Goldwater Unfiltered

The private journals of the father of the modern conservative movement

Daniel McCarthy from the June 2008 issue

(Page 2 of 2)

Regrettably, Pure Goldwater tells us little about the senator’s relationship with Reagan. The book’s historical sequence breaks off after the Ford administration, and the last three chapters survey, in scattershot fashion, Goldwater’s views on a handful of controversial issues: foreign policy, abortion, homosexuality, immigration, and campaign finance. The policy thought on display here and throughout the book will by turns delight and infuriate every part of the political spectrum. When he first came to the Senate, Goldwater abhorred France’s colonial meddling in Indochina. “It seemed rather inconsistent to me, inconsistent certainly with the principles of this Republic,” he wrote in his journal, “that we, who have fought so hard for freedom against Britain, would now be supporting openly a country like France with colonizing ambitions.” Later he ardently supported the U.S. war in Vietnam—in the name of anticommunism rather than colonialism—urging Nixon to mine the harbors and bomb the dikes of North Vietnam.

His business experience and military service taught Goldwater to be skeptical of government spending, especially military spending. In his first Senate run, his statement of principles included a plank declaring, “The military is the greatest waster of money and manpower we have. They must be made to conduct their affairs in a businesslike manner.” But during the Nixon years, Goldwater became a fierce advocate for a civilian aeronautical boondoggle: federal aid for the development of an American supersonic transport to rival the British-French Concorde and (believe it or not) a Soviet commercial SST. Goldwater’s reaction upon seeing the instrumentation in the Russian prototype is a vintage slice of Cold War paranoia: “What I saw in the Russian 144 appeared to be very old and extremely unsophisticated but, frankly, no one knows what they had hiding under the floor.”

Today’s conservatives will balk at Goldwater’s social views. He initially welcomed the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. “I think that abortion should be legalized,” he wrote to a constituent in 1973, “because whether it is legal or not, women are going to have it done.” He quickly adopted a vaguer stance, dropping his talk about legalization and telling constituents “the issue [is] squarely up to each state legislature.” After leaving the Senate in 1986, however, he came out explicitly in favor of abortion rights. He also became an outspoken advocate of gay rights, not only calling for an end to the ban on homosexuals in the military but endorsing anti-discrimination legislation as well.

Decades earlier, Goldwater had voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act precisely on the grounds that its anti-discrimination clauses would infringe on states’ rights and individual property rights. His turnaround on anti-discrimination legislation has never been fully explained, though a 1994 statement included in Pure Goldwater supports the idea that his reasons were more personal than philosophical. “My grandchildren and great-grandchildren are growing up in Arizona,” he said. “Some of them are gay, some of them aren’t. But because Arizona doesn’t have a law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation, they may not all get a fair shake.”

From any vantage point, Barry Goldwater was far from perfect and far from perfectly consistent. Yet he still finds admirers among conservatives, libertarians, and even liberals. If everyone can find something to object to in his record, nearly everyone also can find something to like. And imperfect though he was, Goldwater at least tried to live up to his ideal of clean politics. He wasn’t always candid, but he shot from the hip often enough that voters could tell themselves they were hearing something like the truth.

No Goldwater fan can do without a copy of Pure Goldwater; but no one who isn’t already a fan will get much out of it. This book is a stopgap at best, until the journal itself is published—assuming there’s any more substance to it than what’s on display here, which may or may not be the case. An edition of collected letters is much needed as well. But until those come along, readers can get their fix of the unscripted, unghosted conscience of a conservative from Pure Goldwater.

Daniel McCarthy is associate editor of The American Conservative.

Page: < 12

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

Bingo|5.27.08 @ 3:04PM|#

I'm already taking issue with the article and I haven't even read the first paragraph. The subtitle is "The private journals of the father of the modern conservative movement." Excluding Ron Paul, Goldwater has almost nothing in common with those in office that call themselves "conservatives."

Can we please stop pretending the modern "conservative" movement has anything in common with small government ideals?

|5.27.08 @ 3:51PM|#

Goldwater was the one of fathers of the modern conservative movement (I would argue that Buckley and Kirk as well play a prominent role). It's not his fault that his children are CINO's. Actually, the conservatives of today have more in common with the Rockefeller Republicans of yesteryear than the likes of Barry Goldwater.

