to conservatism? Goldwater:
“Thus, for the American Conservative, there is no difficulty in identifying the day’s overriding political challenge: it is to preserve and extend freedom. As he surveys the various attitudes and institutions and laws that currently prevail in America, many questions will occur to him, but the Conservative’s first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom?”
One of the most interesting points he makes in this chapter is that he uses the argument, so often used against conservatives: that for them it is all about money, around and argues that it is socialism and its offspring that “subordinates all other considerations to man’s material well-being.” Conservatism, to the contrary, has “a structured view of human beings and of human society, in which economics play only a subsidiary role.” He perfectly describes what I too consider to be ‘conservatism’: understanding that man is more than an economic being, more than an animal, that man is responsible for his own development, that limiting individuals hinders before mentioned development and that, finally, the goal of the government is to “preserve and extend freedom.”
After this first ‘official’ chapter, Goldwater deals with different kind of policies / issues: states’ rights, civil rights, agriculture, labor, taxes and spending, the welfare state, education, and of course, finally, the threat the Soviet Union poses to America and to the world. In all these chapters, he stresses the importance of interpreting the Constitution as literally as possible and as much in line with what the fouding fathers had to say about this magnificent document as possible.
The first chapter after “The Conscience of a Conservative” deals with a concept or issue that lies at the very core of American conservatism: States’ Rights. Like on so many occasions when reading The Conscience of a Conservative, when reading this chapter, and especially the passage in which Goldwater writes that “neither of [America's] two parties maintains a meaningful commitment to the principle of States’ rights” and that the “Republican party, to be sure, gives lip-service to States’ Rights” but that “deeds are what count”, and “in actual practice, the Republican Party, like the Democratic Party, summons the coercive power of the federal government whenever national leaders conclude that the States are not performing satisfactorily” – the reader cannot help but think “has nothing then changed?”
He pleads, passionately, for returning to the States “their rightful power”, not just by arguing that the Constitution demands this and that this is what America’s Founding Fathers envisioned, but by explaining why they gave the States so much power, compared to the Federal government at least. It was very much on purpose, and Goldwater explains why their reasoning is still valid.
In the chapter about Civil Rights Goldwater explains that and why Civil Rights and States’ Rights can, when both are properly defined, never be in conflict with each other. What makes a Civil Right a Civil Right? Easy: “A civil right is a right that is asserted and is therefore protected by some valid law. It may be asserted by the common law, or by local or federal statutes, or by the Constitution; but unless a right is incorporated in the law, it is not a civil right and is not enforceable by the instruments of the civil law.” Before people start accusing Goldwater of having been a racist, he goes on to write that “there may be some rights – ‘natural,’ ‘human,’ or otherwise – that should also be civil rights. But if we desire to give such rights the protection of the law, our recourse is to be a legislature or to the amendment procedures of the Constitution.”
The next chapter deals with agriculture and is called “Freedom for the Farmer”. In this chapter he explains why it has proven “troublesome” (not to mention unconstitutional) that the Federal Government intervened in agriculture. In the very first paragraph of this chapter, Goldwater writes: “Disregard of the Constitution in this field has brought about the inevitable loss of personal freedom; and it has created economic chaos. Unmanageable surpluses, an immense tax burden, high consumer prices, vexatious controls – I doubt if the folly of ignoring the principle of limited government has ever been more convincingly demonstrated.”
The tone is set.
After this he takes his ‘usual’ approach: first explain that government interverence in this field is unconstitutional, and then explain why the federal government was granted no power over agriculture. There is a reason for that. Government should not subsidize farms, since all it does, is keeping farms alive that should not be alive any longer: one creates an unhealthy market that way.
After these chapters follow the chapters that deal with labor, taxes and spending, the welfare state, education and the Soviet Union. This post is quite long as it is, so I will not describe those chapters as I did with the first four. Let me just say this: in the end, Goldwater paints a great, completely picture of conservatism. There is quite some talk among today’s conservatives in America about how they need a new ‘manifesto’, how they need to refocus. My advise to them is: read Barry Goldwater’s The Conscience of a Conservative first. Read it, think about it, be inspired by it, and then, use Goldwater’s reasoning to find solutions for today’s problems.
It’s as easy as that.
