Is Ron Paul Goldwater’s Heir?
Filed under: 2008 elections, Barry Goldwater, Feature, Ron Paul — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on December 29, 2007 @ 3:21 pm CET
A couple of days ago I read this column by John Derbyshire for National Review Online, which he wrote little over a week ago. In it, the conservative columnist endorses Ron Paul, arguing that the time has come for Libertarianism to be implemented.
One of the main reasons that Derbyshire endorses Paul is that the government has become increasingly bigger, with even the Vice President having a gigantic staff. In fact, Dick Cheney’s staff is so big that Derbyshire decided that it would be useful for him to do some research as to find out how many advisers and staff Cheney exactly has. Soon, however, he ran into a brick wall. There is, Derbyshire writes, simply no way to find out how big Cheney’s staff exactly is.
Not only that, however, not only does Cheney have a gigantic staff, he also has a lot of power (power which the Constitution doesn’t grand the VP).
To make matters even worse, not only does Cheney himself have a staff, his wife has one as well. “Where is that in the Constitution?” Derbyshire asks rhetorically.
His research made Derbyshire wonder “[h]ow on earth did we arrive at this point of vast, bloated, and secretive government, in which the wives of inconsequential federal officials (the office of the vice presidency used to be a byword for inconsequentiality — “bucket of warm p***,” etc.) have chiefs of staff, whose actual staffs and actual budgets are undiscoverable by a reasonably intelligent citizen?”
These questions, and these concerns, led Derb - as others call him (and he calls himself) - to support Ron Paul. He quotes a reader in his column who, like him, was an avid support of Ronald Reagan and a believer in Barry Goldwater’s ideas and ideals. This readers wrote Derb that he wonders what happened to the party he “signed on with.” Big government conservatives have, it seems, taken over the GOP and Reagan’s - and Goldwater’s - legacies have been squandered.
The column made me think about Goldwater and I wondered in how far one could argue that Ron Paul is indeed Goldwater’s ideological heir. When one looks at the current crop of Republican favorites - and by that I mean the ones who do best in the polls - one can’t help but think that none of them, literally, are Goldwaterites. Goldwater was quite radical in his views: yes, he was in favor of an aggressive foreign policy, but like Paul he wondered what tens of thousands of American troops were doing in Europe, and foreign policy wasn’t the only thing on his agenda. He had a far reaching domestic agenda.
His domestic agenda was, perhaps, more radical (as some would call it) than his views on foreign policy. Domestically, he wanted to reduce the size of government by cutting entire programs and by pushing the federal government back into its Constitutional bounds. Goldwater wanted to get rid of the department of Health, Education and Welfare*, he opposed federal programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and so on. Social Security is something he considered to be a State issue, not a federal issue.
Yes, that’s radical alright, but that’s also the platform which was embraced by conservatives all across the United States and which eventually was adopted by Reagan who went on to become America’s president.
None of the Republicans of today, however, share Goldwater’s - or Reagan’s for that matter - views. They often remind me of the people Goldwater was rallying against: they’re people who don’t talk about - or they talk the talk but certainly never walk the walk - reducing the size of the government, but - instead - about slowing down the growth of it. This is exactly the attitude Goldwater despised, yet so many American conservatives adhere to it nonetheless.
With “none of the Republicans” (candidates) of today, I mean none, except for Ron Paul. Derbyshire is most certainly right about that: Paul is the only one who truly talks about reducing the size of government significantly and who’s willing to cut not one, but several programs entirely, who wants to give the states what’s constitutionally there’s in the first place, and who’s more than willing to abolish entire departments.
Is Paul, then, Goldwater’s heir?
I asked Derbyshire this in an e-mail, in which I argued that - in my opinion - one of the main differences between Paul and Goldwater is that Paul is anything but a foreign policy hawk. In my opinion, Goldwater would’ve been a proponent of aggressive action against extremist countries and terrorist organizations. Derbyshire, however, wrote back:
Goldwater came to prominence during the Cold War, when we were threatened by a great power with massed armies and huge nuclear stockplies. Libertarianism had to be put on hold. William F. Buckley explained that.
We face no similar threat today. A rabble of Muslim fanatics won’t bring down this republic. Nobody knows what the future holds, and we should maintain appropriate defenses. Appropriate, that is, to a commercial republic with no major enemies. We can be Switzerland (which, by the way, is a very well-defended country).
On the one hand true, on the other hand… In preparation for this article I re-read Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative and I noticed that he didn’t just argue that the US should adopt an aggressive foreign policy against the Soviet Union because doing so was in its own immediate interest, but also because it was the right thing to do.Ronald Reagan too referred to this battle and duty as well. Goldwater and Reagan believed that it was immoral to let communists put people into slavery.
