A Look Through Goldwater's Glasses
How could a presidential hopeful of the late 1960s be relevant today? I wager that Barry Goldwater’s voice is far more relevant in 2019 than it was in the late ’60s. There is more to Goldwater than his remarkable senate seat for the state of Arizona, his highly esteemed photography, or his collection of Hopi Katsina dolls. His representation of conservatism stirred what folks of the time period believed to be a Republican resurgence. Succinct and satisfyingly whole, his understanding of conservative ideology dealt a massive blow to the ever-growing political spectrum.
What Goldwater did was reveal the anemia within the Republican party of his day, while simultaneously revealing the contradictory nature of liberalism (terminology understood in the 1960s as the emerging philosophy of leftist and socialist policy). He did not accomplish this through vague soundbites, name-calling, or soft and easy answers. Goldwater clearly articulated the root of conservatism. In Conscience of a Conservative, the senator systematically distills his political philosophy.
Beginning with how conservatism views the whole person, Goldwater shows the stark differences between a republic and a democracy—these are not necessarily two sides of the same coin. The language of democracy carries with it the trajectory of legislating more power and decision making to the government, especially to the formation of new and at times conflicting offices. The responsibilities may seem to unburden the individual, but soon the realization comes, control has been removed from the individual while their money pays for it to happen. Goldwater believes a republic ought to function differently, the desire in governing through republicanism is to see power arise from whole persons who assert their personhood while protecting individuals from inevitable conflicts. Conservatism is therefore a means to conserve the dignity of the individual. Look through Goldwater’s thick, dark glasses and consider his principles in light of our modern day.
The Distinctiveness of Conservatism
What is a person? This is the question America’s earliest documents sought to answer. What are the God-given rights that make a person more than an animal or more than a governed consumer? A person, as a whole, is created in the image of God with characteristics and value inherent within them from God distinct from all other created beings. Both spiritual and physical, humanity requires the exercise of God’s gifted characteristics in order to flourish. A whole person is whole whether they are rich or poor, whether they own a gun or not, even whether they pay their taxes or not. A person is a whole person; therefore, they are given by God the right to flourish. Two principles erupt from out of Barry Goldwater’s treatise: first, the person is a whole, second, government ought to be limited under the express power of its citizens because of their status as sovereign, whole persons.
Someone may claim that conservatism is just an example of an economic theory; to this claim Goldwater asserts, “conservatism is not an economic theory, though it has economic implications.”[1] Unlike liberalism, this more-than-an-economic-theory takes into account the whole human, rather than the material nature of some collective of humanity. The spiritual side of individual humans—their mind, will, pursuit of interior fulfillment—is what is chiefly at stake in a civilized community.
Conservatism identifies, says Goldwater, that “these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man’s nature, and thus take precedence over economic wants.” Liberalism’s dominant mission for society is to satisfy all economic wants through the furtherance of government involvement.[2] Herein lies the problem waged between the two sides: In conservatism, the government’s role is limited to protect and uphold the individual as they pursue their human flourishing. In liberalism, the government’s role is to provide an ever-growing means to assist whole communities in gaining what the government perceives to be their collective material identity.
The Conservative conscience sees “economic and spiritual aspects of man’s nature as 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.”[3] Goldwater’s first principle in distinctive conservatism is the necessity of understanding the dignity inherent in humankind.
Limited Government for Whole People
Government is limited by the people who give it its power; the people are not limited, but the power with which they permit their government is. Government is limited in its ability to encroach upon the lives and prosperity of its people. However, it is not limited in its task to bring order to its voluntary stewards. Here is the lesson of overreach, “if we take from a man the personal responsibility for caring for his material needs, we take from him also the will and the opportunity to be free.”[4]
Goldwater warns, just as the founding fathers before him, “political power on which order is based is a self-aggrandizing force; that its appetite grows with eating.”[5] The more power the federal government is given—by coercion one way or another, or simply by the peoples’ neglect—the more unlimited its control becomes. For the conservative, politics is the “art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.” That is, the federal government is the servant of the people in keeping the order established by said people.
However, in liberalism, as has been the case in numerous countries, the people have forfeited their individual rights and pursuits of flourishing all for the sake of greater security and benefits from the government. Their federal government “permits” them their material goods. America would have insisted this was tyranny only 100 years ago. Goldwater again warns, “We have gone the way of many a democratic society that has lost its freedom by persuading itself that if ‘the people’ rule, all is well.”[6]
Take the example of welfare Goldwater provides in his treatise. The welfare system was a hot-button issue in the ’60s as much as it is today: “Consider the consequences to the recipient of welfarism. For one thing, he mortgages himself to the federal government. In return for benefits—which, in the majority of cases, he pays for—he concedes to the government the ultimate in political power—the power to grant or withhold from him the necessities of life as the government sees fit. ...Indeed, this is one of the great evils [of federal overreach], that it transforms the individual from a dignified, industrious, self-reliant spiritual being into a dependent animal creature without his knowing it.”[7]
Goldwater advocates that we keep private enterprises private, we encourage and promote charities that identify humanity in terms of the whole, spiritual personhood—and we do so for the sake of maintaining needy individuals’ freedoms and invigorating their pursuits for personal welfare. But to give the government such power is one step toward totalitarianism and thus tyranny, first over just one individual, but after much liberal legislation, soon over the whole country. In a 1964 New York Times analysis of Goldwater’s philosophy, see the simplicity of his argument:
“Wherever men are today reasonably free and relatively prosperous, they have gained their freedom and earned their prosperity through a system based on private property, free enterprise, and free markets. There is not a single exception.”
