Conscience of a Conservative
From the dust jacket front flap:
$3.00
(Note: The $3.00 cover price in 1960 dollars is equivalent to $21.58 in 2008 dollars when adjusted for inflation. For all other dollar amounts in this book, you can multiply by $7.19 to adjust for inflation to 2008 dollars.)
First Printing 10,000 copies March 1960
Second Printing 10,000 copies April 1960
Third Printing 50,000 copies May 1960
"There is more harsh fact and hard sense in this slight book than will emerge from all of the chatter of this year's session of Congress, this year's campaign for the Presidency and all other offices ... Whereas the rest of the tribe of professional politicians keep a respectful distance in beating about the bush of truth, Barry Goldwater, the Republican Senator from Arizona, is not afraid to pluck it up by the roots."—George Morgenstern—Chicago Sunday Tribune
THE CONSCIENCE OF A CONSERVATIVE is sensational public revelation of that which is seldom if ever disclosed namely, the heartfelt convictions of a Washington politician.
Senator Barry Goldwater is not the only member of Congress who holds these truths but he is the only person in high public office who has frankly and publicly put all these truths together into a complete and cogent program of foreign and domestic policy.
This supremely sensible and eminently courageous book will shock orthodox politicians as much as it will gratify millions of Americans who are sick and tired of political contests between meaningless equivocations and undifferentiated distinctions.
The revealed conscience of this distinguished and singularly successful political Conservative will shed helpful light on the fabrication of both political platforms.
More important than that is the clear warning this book sounds about impending dangers to the survival of American freedom and the action it recommends to avoid these dangers.
EVERY AMERICAN WHO LOVES HIS COUNTRY SHOULD READ THIS BOOK.
From the dust jacket back flap:
FROM THE CONSCIENCE OF A CONSERVATIVE
THE COLD WAR:
A tolerable peace must follow victory over Communism... We should withdraw diplomatic relations from all Communist governments including the Soviet Union. It would give heart to the enslaved peoples and help them overthrow their captors.
STATES RIGHTS:
This cornerstone of our Republic, our chief bulwark against the encroachment of individual freedom by Big Government, is fast disappearing under the piling sands of absolutism. No powers regarding education were given the federal government. Despite the recent holding of the Supreme Court, I am firmly convinced that the Constitution does not permit any interference whatsoever by the federal government in the field of education.
SUPREME COURT:
I have great respect for the Supreme Court as an institution but I cannot believe that I display that respect by submitting abjectly to the abuses of power by the Court and by condoning its unconstitutional trespass into the legislative sphere of government.
FOREIGN AID:
It is not only ill administered but ill conceived. It has not made the free world stronger, it has made America weaker.
LABOR:
Right to work laws derive from the Natural Law. They are simply an attempt to give freedom of association the added protection of civil law... Let us henceforth make war on all monopolies whether corporate or union... The champions of freedom will fight against the concentration of power wherever they find it.
THE CONSCIENCE OF A CONSERVATIVE
by
BARRY GOLDWATER
1960
Copyright 1960
By VICTOR PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No reproduction in any form of this book, in whole or in part, (except for brief quotation in critical articles or reviews) may be made without written authorization from the publisher.
First Printing 10,000 copies March 1960
Second Printing 10,000 copies April 1960
Third Printing 50,000 copies May 1960
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 60-12269
2009 Edition
Copyright © 2009 Qualiteri Publishing.
v1.0
www.qualiteri.com
FOREWORD
THIS BOOK is not written with the idea
of adding to or improving on the Conservative philosophy. Or of "bringing it up to date." The ancient and tested truths that guided our Republic through its early days will do equally well for us. The challenge to Conservatives today is quite simply to demonstrate the bearing of a proven philosophy on the problems of our own time.
I should explain the considerations that led me to join in this effort. I am a politician, a United States Senator. As such, I have had an opportunity to learn something about the political instincts of the American people, I have crossed the length and breadth of this great land hundreds of times and talked with tens of thousands of people, with Democrats and Republicans, with farmers and laborers and businessmen. I find that America is fundamentally a Conservative nation. The preponderant judgment of the American people, especially of the young people, is that the radical, or Liberal, approach has not worked and is not working. They yearn for a return to Conservative principles.
At the same time, I have been in a position to observe first hand how Conservatism is faring in Washington. And it is all too clear that in spite of a Conservative revival among the people, the radical ideas that were promoted by the New and Fair Deals under the guise of Liberalism still dominate the councils of our national government.