Can’t we, then, argue that Goldwater would’ve supported an aggressive foreign policy today as well, if not because terrorists pose an immediate threat to America (9/11 showed that they do of course, although they can’t bring the US down, they can most certainly kill thousands of innocent Americans) then because it’s immoral to let extremists put other peoples into slavery?
Another main difference between Goldwater and Paul is, in my opinion, that foreign policy seems to be the only thing Paul talks about these days. He seldom truly talks about domestic issues anymore. In other words, Goldwater’s platform was much broader, much more complete.
Having said that, if one honestly compares Paul to Goldwater one can’t but conclude that Paul is the closest thing to Goldwater the Republicans currently have to offer. As Barry Goldwater Jr. (Barry Goldwater’s son) also seems to believe (he endorsed Ron Paul).
And that’s one of the reasons that - although I have criticized Paul on many occasions in the past and will continue to do so - I sympathize with him and his views. Paul isn’t perfect, far from it even, and I disagree with him on a number of issues, but it would be wise for American conservatives to take him more seriously than they’ve done till now and to adopt some of his views.
Paul shows that libertarian conservatives ala Goldwater still exist - in large numbers even - and that they’re not happy with the current state the GOP’s in. I suggest American conservatives take this lesson to heart.
*Fixed, thanks to John C. Randolph.
1 Joe
December 29, 2007 @ 3:33 pm CETAmen brotha! Many would argue what Goldwater would do – I just find it ironic that Barry Goldwater Jr. has publicly endorsed Congressman Paul and I hope many concrete conservatives at least take a look.
2 amy lynn
December 29, 2007 @ 3:37 pm CETGreat article! Really well written. I think Ron Paul is the only cadidate that has any integrity at all. The others will say and do anything to get elected and stay in power.
3 C Stanley
December 29, 2007 @ 3:50 pm CETI shouldn’t enter a discussion on a Ron Paul thread, I guess, because I can’t clear my schedule for the next 24 hours to be at my computer so I’ll undoubtedly be accused of ducking out of a debate at some point. But, here goes, anyway:
That’s spot on, IMO. For example, yesterday the Ron Paul supporters who were commenting here asked how those of us who support an aggressive foreign policy believe it should be paid for. My response to that is that it’s mainly domestic spending we should cut (that’s where most of the growth has been anyway) and military spending should be done as efficiently as possible (cut out all of the waste, fraud, earmarks, and giveaways to family members of Congress who just coincidentally happen to work in the MIC or lobby for them.)
Another thing is that Goldwater was fairly radical for his time, but would be even more so today. The GOP unfortunately has moved far away from fiscal conservativism, and I think the party will need to make incremental reforms in order to regain good faith on the issue. You can’t suddenly campaign on a message of cutting spending when your own party has massively increased it (and on domestic as well as military spending.) You’ve got to gradually shift the discussion and back up your rhetoric with action before the voters will take you seriously in that regard again- and you’ve got to get people back on track of thinking about why spending reform is necessary, not just expect them to give up their favored programs cold turkey.
4 Michael van der Galien
December 29, 2007 @ 4:06 pm CETAlthough I agree with most of your comment, I have to say that I strongly disagree with this:
Goldwater found himself in the same situation. The Rockefeller Republicans were like that. In fact, as Goldwater explained back then, there was very little difference in ideology between Republicans and Democrats.
Gradually isn’t necessary - well, not if you have a long term plan. If you want to win in 08, yes, but if you’re OK with winning 8 years later, then a radical agenda is good (look at Goldwater - Reagan - that’s 16 years, but you get the point).
5 Jacob
December 29, 2007 @ 4:32 pm CETI’m no expert on politics or foreign policy, but after looking into a lot of the discussion, i’m pretty set in my backing of Paul’s foreign policy. The question i have for all the conservatives who disagree with him is this: we would all agree that it is not the responsibility of the federal government to help the needy in our country (that would be socialism) and that it should be left to states & voluntary org.s. If that’ so, then why would we think it’s the federal government’s (& American Tax-Payer’s) responsibility to help the needy in other countries?? it seems like global socialism to me…? I agree that many people around the world need help..just like many here do. I just dont think that socialism is the answer.
Plus, there are plenty of needy countries that dont recieve very much aid from us…are we really doing it to "help the people" or are there other incentives? If we are going to commit to being the Nanny of the World, then we need to realize the implications and maybe think twice. ??
6 sashal
December 29, 2007 @ 4:39 pm CETgreat post, Michael.
One thing I think we disagree upon is what constitutes aggressive foreign policies.