Herein is Goldwater’s second principle, understanding the right necessity of governing bodies. We, the people, are to limit the government’s involvement when it risks undignifying the common man. Goldwater can speak on his own to this principle:
“And let us, by all means, remember the nation’s interest in reducing taxes and spending. The need for ‘economic growth’ that we hear so much about these days will be achieved, not by the government harnessing the nation’s economic forces, but by emancipating them. By reducing taxes and spending we will not only return to the individual the means with which [man] can assert his freedom and dignity, but also guarantee to the nation the economic strength that will always be its ultimate defense against foreign foes.”[8]
The Bible and Conservatism
So often, talking heads will speak of the religious right, or the evangelical vote. Too often these phrases are thrown about in order to sell the proposition that Republicans are a one-trick pony or that religious folk are cattle for a political slaughterhouse. This is not the case for most of conservatism. Even witnessed throughout the legacy of Barry Goldwater, though he would never claim himself a religiously devout man, he carried in his ideology an understanding of the worth and God-given dignity of human beings. This conservate principle is the primary fountainhead of the political philosophy.
Goldwater believed that political science was not the means for controlling and establishing material wealth and prosperity; if such things were considered the end, then they would inevitably outweigh the freedoms of the individual. A person’s material worth and value shall never be equated to the person’s worth and value. Scripture declares humanity to be corrupted, yet God’s image in man is unrevoked (Genesis 1:27; Romans 8:20-23). Therefore, conservative Christians seek to exercise God’s common grace in protecting individual freedom, while maintaining the inherent dignity of God’s image. Political science is the means to enable humanity to develop whole and flourishing lives apart from health and wealth. The nature of humanity is not material, but spiritual and material. Freedom is the end—the government is constrained to bring about that end for each individual.
The Bible has much more to say concerning these issues of government than could possibly be discussed in a short article; however, it must be addressed. Governing bodies are vital due to the ineptitude of humanity to keep from infringing upon the freedom of others. Humanity is depraved; therefore, God has given governments through His common grace to us, that we might not murder each other into oblivion (Romans 13:1, 6). Health and wealth are grown from out of the freedom an individual has to seek and labor toward their own productivity. Blatant laziness and the ability to squander our own goods is not a mission to be coddled, but an outcome of poor stewardship. Goldwater thought well of privatized charity, and Christians are indeed called to be generous and merciful, but this is not legislated Pharisaical generosity.
Capitalism teaches that we learn from our ineptitude, not that we resign our freedoms to governing powers and the taxation of neighbors. If my neighbor doesn’t purchase my product, I celebrate his exercise of personal freedom just as I celebrate the lack of intervening parties throughout his encounter with me. Perhaps I’ll work to make a better product, or find some greater need in the market. Herein we see God’s directive that we treat others the way we desire to be treated, both in accountability as well as in generosity. Goldwater argues that we do not pressure others with our economic position, least of all do we use a force such as the government to imposition others for our benefit. Work and toil, labor with whatever is given, make marketable connections, pursue and do not stop pursuing; that is the charge of a free market. However, this charge becomes increasingly hostile when material is the only goal, when intervention is called upon from third parties, and when said material can be obtained without labor (Proverbs 6:6-11).
Person-hood not Party-hood
Consider the above mentioned principles of Goldwater, not in light of partisanship, but in light of a philosophy that seeks an avenue for human flourishing. Conservatism speaks against a governing body dictating where and to what a person must ascribe value. This is due to the conservative conscience; value is never placed on things, but only upon the individual’s freedom to pursue the flourishing of the whole. Wealth and property are the implications of freedom’s pursuit, they are not an end in itself.
For modern Republicans, we must remember that we are conservative--we desire to conserve the rights and freedoms of equal individuals regardless of wealth or status. That is what it is to live within a republic. Remember that it is about the whole person… that is the biggest selling point.
Let’s understand the dignity of the person and the purpose of governance, always asking the question, “For whose sake?” The freedoms of religion, language, expression, assemblage, press, etc. are not permitted by governing authorities—these are rights to which the people hold the government accountable. The conservative conscience is not about the Republican party, it is about maintaining the freedoms of persons within the republic.
Again, here is my wager: Barry Goldwater’s voice is far more relevant in 2019 than it ever was in the late ’60s, and it will only grow more so as the Republican party seeks to recover its identity. Our conscience ought to remain fixed in this perspective; that we look at the whole person as God would have us look, and that we pursue the rights of such individuals—not that their rights be permitted, let alone enforced by government, but that we understand these rights as given by God.
We tempt tyranny with every legislation concerning the American citizen’s rights. We are never to be in the business of legislating people, but legislating for the people. The minute we enter into the business of legislating people we are no longer a republic, we’re something far worse.
[1]Barry Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative (1960; repr., Mansfield Centre, CT: Martino, 2011), 10.
[2]Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative, 11.
[3]Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative, 12.
[4]Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative, 75.
[5]Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative, 13.
[6]Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative, 21.
[7]Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative, 73.
[8]Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative, 66-7.