Of one thing I am convinced and that is that, as long as people read The Conscience of a Conservative, the American conservative movement will never die and will always be on the forefront of those who demand a maximum amount of freedom for all.
Do I, then, have nothing negative to say about this book? Why yes, I do: it’s too damn short.
Lastly, let me thank the reader – who I know wishes to remain anonymous – who ordered this book for me, from my Amazon WishList: thank you very much.
(To be) cross posted at my own blog.
You can order this book by clicking on the image below.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
19 Responses to “Barry Goldwater’s The Conscience of a Conservative”
Test.
Too bad Reagan came along and bastardized the term beyond recognition, with runaway spending, deficits, and the perverse desire to peer into people’s bedrooms.
Cosmoetica: I am not in favor of so-called Religious Right either, but conservatism as described by Goldwater, well, I recognize my own thoughts in it. You should also always remember that Goldwater later spoke out against the influence of Religious Right / Social Conservatives. He was not, to put it mildly, fond of them and did not look forward to them taking over his GOP.
note: I think more positively about Reagan than you do. My ‘problem’ is more with today’s far right.
Cosmo, if I understand him correctly, actually makes a good point.
Ronald Reagan is widely considered to be the heir to Barry Goldwater, dating back to the famous speech he made at the Republican Convention the year Goldwater ran for president. Goldwater stressed the need for smaller government, a sentiment that Reagan also agreed with at the time, despite his prior history as a New Deal Democrat.
Then when Reagan ran for president in 1976 and particularly in 1980, Reagan made the smaller government message the central theme of his campaign. In fact, Reagan more or less campaigned on libertarianism, giving his famous quip, “Government isn’t the solution to the problem. Government is the problem.”
And then what did Reagan do as president. He expanded the power of government. He ramped up the War on (some) Drugs. He (along with a Democratic-controlled House and a Republican-controled Senate) drove up deficits. He vastly expanded Social Security. He didn’t abolish a single cabinet (as he had promised to do), and in fact added one (Dept. of Veterans Affairs).
Conservative Republicans praise Reagan as being an icon of American conservatism. But the fact of the matter is that under Reagan, conservatism abandoned the smaller government “libertarian” definition that Goldwater had believed in (and Reagan had espoused during his campaign).
I doubt that Goldwater would still be welcomed in the Republican Party if he were still alive today. Goldwater had an acrimonious relationship with the Religious Right and was concerned that its growing influence over his party would undermine the push for smaller government.
Sadly, he was right.
Modern-day conservatism is no longer defined by the ideals espoused by Goldwater. The Goldwater wing of the Republican Party displaced the more liberal Rockefeller wing, only to see itself quickly displaced by the neoconservative and social conservatives–many of whom were former Democrats.
Displaced by former Southern Dixiecrats, lets get that right.
Currentlt The Conscience of a Conservative is being used as toiletpaper by the GOP, and it started with Regan whom Goldwater came to dislike greatly.
Currently rather.
Very good points, and I do not consider Reagan to be the heir of Goldwater in that regard: I do consider him as the heir in so far that he ran on many policies favored by Goldwater and by the simple fact that without Goldwater, Reagan would not have become President. Also: his stance re. the Soviet Union was of course very Goldwaterish.
You are again right. Goldwater fought against the Rockefeller wing (what we could call more centrist nowadays) and, after that happened, neo and social conservatives took over, while Goldwater opposed that development very strongly.
Quite ironic of course.
Goldwater definitely wouldn’t fit in with today’s party> Many of Goldwater’s ideas were incorporated into John Dean’s book “Conservatives Without Conscience” which discussed the authoritarian power structure in today’s GOP. He felt the movement had largely been betrayed by Reagan’s alliance with the RR, and was quite bitter about it before his death. He was a libertarian and a mentor of Sandra Day O’Connors. I believe his own daughter had an abortion, and he was explicitly pro-choice.
“Conservatives without a Conscience” sounds very interesting Kim – i’ve added it to my wishlist.
When did you read it if I may ask and… did it influence you a lot?