We certainly should be engaging and promoting our interests in the world and stand for liberty, we certainly should not resort to wars anytime some neoconcervative brain has an itch to bomb another third rate country.
Here is another quite reasonable thing Derb said :
Noah: If I understood you correctly, your argument there is that Iran wants to be the hegemon in the ME — as we are in the Americas, as China hopes to be in the Far East — and that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is meant to, and actually will, bolster that ambition.I agree that something of the kind is in the minds of the Iranian leadership. Whether they can achieve their ambition against big local rivals (Egypt, S.A., Turkey) will be interesting to see. A lot of old-fashioned history is going to be played out there.But suppose Iran were to attain her hegemonic ambition. This will hurt the U.S.A. … how? You say it would be putting "the economic health of the nation in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s hands." How would it do that? Because Iran would control ME oil and refuse to sell it to us? Oil markets don’t, and in fact couldn’t, work like that. World oil production will anyway soon begin to decline. Cheap oil is a thing of the past. "Let’s declare war against Iran so we can prolong the cheap-oil fantasy for a few more years" — not, in my opinion, a very inspiring slogan.As for "the security architecture in the Middle East that America has enforced, however shakily, for decades," well, I think "shakily" is putting it very kindly. The ten-year Iran-Iraq war? The replacing of Soviet puppet rule in Afghanistan by jihadists? Three Arab-Israeli wars? Two gulf wars? "Shakily"? I would say.If, as seems to be the case, Muslim Middle Easterners are addicted to mayhem, it seems to me we should stay out of their countries, except for monitory attacks on them — ferocious but brief — in retaliation for anything they do to us or our interests. Given the rivalries and hatreds of the ME, I doubt a stable Iranian hegemony is possible. If it is possible, it’s something we’ll learn to live with, and no direct threat to the U.S.A. that I can see.If all that is wrong — if Iranian ME hegemony is probable, and a threat to our country — how shall we prevent it? From all I have read and heard, the only way to permanently scotch Iran’s nuclear ambitions would be to invade the country, overthrow the government, nullify their armed forces, and maintain an army of occupation there for decades.Your chances of selling that program to the American people are … what? Compared to, oh, say, the chances of Ron Paul being the Republican presidential candidate next fall?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTUzN2NjZThlZmQ5YTFhZDBmMzY5YzVlNDA5Y2U0MTc=
7 Jim McClarin
December 29, 2007 @ 5:26 pm CETThis part is cerainly false:
"Another main difference between Goldwater and Paul is, in my opinion, that foreign policy seems to be the only thing Paul talks about these days. He seldom truly talks about domestic issues anymore. In other words, Goldwater’s platform was much broader, much more complete."
It has often been remarked by Paul, his staffers, and reporters that his biggest applause line in his speeches is that the Federal Reserve system needs to be abolished. Paul is a noted free-market economist in his own right. He entered politics out of his concern for US fiscal policy and includes healthy portions of economic theory in his stump speeches. He constantly addresses the looming Social Security crisis and the changes required to solve it, the great harm done by the costly and entirely ineffective War on Drugs, the deleterious impact of government policy on health care costs, the drag on US education by federally-imposed mandates, and the insanity of providing cradel-to-grave social services that serve as a magnet to so many illegal immigrants these days.
Watch some YouTube videos of Ron Paul speeches to get an accurate view of the breadth of his platform. The old media may choose to report mostly on his foriegn policy utterances but you can do better than that.
8 Jim McClarin
December 29, 2007 @ 5:28 pm CETOoops! I tried to format your text
"Another main difference between Goldwater and Paul is, in my opinion, that foreign policy seems to be the only thing Paul talks about these days. He seldom truly talks about domestic issues anymore. In other words, Goldwater’s platform was much broader, much more complete."
9 J Bradford
December 29, 2007 @ 5:47 pm CETTo say that Ron Paul only talks about foreign policy these days, without addressing what he would do domestically, is a little inaccurate.
Perhaps, his foreign policy gets brought up more than his domestic policies is because he is the only Republican against the aggressive stance we currently take. His domestic policies SHOULD be inline with the other GOP candidates - they’re all supposed to be for balanced budgets, smaller government, etc… so the interviews he’s in or debates seldom address those issues. Sadly, he is the only one that actually wants to reduce the size of government and not just slow the growth.
Paul cannot help the questions asked of him during his interviews - it is not his fault they focus more on his foreign policy.
As for his domestic policy, he is for cutting, if not elimnating most Depts, such as, Education, Homeland Security, Energy, FEMA, etc… He wants to allow younger people to opt out of Social Security but does not want to kick those dependent on it and Medicare off. He knows that people have grown very dependent on our social programs so to eliminate those altogether will take a long time. Besides, he can do none of those own his own, it will take the cooperation of Congress to get those done.