AuH20!

|5.27.08 @ 4:01PM|#

Paleo-Conservatives: Eisenhower, Nixon
Modern-Conservatives: Goldwater, Reagan
Neo-Conservatives: GW Bush, Rick Santorum
Post-Modern-Conservatives: Clinton, Stacy

|5.27.08 @ 4:06PM|#

Neither Eisenhower nor Nixon were paleo-cons. You pretty much have to go back to Robert Taft to find an exemplar of that.

In fact, there isn't very much about post-1960 Nixon that could be considered conservative at all.

|5.27.08 @ 4:09PM|#

One of the things I've always admired about Goldwater was that he had a strong set of principles that wasn't necessarily in lock step with anyone else.

|5.27.08 @ 4:26PM|#

ChrisO
Re:Nixon. Sorry was going way to far for really weak, yet highly nuanced punchline.

Re:AuH2O I think he had more convictions than principles. Definitely an independent thinker. What I admire most about him wasn't so much what shaped his thinking as what didn't. His "What will other people think" filter didn't catch much.

robc|5.27.08 @ 4:35PM|#

His "What will other people think" filter didn't catch much.

I dont have one of those. Can you get them at Lowes?

Bingo|5.27.08 @ 4:53PM|#

Speaking of conservatives, I just did a quick scan and search of NR's Corner for Barr. Not a single mention of him or his nomination. Keep in mind this is the same blog that will post articles about a camel farting in the western bumfuck region of Iran. The silence is, as they say, deafening.

|5.27.08 @ 5:11PM|#

His "What will other people think" filter didn't catch much.

I dont have one of those. Can you get them at Lowes?

You can, just show up wearing jockey silks and a tutu.

I just did a quick scan and search of NR's Corner for Barr. Not a single mention of him or his nomination.

Ditto over at the Daily Dish blog of Paul fluffer Andre Sullivan. Hmmm where's all the media coverage this nomination was suppose to buy us?

|5.27.08 @ 5:16PM|#

EEEK!!
Mea Culpa
Sullivan did blog the Barr nomination. Shame on me for not searching the archives of his prolific site.

|5.27.08 @ 5:45PM|#

Speaking of conservatives, I just did a quick scan and search of NR's Corner for Barr. Not a single mention of him or his nomination.

I'm sure they are more than a little concerned that he could ultimately cause them to lose the election. They did an editorial last week to steer people away from Barr:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGUyZTllM2IyY2RmZGNhNzc1NTA4ZWQxNzE4Mzc4NTY=

|5.27.08 @ 5:47PM|#

I would like to posit a new kind of conservative. One who prefers limited government, free markets, and has lightened up on social issues. I deem him the "Funservative."

The Wine Commonsewer|5.27.08 @ 6:01PM|#

I don't know about his journal but Eyes of His Soul is a wonderful book of Goldwater's photography along with selected biographical information.

I love the book, you may too. Personally, I think Goldwater is/was as good or better than Ansel Adams.

Stacy|5.27.08 @ 6:03PM|#

Warren: Clinton and Stacy? You mean these folks?

Icl|5.27.08 @ 6:10PM|#

"I would like to posit a new kind of conservative. One who prefers limited government, free markets, and has lightened up on social issues. I deem him the "Funservative.""

You don't need to make up a new tern, as fun as it sounds. It is already known as Classical Liberalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

|5.27.08 @ 6:13PM|#

C-l-a-s-s-c-a-l l-i-b-e-r-a-l-i-s-m? How do you spell that?

|5.27.08 @ 6:14PM|#

Ruins the joke when I misspell it, doesn't it? Pfooey.

Stacy London|5.27.08 @ 6:23PM|#

Are we not allowed to post images here?

|5.27.08 @ 6:39PM|#

In your near future, blog commenters will be allowed to post images and video. The profusion of porn and yet more porn ended the blog as you know it by 2018. Too bad, really.

