What do you think?
Rate this book
The Conscience of a Conservative
In 1960, Barry Goldwater set forth his brief manifesto in The Conscience of a Conservative. Written at the height of the Cold War and in the wake of America's greatest experiment with big government, the New Deal, Goldwater's message was not only remarkable, but radical. He argued for the value and importance of conservative principles--freedom, foremost among them--in contemporary political life. Using the principles he espoused in this concise but powerful book, Goldwater fundamentally altered the political landscape of his day--and ours.
176 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1960
459 people are currently reading
4,423 people want to read
About the author
Barry M. Goldwater
61books63followersAmerican politician Barry Morris Goldwater as senator of United States from Arizona from 1953 to 1965 and from 1969 to 1987 ran unsuccessfully for president in 1964; people credit him with founding the conservative movement that came to dominate the Republican Party.
This businessman stood as candidate.
In 1964, rights and fiscal sanity based his militant campaign against Communism.
Goldwater most often sparked the resurgence in the 1960s. He also a substantial affected the libertarians.
This businessman stood as candidate.
In 1964, rights and fiscal sanity based his militant campaign against Communism.
Goldwater most often sparked the resurgence in the 1960s. He also a substantial affected the libertarians.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 371 reviews
June 7, 2016
I don’t like discussing politics. Much too often it seems to be an exercise in futility; almost everyone is convinced they’re right, and virtually nothing can convince them otherwise. As a consequence, political debates are hardly debates at all—just pompous mudslinging.
The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of us don’t choose our political beliefs; we adopt our values and ideologies from our social milieu. Yes, many of us do attempt to justify our beliefs later in life, after our intellect has ripened; but this is merely rationalization. We do not use our reason to guide us to our conclusions, but our conclusions to guide us to our reasons. Having political opinions is much like being in love: once we’ve already fallen for a particular person, we can come up with fifty-seven reasons why they’re the best person in the world. But of course our love is not based on these reasons; and the same goes for our political opinions.
An added difficulty is that, insofar as political debates are arguments about values, I am not sure how one is even supposed to proceed. If you say freedom is all-important, and I say equality is all-important, how can we attempt to convince one another? We are not even trying to accomplish the same thing; more than that, we have different value systems for determining what is or isn’t worth pursuing. The whole thing is a proper mess.
I am including all this because I’m not really sure how to review a political book. These books are not making arguments, so I can’t evaluate their success in this aim; nor are they presenting facts or merely providing entertainment. Their purpose is to inspire belief. So should I give every political book I disagree with a bad rating, and every book I agree with a good one? That seems hardly fair; and besides, as a review that would be worthless. But then should I just confine my comments to the prose style? (The style of this book is quite good, by the way.)
For fear of going down a dark philosophical hole, let me just move on to the book and see what happens. The Conscience of a Conservative is a work by Barry Goldwater (actually, it was ghostwritten by William F. Buckley and L. Brent Bozell Jr.), an erstwhile presidential candidate; it is a manifesto expressing what he thinks it means to be a proper conservative in America.
In a nutshell, the ideology espoused here is libertarian. Goldwater is primarily concerned with freedom and the ways it has been unjustly encroached upon by the federal government. In his (or in Buckley’s and Bozell’s) words: “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.�
Already I am a bit confused. What does “conservative� mean, exactly? I know that Edmund Burke is commonly cited as a forerunner of conservativism; and this label seems sensible for Burke, seeing that he was greatly preoccupied with upholding tradition and instituting changes and reforms gradually, without any abrupt breaks with the past. But the ideology that Goldwater here embraces—that governmental prerogatives are only justified insofar as they allow for greater individual freedom—is closer to Thomas Paine’s view, who was Burke’s nemesis. It is also similar, at least in its abstract justification, to John Stuart Mill’s philosophy, who was considered very progressive in his day.
My point is not that Goldwater was actually progressive, but merely that these political labels are slippery. I do not see those on the Right as attempting to “conserve� more than those on the Left; both sides are pushing for changes. And indeed, the kind of ideologically motivated changes that Goldwater is advocating here would, I believe, be antithetical to Edmund Burke, who saw the governing as a practical affair, determined by specific circumstances rather than abstract considerations of “right� and “justice.�
But perhaps this is just a matter of words; let us move on to Goldwater’s opinions. First, state’s rights. Goldwater is appalled at the degree to which the federal government has taken over and intruded upon roles previously reserved for the states. This is, no doubt, historically true; and I was more than willing to listen to Goldwater discuss this phenomenon. But immediately he begins discussing the problem of integrating schools in the south, saying that the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education had overstepped its bounds. And although Goldwater says that he personally favors integrated schools, he encourages leaders in the south to fight for the right to control whether they have segregation or not.