He can however, as Commander in Chief, immediately begin the withdrawal of our troops and start saving money in our foreign affairs.
His domestic proposals are much more detailed than any of his GOP rivals. To say that he doesn’t talk about it much is almost laughable - name one other candidate that offers any substance to their plans, other than saying "i’m going to cut spending" or "i’m going to balance the budgets"… they offer nothing as to what they’ll actually do. Paul, has at least laid out what he wants to do and actually has a plan to reduce the size of the federal government, not just "slow its growth."
10 John C. Randolph
December 29, 2007 @ 6:05 pm CETSorry to nitpick, but back in Goldwater’s time, there wasn’t a Department of Education. There was a department of Health, Education and Welfare. It was Carter’s idea to make the DoE.-jcr
11 Linda Inveninato
December 29, 2007 @ 6:10 pm CETIn reading about Barry Goldwater’s feelings on "just" war…
I wonder if he would have included the Iraq War, an "oil grab" sold to the US taxpayer with lies of WMD’s, as a "just" war…
I wonder if he would’ve endorsed the $628 billion dollar/year military expenditure. This figure does not include the Veterans Department Spending which puts this figure near $1 trillion dollars. Would he have permitted the huge military footprint involved in nation building? Hmm, 700+bases in more than 130 countries. Nothing conservative about that….
Would he have waged war with Afghanistan over terrorists who came from Saudi Arabia?
12 David
December 29, 2007 @ 7:28 pm CETWith all due respect to Derbyshire, I think his relaxed view of Iranian hegemony in the Middle East is deluded.
Now that we are 6 years on from 9/11 I would have thought that one lesson that should have been learned is that events in remote and backward parts of the world can and do have effects in the US.
Let’s assume that there is an Iranian hegemony in the Middle East. Derbyshire says this is nothing to worry about, the Iranians will still have to sell the US the oil. Really? Does he not grasp that some countries use their natural resources to advance what they perceive to be their foreign policy goals and not their mere commercial interests. For an example of this lets look at Russia and its gas. Russia sells its gas to allied countries at rates well below market levels. One consequence of this is that, as happened last winter, it can turn off the gas taps if the country does not keep in line. This is what happened on a small scale with the Ukraine.
So Iran could seek to sell its oil at cheaper than the commercial level to increase its influence. It could also up the price, after all oil prices have always had an element of the cartel about them. Oil is a necessary resource to the US; handing control of a cartel setting its price to a US enemy is stupidity. It is a bit like giving a sworn enemy your money to invest trusting that he will do it well because he is going to make a commission on it. Mistakes in the past by George Bush or the neoconservatives do not make this policy any less stupid.
One point that highly ideological political views seem to fail to realise is that politics is not primarily about impersonal forces, but about human beings and their choices. If someone tried to convince you that they had a solution to all your career or financial problems by applying an ideological set of answers you would rightly dismiss them as charlatans. Unfortunately such charlatanism somehow seems credible when the vastly more complex problems of world politics come into view. Countries outside the US exist to serve their own interests and are not just pale passive reactors to US policies.
13 Larry in SC
December 29, 2007 @ 8:58 pm CETI understand Ron Paul’s "stay out of entangling alliances" stand and I agree with him. I think, however, that folks tend to take that as he’s not willing to stand up when war is necessary. That’s not what I’ve heard him say nor insinuate.
I have, in person and in writings and other speeches, heard him say that the president is the commander-in-chief and if the Congress deems war is necessary, they should declare it and then it is his responsibility to carry out that declaration.
In other words, if "the people" through the people’s representatives declare that war is necessary, then he would fight to WIN it. I feel a lot safer with that attitude than I do with a president who manipulates U.N. resolutions to take us t0 war under false pretenses.
I don’t think Ron Paul is the dove that some feel he is.
14 Steven Talcott Smith
December 30, 2007 @ 5:50 am CETTo many, Goldwater is the gold standard conservative. He predates me but my mother campaigned for him. Perhaps Ron Paul will set a new standard for a new era.I have to believe BG would see through the neo-conservative hysterics of today. Wouldn’t he question the limitless spending growth, reckless foreign policy, injury to The Constitution and destruction of our liberty? How is any of this conservative?
15 Tess
December 30, 2007 @ 6:02 am CETGreat Article, thank you. Ron Paul has my vote and support.
16 CC
December 30, 2007 @ 6:05 am CETwell all I can say in rent/or buy Mr. Conservative to make your real judgement. It gives a up close and view of Goldwater, the see he relates Ron Paul
17 CC
December 30, 2007 @ 6:18 am CET………then see how it relates to Ron Paul. It’s good and extremely enjoyable