Michael: had you grown up in inner city America under Reagan, your mind would not hold the same reverence. He absolutely DECIMATED millions of poor and minority families with his ignorance of the effects cutting spending wd have on homelessness, hunger, and disease- even beyond AIDS. Job training programs, that were helping the poor ameliorate since LBJ, were gone- and the country has yet to recover. And what he did to the Air Traffic Controllers was criminal. That DC’s airport is named after him is pissing on all working people.
Michael -I actually read it about 6 months ago, because I was so concerned about the lockstep nature of today’s GOP, and I wanted a conservative writer’s perspective. It helped me see that an authoritarian party structure,superior organization used for things like the K St project, and a lot of harsh rhetoric used to shut down debate, was enabling the Republicans to consolidate power for their goal of a permanent majority. Dean mostly identifies authoritarian characteristics of key players like Tom DeLay, George Bush and Dick Cheney. When the 8 atty’s were fired, and the GSA reported US tax money being used to reelect Republicans, I saw it immediately in that context.
And what he did to the Air Traffic Controllers was criminal... or so the traffic controllers think.
So do most people who desire fair wages and benefits. Glad you got yours, though.
Actually I read that David Stockman, the financial wiz that came up with Reaganomics, confessed in the Atlantic Monthly that it was really a scheme to help Reagan’s rich base. Why? Because in the greedy 80′s nothing ever ended up trickling down. Bush 41 had it right when he called it “voodoo economics”. No matter what conservative Republicans call it, it seems to work out the same. There was great inequality in the 80′s, as there is now. In that respect, Bush 43 has surpassed his role model.
Michael,
The Source for Goldwater, WFB, Reagan, et.al.: Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind
http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Mind-Burke-Eliot/dp/0895261715
Burke is the touchstone, Santanyana makes an appearance, as does Coleridge. The book is very dangerous, you will not find it on the shelf of any poli-sci faculty in America.
Re: Dean. Consider the source. His self-rehab campaign began very shortly after Nixon died, fortunately Dean’s complicity didn’t go to the grave with Dick. Expiation for the sins of the father (and son).
“Permanent majority?” Golly, like the Democrats wouldn’t love getting theirs (1932-1994) back? They’re on track to win the Pres, so good liberals will be voting for Fred Thompson, I presume, in 2008. “Authoritarian?” A very unserious, ahistorical meme. A racist meme as well (“It’s the Joooooozzzzz, oh wait can’t say that, ok, it’s the Christianzzzzzz”)
Cosmo: In what party were the mayors of those cities? (nb: I’m from Boston, a tough part.) What was the majority party in Congress? (see above)
While I think Goldwater might have been correct on one point of policy or another, this isn’t an answer. It throws us back to Hobbes and Locke and the idea of the social contract which creates government. The question for democratic governments is not simply freedom or no freedom, but whose freedom.
Do companies have the freedom to dispose of waste harmful to people? Or do people have the freedom to live in an environment as free as possible from polutants?
Do people have the freedom to place international phone calls without fear of being recorded? Or do people have the freedom to live in the state with less fear of being the victim of an international terrorist conspiracy?
Such choices are the toughest for governments to make, and there is no real way to “maximize freedom” because it is something close to a zero sum game. Ever time you protect one persons freedom, you inevitably limit someone elses. This does not mean that there is not a right way to draw that line, but simply looking to freedom alone cannot find you that answer most of the time.
Re: Dean. Consider the source. His self-rehab campaign began very shortly after Nixon died, fortunately Dean’s complicity didn’t go to the grave with Dick. Expiation for the sins of the father (and son).
But if it were not for Dean, we would never have known of Nixon’s involvement in Watergate. Others from that scandal and from Iran-Contra have rehabilitated their careers and no one even brings their prior crimes up-Gordon Liddy , Oliver North, Admiral Poindexter, Elliot Abrams, Caspar Weinberger, etc.
Really Reagan was as guilty as Nixon, but the stonewall held and the public was disinterested , so the Teflon President never was held accountable. Can you imagine in this day and age a president selling arms to Iran? If a Democrat did that there would have been charges of high treason.
Steve: The Mayors were Dems, but all the social programs, like Welfare, CETA, and many others were Fed based. A few were state based, but most were Fed based, and when the Feds pulled the plug, the holes were not filled by states or locals.
Sorry, but Reagan was the great evil maestro of the 80s- om this side of the Atlantic.