I have no sympathy for this view. To me, the issue of state’s right is of secondary importance when we’re considering whether or not there should be legal discrimination. Goldwater seems to think that the federal government’s tampering in this matter is a form of tyranny; but providing an entire segment of the population with a second-rate education, based solely on the color of their skin, is a tyranny far more monstrous.
And this leads me to the more general question: Goldwater purports to defend freedom, but whose freedom is he defending? Let me give another example. Goldwater is strongly opposed to welfare programs, thinking that they’re just a backdoor to state socialism. His arguments against welfare are, first, that it’s supported by a tax, and thus support is compulsory; and second, that it leads to dependence on the government from its recipients. Arguably, both of these limit freedom. But there is an important freedom Goldwater overlooks: the freedom to get sick, to be unlucky, to go bankrupt, to make a mistake, without one’s life being ruined.
My more general point is that “freedom� is not a self-explanatory concept. At the very least, once we agree that the point of government is to achieve “the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order,� we’re still left wondering which freedoms to limit. For everyone agrees that some freedoms must be limited in a society; even the staunchest conservative thinks we should have laws against murder and tax-supported police to enforce those laws. Thus is it a matter of taste whether one thinks that the freedom not to be taxed for social welfare programs is more important than the freedom from utter poverty and starvation—and from the fear of utter poverty and starvation—that welfare programs provide. Your decision, in other words, is a matter of personal preference and not a matter of political philosophy.
Let me move along. Goldwater’s position on welfare is backed up by what he perceives to be the culture of dependence. Here are his words:
I’ve heard this sentiment expressed again and again; but it always seems to be asserted without evidence. This statement is making an empirical claim that is not obvious; this is an assertion that requires proof. I personally doubt that being on welfare does this sort of “spiritual� damage that Goldwater claims; and even if it did, the question remains whether this damage is preferable to starvation.
Allow me to pause here and to include something which I agree with:
Of course, Goldwater is mainly concerned with limiting the power of unions; but I think he shows admirable fairness in also wishing to limit campaign contributions by corporations. As everyone in the States knows, this has become a major problem.
But now the fault-finding begins again. In addition to criticizing Goldwater’s notion of freedom, I also wish to criticize his notion of fairness. For example, this is Goldwater on taxation:
Strong words. So what does Goldwater propose?
A flat tax, then. But wouldn’t it be more fair, instead of taking one uniform percentage from everyone, to tax every individual the same lump sum? And wouldn’t it be still more fair if taxes were voluntary? After all, Goldwater thinks that union dues should be voluntary. “But if taxes are voluntary, then people will freeload off the system!”—and this is the exact argument Goldwater refutes when it’s made for mandatory union dues.
What is fair? And what is unfair? These are not simple questions. It may seem unfair to a billionaire to have 30% of his wealth taken away while someone less prosperous only has to pay 20%; but it will also seem unfair to someone in poverty that a billionaire is allowed to keep more money than they and their children and grandchildren could possibly spend, while she and her children are hungry. So here, again, to a large extent your ideas of what constitute fair and unfair are just preferences, not philosophical ideals. Undoubtedly, a flat tax is fair in a certain respect; but it’s greatly unfair in others.
The book ends with a long chapter on the Cold War. Unsurprisingly, this part of the book has aged the most. The policies advocated are quite hawkish, which made me very glad that Goldwater didn’t become president, for who knows how the standoff between the States and the Soviet Union would have ended.
This review has been rather hostile. But as I read through the history of Goldwater’s life and work, I see a man who was a passionate advocate of his beliefs. He was not a demagogue or a charlatan; he was not in politics to become powerful and rich. He was an idealist, and true to his ideals. His positions, though I do not agree with most, are at the very least defensible. In short, I respect the man. The modern Republican party, though ostensibly inspired by Goldwater, is hard to recognize in this book.
The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of us don’t choose our political beliefs; we adopt our values and ideologies from our social milieu. Yes, many of us do attempt to justify our beliefs later in life, after our intellect has ripened; but this is merely rationalization. We do not use our reason to guide us to our conclusions, but our conclusions to guide us to our reasons. Having political opinions is much like being in love: once we’ve already fallen for a particular person, we can come up with fifty-seven reasons why they’re the best person in the world. But of course our love is not based on these reasons; and the same goes for our political opinions.