In a country where it is now generally understood and proclaimed that the people's welfare depends on individual self reliance rather than on state paternalism, Congress annually deliberates over whether the increase in government welfarism should be small or large.
In a country where it is now generally understood and proclaimed that the federal government spends too much, Congress annually deliberates over whether to raise the federal budget by a few billion dollars or by many billion.
In a country where it is now generally understood and proclaimed that individual liberty depends on decentralized government, Congress annually deliberates over whether vigorous or halting steps should be taken to bring state government into line with federal policy.
In a country where it is now generally understood and proclaimed that Communism is an enemy bound to destroy us, Congress annually deliberates over means of "co-existing" with the Soviet Union.
And so the question arises: Why have American people been unable to translate their views into appropriate political action? Why should the nation's underlying allegiance to Conservative principles have failed to produce corresponding deeds in Washington?
I do not blame my brethren in government, all of whom work hard and conscientiously at their jobs. I blame Conservatives—ourselves—myself. Our failure, as one Conservative writer has put it, is the failure of the Conservative demonstration. Though we Conservatives are deeply persuaded that our society is ailing, and know that Conservatism holds the key to national salvation—and feel sure the country agrees with us—we seem unable to demonstrate the practical relevance of Conservative principles to the needs of the day. We sit by impotently while Congress seeks to improvise solutions to problems that are not the real problems facing the country, while the government attempts to assuage imagined concerns and ignores the real concerns and real needs of the people.
Perhaps we suffer from an over-sensitivity to the judgments of those who rule the mass communications media. We are daily consigned by "enlightened" commentators to political oblivion: Conservatism, we are told, is out-of-date. The charge is preposterous and we ought boldly to say so. The laws of God, and o
f nature, have no dateline. The principles on which the Conservative political position is based have been established by a process that has nothing to do with the social, economic and political landscape that changes from decade to decade and from century to century. These principles are derived from the nature of man, and from the truths that God has revealed about His creation. Circumstances do change. So do the problems that are shaped by circumstances. But the principles that govern the solution of the problems do not. To suggest that the Conservative philosophy is out of date is akin to saying that the Golden Rule, or the Ten Commandments or Aristotle's Politics are out of date. The Conservative approach is nothing more or less than an attempt to apply the wisdom and experience and the revealed truths of the past to the problems of today. The challenge is not to find new or different truths, but to learn how to apply established truths to the problems of the contemporary world. My hope is that one more Conservative voice will be helpful in meeting this challenge.
This book is an attempt to bridge the gap between theory and practice. I shall draw upon my speeches, the radio and television broadcasts and the notes I have made over the years in the hope of doing what one is often unable to do in the course of a harried day's work on the Senate floor: to show the connection between Conservative principles so widely espoused, and Conservative action, so generally neglected.
Table of Contents
FOREWORD
THE CONSCIENCE OF A CONSERVATIVE
THE PERILS OF POWER
STATES' RIGHTS
AND CIVIL RIGHTS
FREEDOM FOR THE FARMER
FREEDOM FOR LABOR
TAXES AND SPENDING
THE WELFARE STATE
SOME NOTES ON EDUCATION
THE SOVIET MENACE
C H A P T E R O N E
The Conscience of a Conservative
I HAVE BEEN much concerned that
so many people today with Conservative instincts feel compelled to apologize for them. Or if not to apologize directly, to qualify their commitment in a way that amounts to breast-beating. "Republican candidates," Vice President Nixon has said, "should be economic conservatives, but conservatives with a heart." President Eisenhower announced during his first term, "I am conservative when it comes to economic problems but liberal when it comes to human problems." Still other Republican leaders have insisted on calling themselves "progressive" Conservatives.* These formulations are tantamount to an admission that Conservatism is a narrow, mechanistic economic theory that may work very well as a bookkeeper's guide, but cannot be relied upon as a comprehensive political philosophy.
The same judgment, though in the form of an attack rather than an admission, is advanced by the radical camp. "We liberals," they say, "are interested in people. Our concern is with human beings, while you Conservatives are preoccupied with the preservation of economic privilege and status." Take them a step further, and the Liberals will turn the accusations into a class argument: it is the little people that concern us, not the "malefactors of great wealth."
