Barry Goldwater’s The Conscience of a Conservative
Filed under: Barry Goldwater, Books, Conservatism, Reviews, Ronald Reagan — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on April 1, 2007 @ 7:02 pm CEST
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.
1 domajot
April 1, 2007 @ 9:55 pm CESTI remember Goldwater’s comments from a long time ago; now I will have to read the book.
Generally, though, I feel too old and jaded to expect to find ‘the answer’ in any one guru. When all is said and done, it really comes down to how his, or anyone’s, ideas are translated into practice.
Since we still argue about the Constitution, there seems to no direct link, just a lot of separate paths.
2 mvdg
April 1, 2007 @ 9:59 pm CESTDoma: of course. My view on this matter is: read, let yourself be inspired, think and… draw your own conclusions.
In the end, I only agree with myself, and sometimes not even that I am afraid.
Yes - get the book. Again: if you don’t read the entire book, read, then, at least the first official chapter “The Conscience of a Conservative” (although I have to admit that there is no doubt in my mind that you will finish the book easily, with pleasure and interest).
3 domajot
April 1, 2007 @ 10:40 pm CESTMVDG-
Luckily, there is an occasion coming up for which I can give subtle hints as to gifts that would be appreciated.
4 Interested
April 2, 2007 @ 4:42 pm CESTGood Review Michael.
I’m anxious to get a copy for myself. I for one favor State Rights over Federal rights. And get discouraged at the Republican’s dropping the ball on the smaller government philosophy. I would imagine that giving the States back their rights would lend to smaller governemnt.
Or at least it should, although not many politicans/parties are overally willing to give up power once they have it.
5 mvdg
April 2, 2007 @ 4:56 pm CESTAnd that’s exactly the reason why an expansion of power should be considered very carefully and should be ‘made official’ by changing the Constitution.
Once people have power, they won’t let go of it anymore.
At least, not voluntarily.
Thanks for the compliment Interested and you should definitely get a copy for yourself as well.
6 Interested
April 2, 2007 @ 5:14 pm CESTkind of like an episode of West Wing where a report was commissioned to find out how many commissioned reports there are out there.
7 mvdg
April 2, 2007 @ 5:19 pm CESTlol
answer = unknown + 1
8 domajot
April 2, 2007 @ 5:41 pm CESTI should read the book before I comment, but lack of knowledage never stopped me before. (I hope this is a HaHa statement.)
The states’ rights banner exemplifies the main barrier to my ever becoming a true conservative, or a libertarian, or a liberal. There are great ideas proposed by various factions, but sooner or later, an idea as a guide post morphs into a cure-all for every situation.
States’ rights has become the latest clarion call for conservatives. I see occasions where deference to states is appropriate and others whete it would be disasterous. For one thing, states have a rather poor record of defending the minority against the tyranny of the majority. There are other issues, as well.
Frankly, as migrations now are taking place in more varied dierections, I suspect that states’ rights will diminish as a rallying call.
I think it is more fruitful to examine each policy issue on its own merits than to bring it all under the umbrella of states rights - or any other axiom of political parties.
9 mvdg
April 2, 2007 @ 5:46 pm CESTDoma: you really should read The Conscience of a Conservative. Goldwater deals with those type of concerns, at least to a degree.
10 mvdg
April 2, 2007 @ 5:46 pm CESTAlso a question: in the right side bar I have put the “recent comments” field. Do any of you use it, or do you all ignore the sidebar?
11 Interested
April 2, 2007 @ 6:05 pm CESTmvdg - I use the recent comments a lot - could even use it to be expanded for that matter.
Doma. I need to read the book too - but to reply. There certainly are some that advocate total State Rights as opposed to a shift towards State Rights. And it certainly is not new, I recall the debate over 20 years ago happening about it. I personally prefer a closer to equal power, but the emphasis being on State Rights.
It really is quite a crux of it all. In some areas such as protecting children or minority issues or the biggest of all - currency. Those really do need a blanket policy that the Federal level can provide. But some administrations or more commonly - some Sessions of Congress lean to or away from State Rights. In fact one of the underlying tests the Supreme Court is supposed to hold a case against is, is this a State Rights case or a Federal Rights Case. It is that important of an issue. In every document you look at back in the foundation of the USA is the argument of the protection of State Rights. - for good reason imo. For while your right that States have some poor records, there are others with stellar records. And the Federal level is not anything close to a shining example without regrets.