An added difficulty is that, insofar as political debates are arguments about values, I am not sure how one is even supposed to proceed. If you say freedom is all-important, and I say equality is all-important, how can we attempt to convince one another? We are not even trying to accomplish the same thing; more than that, we have different value systems for determining what is or isn’t worth pursuing. The whole thing is a proper mess.
I am including all this because I’m not really sure how to review a political book. These books are not making arguments, so I can’t evaluate their success in this aim; nor are they presenting facts or merely providing entertainment. Their purpose is to inspire belief. So should I give every political book I disagree with a bad rating, and every book I agree with a good one? That seems hardly fair; and besides, as a review that would be worthless. But then should I just confine my comments to the prose style? (The style of this book is quite good, by the way.)
For fear of going down a dark philosophical hole, let me just move on to the book and see what happens. The Conscience of a Conservative is a work by Barry Goldwater (actually, it was ghostwritten by William F. Buckley and L. Brent Bozell Jr.), an erstwhile presidential candidate; it is a manifesto expressing what he thinks it means to be a proper conservative in America.
In a nutshell, the ideology espoused here is libertarian. Goldwater is primarily concerned with freedom and the ways it has been unjustly encroached upon by the federal government. In his (or in Buckley’s and Bozell’s) words: “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.�
Already I am a bit confused. What does “conservative� mean, exactly? I know that Edmund Burke is commonly cited as a forerunner of conservativism; and this label seems sensible for Burke, seeing that he was greatly preoccupied with upholding tradition and instituting changes and reforms gradually, without any abrupt breaks with the past. But the ideology that Goldwater here embraces—that governmental prerogatives are only justified insofar as they allow for greater individual freedom—is closer to Thomas Paine’s view, who was Burke’s nemesis. It is also similar, at least in its abstract justification, to John Stuart Mill’s philosophy, who was considered very progressive in his day.
My point is not that Goldwater was actually progressive, but merely that these political labels are slippery. I do not see those on the Right as attempting to “conserve� more than those on the Left; both sides are pushing for changes. And indeed, the kind of ideologically motivated changes that Goldwater is advocating here would, I believe, be antithetical to Edmund Burke, who saw the governing as a practical affair, determined by specific circumstances rather than abstract considerations of “right� and “justice.�
But perhaps this is just a matter of words; let us move on to Goldwater’s opinions. First, state’s rights. Goldwater is appalled at the degree to which the federal government has taken over and intruded upon roles previously reserved for the states. This is, no doubt, historically true; and I was more than willing to listen to Goldwater discuss this phenomenon. But immediately he begins discussing the problem of integrating schools in the south, saying that the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education had overstepped its bounds. And although Goldwater says that he personally favors integrated schools, he encourages leaders in the south to fight for the right to control whether they have segregation or not.
I have no sympathy for this view. To me, the issue of state’s right is of secondary importance when we’re considering whether or not there should be legal discrimination. Goldwater seems to think that the federal government’s tampering in this matter is a form of tyranny; but providing an entire segment of the population with a second-rate education, based solely on the color of their skin, is a tyranny far more monstrous.
And this leads me to the more general question: Goldwater purports to defend freedom, but whose freedom is he defending? Let me give another example. Goldwater is strongly opposed to welfare programs, thinking that they’re just a backdoor to state socialism. His arguments against welfare are, first, that it’s supported by a tax, and thus support is compulsory; and second, that it leads to dependence on the government from its recipients. Arguably, both of these limit freedom. But there is an important freedom Goldwater overlooks: the freedom to get sick, to be unlucky, to go bankrupt, to make a mistake, without one’s life being ruined.
My more general point is that “freedom� is not a self-explanatory concept. At the very least, once we agree that the point of government is to achieve “the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order,� we’re still left wondering which freedoms to limit. For everyone agrees that some freedoms must be limited in a society; even the staunchest conservative thinks we should have laws against murder and tax-supported police to enforce those laws. Thus is it a matter of taste whether one thinks that the freedom not to be taxed for social welfare programs is more important than the freedom from utter poverty and starvation—and from the fear of utter poverty and starvation—that welfare programs provide. Your decision, in other words, is a matter of personal preference and not a matter of political philosophy.
