Goldwater (11 cents)

This replaces my earlier posting, which did not do the trick.

Here is what I wanted to say:

In 1964, the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater, Arizona senator, to run for president against Lyndon Johnson. Johnson won almost every state, in large part because even most of the Republicans thought Goldwater too conservative. Goldwater supporters were considered dangerous by most people, and in 1968, the Republicans changed course and nominated the very, very politically moderate Richard Nixon.

Goldwater had written a book in 1960, called Conscience of a Conservative, published by a small southern press (later republished many times), which laid out his political philosophy. I recently bought a signed first edition, and thought I would read it to see whether he seemed a radical in 2006 as he did in 1964.

The book is very short, and extremely simplistic and quick to read. I can see how it attracted the interest of so many people, who probably were not used to reading books of political thought.

His position is clear. An active federal government could easily become despotic. This is why the constitution left so much to the states. An active government at any level saps individuals of their individuality. This is why small government is better than big.

The role of government in defense is clear. He states that he is a firm supporter of equal opportunity as set forth in the 5th and 14th amendments. He believes in a strong social security program (suprise there) to give seniors sufficient (but not overly generous) resources by which to live.

But look at civil rights. He believes in one man, one vote (nothing by the way is said in the book about women, not suprising for the time), but he also believes that the constitution does not require integrated schools, and that this is a matter of states' rights. He himself, he says, favors integration, but who is he to tell what the people of Mississippi or Alabama want?
He is against democracy (too unwieldy, and likely to lead to dictatorship of the majority) and in favor of a republican system, which he says we have. But isn't an Alabama declaration of school segregation an exercise in dictatorship of the majority?

Presumably, if the constitution said to "integrate the schools", he would say OK. But, he said, when the 14th amendment was passed, the states who passed it maintained segregated schools, so you can't say that the 14th amendment requires integration.

He talks about federal spending, which he says, even in Republican administrations, grows consistently and is too high. But he warns against cutting taxes (which he generally is in favor of doing) without cutting expenses as being disastrous for the country.

He does not like welfare; he thinks that it contributes to classes of people growing dependant on the federal government, and then believing that they have entitlements, and their growth and development would be sapped for generations. In certain ways, he is correct, but he does not talk about any programs to assist those who really need it (other than through social security), such as those who are ill or disabled. He expects that, generally, everything will work out.

You can't fight mother nature. That's another theme of sorts. He says that equality of opportunity is important, but that nature endows people differently and some will fail and some succeed. He says that any attempt to equalize the results is doomed to failure.

He is very strong on education, but on basic, hard education, not the "progressive" education that was in vogue. And he is against any federal assistance to education, as leading to federal controls.

The final part of the book deals with foreign policy: Cuba and the Soviet Union. It says what you think it would. Carry a big stick, and don't give in. He is not all wrong in this area.

It was interesting to read. Some of the political issues today are, of course, different. But the philosophical issues remain the same. I should look at some of his last writing to see if he changed any of these basic positions as he grew into the role of beloved, elder statesman.