When Barry Goldwater ran for President against Lyndon Johnson in 1964, little did anyone know that the views espoused by the famed Arizona conservative would form the basis for a major shift in the political landscape in America. Goldwater was trounced by Johnson in the election, the result of which was largely due to the less than honorable campaign ads run by the Johnson camp suggesting that the Senator posed a great risk for nuclear war.
One cannot forget those television ads, showing a child playing in a field as a missile passes over head, resulting in a large mushroom cloud in the distance.
Goldwater, of course, would be the culprit whose actions would elicit such an attack from Communist Russia, if he were elected...or so the ad claimed.
Several outgrowths of that campaign, however, secured for Goldwater a place in history as ‘Mr. Conservative’ who laid the groundwork for the most far-reaching ideological shift since FDR. First, a man by the name of Ronald Reagan delivered an eloquent and stirring endorsement speech of Goldwater, carried nationwide, that would result in Reagan’s rise to national prominence, and later, his ascent to the Presidency. Second, LBJ’s handling of the war in View Nam proved to be his political undoing in less than four years. And third, the tumultuous years of the 60s, the scandals of the 70s, and the concomitant cynicism that developed, all culminated in a national mood that was ripe for change.
The conservative movement capitalized on that mood as Americans increasingly questioned all institutions, having witnessed the failure of big government to solve the problems that social programs were meant to alleviate. Reagan’s tumultuous ascent to the Presidency was years in the making, the philosophical foundation of which was laid by William F. Buckley, the political impetus of which was provided by Goldwater, and the effective and charismatic communication of which was provided by Reagan.
Goldwater’s granddaughter has published a book this year about her grandfather that has created somewhat of a stir in American politics. The book makes a clear distinction between a classical ‘libertarian’ type of conservative and today’s ‘neo-conservatves’ such as former Attorney-Genera John Ashcroft, political pundits such as Charles Krauthaimmer.and, to a great degree, President Bush. Ms. Goldwater has even gone as far to suggest that her grandfather would not be welcomed in the Republican Party today.
The consideration of such a notion has produced all sorts of strange alliances crawling out of the woodwork, such as some Democrats claiming that they are actually closer in ideology to Goldwater than the Republicans. This stems from the fact that Goldwater was wary of righwing religious activists and claimed that the government had no business telling a woman she could not have an abortion.
A deeper look at the ideological foundation of Goldwater’s views reveals a very different motivation for his statements than those who espouse ‘a woman’s right to choose’ today, or those who hop onto every opportunity to malign conservative Christians for their involvement in politics. Goldwater was a true believer in the traditional, conservative/libertarian ideal of limited government. He believed that government should be small, that it’s power should be severely limited, and that it’s ability to intrude into the private lives of Americans should be scaled back to almost nil.
In Goldwater’s mind this principle was far-reaching. Not only did it apply to government keeping its hands out of private enterprise and free commerce, but also to a person’s private life. A small, limited government would not have the power or means to concern itself with moral, religious issues that should be left to private citizens.
What the Democrats who claim to be heirs of the Goldwater ideology fail to realize is that this point of view reached far into EVERY area of government power, including many of the long-revered social programs liberals consider to be sacrosanct. Goldwater voted AGAINST most of the social initiatives of Lyndon Johnson’s ‘Great Society,’ thus prompting Johnson's Vice-Presidential nominee Hubert Humphrey in 1964 to refer to Goldwater as ‘Senator No.’
Goldwater was no friend to expanding government programs doing what he felt should be left to the private sector and to individual citizens themselves. Not only did he oppose the new social initiatives of LBJ but also the tax hikes to fund them. When it came to Viet Nam it wasn’t that Goldwater felt we should ‘cut and run,’ but that the war should be fought to win. He believed that Washington had tied the hands of the troops on the ground.
It is gratifying at this stage in the nation’s life that we should be reexamining the Goldwater legacy. That examination, however, must be thorough, and not simply a precursory skimming of history in order to pick what is conveniently expedient for those with a political ax to grind with the current administration. When the record is examined, the WHOLE record, not only will contrasts be drawn between traditional conservatives and neo-conservatives, but drastic differences will be highlighted between the Goldwater ideology and Democrats.
If the late Senator would not be welcomed by the Republicans of today, then he would surely be burned in effigy by the Democrats.
Goldwater does not belong to them. He belongs to those of us who have long warned against big government, including the sacred cows of those who advocate expanding government’s role in social programs.
No comments:
Post a Comment