Let me move along. Goldwater’s position on welfare is backed up by what he perceives to be the culture of dependence. Here are his words:
Even more important, however, is the effect on [the recipient of welfarism]—the elimination of any feeling of responsibility for his own welfare and that of his family and neighbors. A man may not immediately, or ever, comprehend the harm thus done to his character. Indeed, this is one of the great evils of Welfarism—that is transforms the individual from a dignified, industrious, self-reliant spiritual being into a dependent animal creature without his knowing it.
I’ve heard this sentiment expressed again and again; but it always seems to be asserted without evidence. This statement is making an empirical claim that is not obvious; this is an assertion that requires proof. I personally doubt that being on welfare does this sort of “spiritual� damage that Goldwater claims; and even if it did, the question remains whether this damage is preferable to starvation.
Allow me to pause here and to include something which I agree with:
In order to achieve the widest possible distribution of political power, financial contribution to political campaigns should be made by individuals and individuals alone. I see no reason for labor unions—or corporations—to participate in politics. Both were created for economic purposes and their activities should be restricted accordingly.
Of course, Goldwater is mainly concerned with limiting the power of unions; but I think he shows admirable fairness in also wishing to limit campaign contributions by corporations. As everyone in the States knows, this has become a major problem.
But now the fault-finding begins again. In addition to criticizing Goldwater’s notion of freedom, I also wish to criticize his notion of fairness. For example, this is Goldwater on taxation:
The graduated tax is a confiscatory tax. Its effect, and to a large extent its aim, is to bring down all men to a common level. Many of the leading proponents of the graduated tax frankly admit that their purpose is to redistribute the nation’s wealth. Their aim is an egalitarian society—an objective that does violence both to the charter of the Republic and the laws of Nature. We are all equal in the eyes of God but we are equal in no other respect.
Strong words. So what does Goldwater propose?
What is a "fair share?" I believe that the requirements of justice here are perfectly clear: government has a right to claim an equal percentage of each man’s wealth, and no more.
A flat tax, then. But wouldn’t it be more fair, instead of taking one uniform percentage from everyone, to tax every individual the same lump sum? And wouldn’t it be still more fair if taxes were voluntary? After all, Goldwater thinks that union dues should be voluntary. “But if taxes are voluntary, then people will freeload off the system!”—and this is the exact argument Goldwater refutes when it’s made for mandatory union dues.
What is fair? And what is unfair? These are not simple questions. It may seem unfair to a billionaire to have 30% of his wealth taken away while someone less prosperous only has to pay 20%; but it will also seem unfair to someone in poverty that a billionaire is allowed to keep more money than they and their children and grandchildren could possibly spend, while she and her children are hungry. So here, again, to a large extent your ideas of what constitute fair and unfair are just preferences, not philosophical ideals. Undoubtedly, a flat tax is fair in a certain respect; but it’s greatly unfair in others.
The book ends with a long chapter on the Cold War. Unsurprisingly, this part of the book has aged the most. The policies advocated are quite hawkish, which made me very glad that Goldwater didn’t become president, for who knows how the standoff between the States and the Soviet Union would have ended.
This review has been rather hostile. But as I read through the history of Goldwater’s life and work, I see a man who was a passionate advocate of his beliefs. He was not a demagogue or a charlatan; he was not in politics to become powerful and rich. He was an idealist, and true to his ideals. His positions, though I do not agree with most, are at the very least defensible. In short, I respect the man. The modern Republican party, though ostensibly inspired by Goldwater, is hard to recognize in this book.
September 6, 2017
This book was originally published in 1960, and it made Goldwater a lightning rod for everyone’s opinions on the state of the nation. Looking at his thinking from the distance of fifty-seven years, I think we can state unequivocally that he benefitted from the one-way megaphone a book provides. What astonishes me now is how Goldwater is looked at in some circles as the gold standard for rolling back government. His argument is completely specious, and what’s more, has been debunked in practice
If Goldwater was original then, he certainly is not now, and his method of citing statistics clearly fraudulent—no teenager today would allow him to get away with his discussion on education: “we had an increase of 38% student body in various educational institutions, but an increase of revenues for school use increased 124%!� which tells us…precisely nothing. What’s more, I expect he knew it told him nothing. Even back in the dark ages I doubt anyone would have allowed those statistics to stand without challenge.
Goldwater had a very restricted sense of federal rights and an expansive, and I would argue, unnatural and disturbing notion of states rights.
Goldwater, it might be noted, appealed to a young Hillary Clinton. Somehow that doesn’t surprise me.