It’s best when the two compliment each other. For instance, Marriage legally granted in one state is recognized state by state, same with driver licenses. However there are no Federal marriages, nor is there a federal driver license. I for one cannot really think of any reason to Federalize either one. (although I do see a federal drivers license coming).
12 mvdg
April 2, 2007 @ 6:17 pm CESTOkay, cool, I will have a look at it. Personally, I find it very handy as well.
re. states rights: I think that Goldwater makes a very good point when he writes that most politicians, since FDR seem to adhere to the following reasoning: if the states don’t do something well, the federal government should take care of it.
But that’s not what the Constitution says about the matter: you can increase the power of the federal government, but you have to change the law first. If you don’t, the danger is very real that, in the (near) future, your political opponents will use that same broad interpretation to push through their ideas.
We can connect that to Bush, for instance, with his view on executive power. Many Republicans trust Bush with this power, but they have to ask themselves, what if a Democrat is in power?
13 Interested
April 2, 2007 @ 6:23 pm CESTyes, we agree on that. And both parties have used the executive branch to try and increase their numbers in the Supreme Court, coupled with Legislative branches to circumvent the otherwise much harder process of Constitutional Amendments.
14 mvdg
April 2, 2007 @ 6:33 pm CESTExactly Interested.
I am not even American, and it is frustrating to me. It is almost impossible to believe that people just circumvented the great system you all have, instead of trying to work within the rules determined by some great men.
15 Interested
April 2, 2007 @ 6:43 pm CESTThat some say had a great sense of what may come down the road. I say that they just had an incredible grasp of history. But your right on the money, a law made that is not a constitutional amendment can be made easier than a constitutional amendment can, but it can also be easier to circumvent, to alter, to misuse.
16 mvdg
April 2, 2007 @ 6:48 pm CESTAgreed. What they did was look at history and say ‘history repeats itself’, ‘human nature doesn’t change’, ’so this is likely to happen in the future again if we do not come up with something’.
Great students of history they were. All of them.
17 domajot
April 2, 2007 @ 6:49 pm CESTTo clarify: I was using states’ rights as an example of how a principle is expanded by politics to encompass every issue under the sun. This was not an attempt to parse states’ rights per se.
Then, we get to the use of the Constitution as an argument. Every side of every issue cites the Constitution as ‘clearly’ backing its view. The fact is, there are wide gaps in thinking on 1) how the Constiturion should be interpreted, and 2) what its text implies for a specific issue.
It’s remarkable how the Constiturion ‘clearly’ states whatever the political position of the reader of it is.
On the whole, the push and pull of differences in the interpretation of the Constituion and, equally, on the issue of states’ rights is a good thing, as one side prevents the other from leading to disasterous extremes.
My gripe (and point of temper falshes) is that in the debates, neither side acknowledges that the other side exists legitemately.
I prefer the Sandra O’Connor approach of paying attention to how a law affects real people living real lives.
18 domajot
April 2, 2007 @ 6:52 pm CESTPS-
I also use the side bar.
19 mvdg
April 2, 2007 @ 7:03 pm CESTWell, one of the things I found interesting about Goldwater is that he, every now and then, says that he believes the government should do something, but that just because he believes the government should fix a particular problem, does not mean that he, then, should interprete the Constitution in a way it has never been interpreted before to push through his ideals.
I am a former law student as you might know and I know about interpretations: there is no such thing as an objective interpretation. It is impossible. Of that, I am fully aware. I am, however, also aware of the dangerous of a relativistic approach to legal interpretation. There is one story about an ancient roman legal scholar who was able to defend everything and, in the end, did not know true from false anymore, what he stood for, etc. (it’s something of a warning to those studying law).
My point? The same can happen to a nation.
20 domajot
April 2, 2007 @ 7:39 pm CESTMVDG-
You are right, of course. I have personally had conversations that veer so far into interpretations that no statement has any longer any meaning.
Another point to ponder: adjeremce to an ideology leads to the kind of legal contortions done by Gonzales in order to make the law fit into pre-conceived judgment on what is the right thing to do. I read an interesting blog by a libertarian trying to reconcile his aversion to illegal immigration and his libertarianism.
That is precisely why I cringe and run from ideologies and stick to the pragmatic. No ism has my allegience. I have my personal ideals and taboos, and keeping those in mind, I choose among the options at hand as best as I can.
21 mvdg
April 2, 2007 @ 7:58 pm CESTThat is a very good example and, agreed. That is, indeed, the danger of adhering too strongly to an ideology.