Stacy London|5.27.08 @ 6:52PM|#

Well, that's too bad. I wanted to post a harmless picture of Stacy London and Clinton Kelly. I was trying to figure out if Warren was already making that joke, as I still have no idea who Stacy might be, unless he's referring to, well, me. Not the real me, but the person whom my handle alludes to.

Geotpf|5.27.08 @ 6:57PM|#

Nixon wasn't a "conservative", unless you consider instituting nationwide price controls "conservative".

|5.27.08 @ 7:15PM|#

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater#Interest_in_UFOs
This kind of makes me loose a little bit of respect for him.
He's still a great guy, but UFOs?

|5.27.08 @ 7:26PM|#

He's still a great guy, but UFOs?

So he's not much different from the average LP candidate, who, other than Barr, all think 9/11 was an inside job and who want to spend taxpayer dollars to vindicate Alex Jones.

Of course, little did Pro Libertate 2008 realize that his ill-timed Funservative joke would result in the Pornservative movement, which confused Western society for several years.

GG|5.27.08 @ 7:43PM|#

On Huffington today (with a nod to Welch's book):

McCain Has Rejected Goldwater Legacy, Says Granddaughter

Also on Huffington, Pastor Huckabee:

What can the party do to reverse course?

Republicans need to be Republicans. The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism ...

Barry would kick him right in the ass, twice! Once for being a political preacher and once more for not knowing WTF he's talking about!

As far as campaign reform goes, I saw the Heritage Foundation's Pure Goldwater book talk with Barry, Jr. and Dean on C-Span, and evidently Barry wanted to limit the Presidential elections to three months because prolonged, expensive campaigns prevent the little guys (like Welch and Gillespie) from running.

Anon|5.27.08 @ 8:24PM|#

At the risk of sounding naive-- um, Goldwater didn't write The Conscience of a Conservative? Who did?

anon2|5.28.08 @ 12:46AM|#

Brent Bozell Jr, not, of course, to be confused with BB III.

somedude|5.28.08 @ 12:46AM|#

For Phoenix-area Reasonoids, you might be interested in checking this out:

http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/events/eventcalendar.aspx

Pure Goldwater

Join the Goldwater Institute for an author forum with Barry M. Goldwater, Jr. and John W. Dean, authors of the book Pure Goldwater on June 4th

|5.28.08 @ 9:12AM|#

Don't RINO's and CINO's already consider Libertarians funservatives ?

I always thought that most rank and file GOP'ers consider libertarians as lost Republicans that just want to smoke pot and have something stuck up their brown eye.

|5.28.08 @ 10:16AM|#

PL 2726, the phrases "profusion of porn" and "too bad, really" should never be used in conjunction with one another.

M. Simon|5.29.08 @ 2:54PM|#

Funservative?

The Jihadis won't like that.

|5.29.08 @ 5:04PM|#

Hugh Scott was not from Tennessee. If I remember correctly it was Howard Baker of Tennessee. Hugh Scott was from Pennsylvania.

Trackback| 1.13.10 @ 12:35AM

credit repair arizona, on credit repair arizona, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

I will add this website to my stumble upons!

nfl jerseys|11.5.10 @ 10:27PM|#

mrhb

دردشة|1.27.11 @ 2:17AM|#

Thank you, my dear on this important topic You can also browse my site and I am honored to do this site for songs
http://www.a6rbna.com
This website is for travel to Malaysia
http://www.m-arabi.com

دردشة عراقنا |4.25.11 @ 6:15AM|#

thnx u man

دردشة عراقية|5.2.11 @ 9:41AM|#

Thank you, my dear on this important topic You can also browse my site and I am honored to do this site for songs
http://www.iraq3.com
This website is for travel to Malaysia
http://www.iraq3.com/vb

حجز فنادق مكة|5.7.11 @ 11:03AM|#

thanks alot

Rent Car in Egypt|5.9.11 @ 7:09AM|#

thank you

شوق ليموزين|5.16.11 @ 7:26AM|#

شوق ليموزين|5.16.11 @ 7:27AM|#

قبلة الوداع|8.12.11 @ 10:56PM|#

thank u man

منتديات العراق|8.15.11 @ 8:25PM|#

thanks

http://www.iraqn.com/
http://www.v9f.net/chat

Reason.com