At the very start of his polemic Goldwater says “the conscience of a conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being.� He goes on to say that accepting government “handouts� when one is hungry is debasing. Today we ask, debasing for whom? There is no question that American society has become far more liberal today than it was in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
We are also more educated and able to examine the roots of our disparities in opportunities and education. What is surprising is not that Goldwater’s arguments can be heard today among Congressional Republicans, but that the reasons for hearing those same arguments have changed only slightly, despite attempts to change the conditions leading to those uneven outcomes. Now wage disparities and race discrimination are causing these same dislocations when before it was clear race and class discrimination.
I am almost amused when I read Goldwater had the temerity to suggest that
The last part of the book is concerned with the Soviet threat (!) and national defense. It is appropriate here to remind conservatives hearkening back to the good old days that Russia has been our opponent a very long time, and has learned our ways. Nothing exceeded the Soviet threat in Goldwater’s mind: why, all those Communists! But what strikes me looking at his bellicose foreign policy is how little he seemed to understand or utilize the ancient Chinese Art of War. He was all about bristling attitude and weaponry without even understanding the essence of power and control.
For the foreign aid programs that rebuilt Europe and ushered in the longest pro-democracy period of peace the region has known in recent times, he said only that we should concentrate at home. Here is a man who is just a man, a man with nothing but his manhood in a world where at least one-half the population has a better idea.
I am not sad Goldwater never won the presidency. I wish his ideas had been buried with him.
If Goldwater was original then, he certainly is not now, and his method of citing statistics clearly fraudulent—no teenager today would allow him to get away with his discussion on education: “we had an increase of 38% student body in various educational institutions, but an increase of revenues for school use increased 124%!� which tells us…precisely nothing. What’s more, I expect he knew it told him nothing. Even back in the dark ages I doubt anyone would have allowed those statistics to stand without challenge.
“Federal intervention in education is unconstitutional,� he writes. “Note that I have not denied that many of our children are being inadequately educated, or that the problem is nation-wide. I have only denied that it is a kind of problem that requires a solution at the national level.�Fifty-seven years later, mind you, we are still talking about these questions. It’s hardly credible. Though now I think we can understand in hindsight that inequities exist and are perpetuated if communities alone are responsible for their education systems. We have too many examples to feel comfortable allowing these inequities to continue. Goldwater may still argue it’s up to local citizens. I think he’d be about as popular now as he was then, when he lost the presidential race by the largest margins in history to that time.
Goldwater had a very restricted sense of federal rights and an expansive, and I would argue, unnatural and disturbing notion of states rights.
”Despite the recent holding of the Supreme Court, I am firmly convinced—not only that integrated schools are not required—but that the Constitution does not permit any interference whatsoever by the federal government in the field of education. It may be wise or expedient for negro children to attend the same schools as white children, but they do not have a civil right to do so which is protected by the federal constitution, or which is enforceable by the federal government.�All this despite the Supreme Court telling him otherwise. He was not a humble man, and one could go further: Goldwater led those who wanted to maintain a fiction of superiority of one group over another putting at risk national unity, who refused to acknowledge their own privilege and sought to renew it indefinitely and for their own benefit.
Goldwater, it might be noted, appealed to a young Hillary Clinton. Somehow that doesn’t surprise me.
At the very start of his polemic Goldwater says “the conscience of a conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being.� He goes on to say that accepting government “handouts� when one is hungry is debasing. Today we ask, debasing for whom? There is no question that American society has become far more liberal today than it was in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
We are also more educated and able to examine the roots of our disparities in opportunities and education. What is surprising is not that Goldwater’s arguments can be heard today among Congressional Republicans, but that the reasons for hearing those same arguments have changed only slightly, despite attempts to change the conditions leading to those uneven outcomes. Now wage disparities and race discrimination are causing these same dislocations when before it was clear race and class discrimination.
I am almost amused when I read Goldwater had the temerity to suggest that
“Farm production, like any other production, is best controlled by the natural operation of the free market.�Goldwater’s publisher italicized those words, as though they were to be taken as more important than the surrounding paragraphs and should be remembered. Ah, yes. How many years did that stay in effect? The notion today is so sensitive as to almost impossible to mention in civilized debate. While two sides have vehement positions, not a one advocates leaving food production up to natural markets.
The last part of the book is concerned with the Soviet threat (!) and national defense. It is appropriate here to remind conservatives hearkening back to the good old days that Russia has been our opponent a very long time, and has learned our ways. Nothing exceeded the Soviet threat in Goldwater’s mind: why, all those Communists! But what strikes me looking at his bellicose foreign policy is how little he seemed to understand or utilize the ancient Chinese Art of War. He was all about bristling attitude and weaponry without even understanding the essence of power and control.