Such statements, from friend and foe alike, do great injustice to the Conservative point of view. Conservatism is not an economic theory, though it has economic implications. The shoe is precisely on the other foot: it is Socialism that subordinates all other considerations to man's material well-being. It is Conservatism that puts material things in their proper place—that has a structured view of the human being and of human society, in which economics plays only a subsidiary role.
The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand,—in the name of a concern for "human beings"—regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society. They are, moreover, in a hurry. So that their characteristic approach is to harness the society's political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel "progress." In this approach, I believe they fight against Nature.
Surely the first obligation of a political thinker is to understand the nature of man. The Conservative does not claim special powers of perception on this point, but he does claim a familiarity with the accumulated wisdom and experience of history, and he is not too proud to learn from the great minds of the past.
The first thing he has learned about man is that each member of the species is a unique creature. Man's most sacred possession is his individual soul—which has an immortal side, but also a mortal one. The mortal side establishes his absolute differentness from every other human being. Only a philosophy that takes into account the essential differences between men, and, accordingly, makes provision for developing the different potentialities of each man can claim to be in accord with Nature. We have heard much in our time about "the common man." It is a concept that pays little attention to the history of a nation that grew great through the initiative and ambition of uncommon men. The Conservative knows that to regard man as part of an undifferentiated mass is to consign him to ultimate slavery.
Secondly, the Conservative has learned that the economic and spiritual aspects of man's nature are inextricably intertwined. He cannot be economically free, or even economically efficient, if he is enslaved politically; conversely, man's political freedom is illusory if he is dependent for his economic needs on the State.
The Conservative realizes, thirdly, that man's development, in both its spiritual and material aspects, is not something that can be directed by outside forces. Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development. The choices that govern his life are choices that he must make: they cannot be made by any other human being, or by a collectivity of human beings. If the Conservative is less anxious than his Liberal brethren to increase Social Security "benefits," it is because he is more anxious than his Liberal brethren that people be free throughout their lives to spend their earnings when and as they see fit.
So it is that Conservatism, throughout history, has regarded man neither as a potential pawn of other men, nor as a part of a general collectivity in which the sacredness and the separate identity of individual human beings are ignored. Throughout history, true Conservatism has been at war equally with autocrats and with "democratic" Jacobins. The true Conservative was sympathetic with the plight of the hapless peasant under the tyranny of the French monarchy. And he was equally revolted at the attempt to solve that problem by a mob tyranny that paraded under the banner of egalitarianism. The conscience of the Conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being. Today, therefore, he is at odds with dictators who rule by terror, and equally with those gentler collectivists who ask our permission to play God with the human race.
With this view of the nature of man, it is understandable that the Conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. The Conservative is the first to understand that the practice of freedom requires the establishment of order: it is impossible for one man to be free if another is able to deny him the exercise of his freedom. But the Conservative also recognizes that the political power on which order is based is a self-aggrandizing force; that its appetite grows with eating. He knows that the utmost vigilance and care are required to keep political power within its proper bounds.
In our day, order is pretty well taken care of. The delicate balance that ideally exists between freedom and order has long since tipped against freedom practically everywhere on earth. In some countries, freedom is altog
ether down and order holds absolute sway. In our country the trend is less far advanced, but it is well along and gathering momentum every day. 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? I suggest we examine some of the critical issues facing us today with this question in mind.
Notes
* This is a strange label indeed: it implies that "ordinary" Conservatism is opposed to progress. Have we forgotten that America made its greatest progress when Conservative principles were honored and preserved?
C H A P T E R T W O
The Perils of Power
THE NEW DEAL, Dean Acheson wrote
approvingly in a book called A Democrat Looks At His Party, "conceived of the federal government as the whole people organized to do what had to be done." A year later Mr. Larson wrote A Republican Looks At His Party, and made much the same claim in his book for Modern Republicans. The "underlying philosophy" of the New Republicanism, said Mr. Larson, is that "if a job has to be done to meet the needs of the people, and no one else can do it, then it is the proper function of the federal government."
Here we have, by prominent spokesmen of both political parties, an unqualified repudiation of the principle of limited government. There is no reference by either of them to the Constitution, or any attempt to define the legitimate functions of government. The government can do whatever needs to be done; note, too, the implicit but necessary assumption that it is the government itself that determines what needs to be done. We must not, I think underrate the importance of these statements. They reflect the view of a majority of the leaders of one of our parties, and of a strong minority among the leaders of the other, and they propound the first principle of totalitarianism: that the State is competent to do all things and is limited in what it actually does only by the will of those who control the State.