For the foreign aid programs that rebuilt Europe and ushered in the longest pro-democracy period of peace the region has known in recent times, he said only that we should concentrate at home. Here is a man who is just a man, a man with nothing but his manhood in a world where at least one-half the population has a better idea.
I am not sad Goldwater never won the presidency. I wish his ideas had been buried with him.
November 22, 2011
This was an interesting book, a throwback to the earliest stirrings of movement conservatism. I am a liberal who has become increasingly curious about why modern conservatism has become much less of an ideology and far more of a religion.
This book does the job.
Senator Goldwater's prose is excellent and even inspiring at times. His primary thesis is that the expansion of individual freedom is the primary and only legitimate goal of government. The blueprint for the activities through which this expansion is to be achieved is the US Constitution read through the eyes of the so called "originalists", those whose reading of the constitution can be politely called....traditional. The arguments advanced about the role and conduct of government are internally consistent and he is clearly passionate about his positions. And this book lays them out without apology and without guile.
And there ends my praise. This book also encapsulates exactly what I personally find distasteful about conservatism. It sees the evils of the world as unfortunate things which government power cannot be used to ameliorate. So segregated schools were terrible but it was the power of the segregating state to remedy it (the same state enforcing the segregation), not the federal government. Money from taxes is a "confiscation" of wages not something done via the aegis of a democratically elected body. Welfare, no matter how meager somehow weakens the human stock, no matter the carnage wreaked by the desperation and destitution of poverty. Conservatism comes off as a theoretical construct which seems to not take into effect how people actually are....how they actually act....the things they actually deal with everyday. Conservatism comes off as a paranoid construction whose only function is to preserve a sclerotic version of the past based on blind faith that if we just hew to the tenets of a simpler time, American will be great "again". Even in the 1950s, conservatives were predicting the fall of the Republic.
It is a good book, at times comical, at other times frightening, on occasion even humorous. But it confirms why I could never be a conservative. And for some, it perhaps confirms why they ARE conservatives.
This book does the job.
Senator Goldwater's prose is excellent and even inspiring at times. His primary thesis is that the expansion of individual freedom is the primary and only legitimate goal of government. The blueprint for the activities through which this expansion is to be achieved is the US Constitution read through the eyes of the so called "originalists", those whose reading of the constitution can be politely called....traditional. The arguments advanced about the role and conduct of government are internally consistent and he is clearly passionate about his positions. And this book lays them out without apology and without guile.
And there ends my praise. This book also encapsulates exactly what I personally find distasteful about conservatism. It sees the evils of the world as unfortunate things which government power cannot be used to ameliorate. So segregated schools were terrible but it was the power of the segregating state to remedy it (the same state enforcing the segregation), not the federal government. Money from taxes is a "confiscation" of wages not something done via the aegis of a democratically elected body. Welfare, no matter how meager somehow weakens the human stock, no matter the carnage wreaked by the desperation and destitution of poverty. Conservatism comes off as a theoretical construct which seems to not take into effect how people actually are....how they actually act....the things they actually deal with everyday. Conservatism comes off as a paranoid construction whose only function is to preserve a sclerotic version of the past based on blind faith that if we just hew to the tenets of a simpler time, American will be great "again". Even in the 1950s, conservatives were predicting the fall of the Republic.
It is a good book, at times comical, at other times frightening, on occasion even humorous. But it confirms why I could never be a conservative. And for some, it perhaps confirms why they ARE conservatives.
August 12, 2020
7 July 2019 - I remember reading this book my freshman year in college and liking it very much. It impressed me that Sen. Goldwater understood that the Federal Government was not Santa Claus and that whatever it provided some people was at the expense of those who paid the price in taxes.
Some years later, not many, I found out about the real meaning of "liberalism" as coming from the word "liberty" (freedom from coercion, primarily governments, but also from slaveholders, mafia, thieves, murderers, etc.). That caused me to take issue with Goldwater's championing the term "conservative" instead of "liberal" or at least the "classical" understanding of liberalism. Just because people who believed in more and more state controls took over the use of the word "liberal," should not mean that those who really understood and fought for the ideal of liberty should give in and accept the opposite word (conservative) to describe themselves. Abandoning the beautiful word and goal of liberty/liberal was a HUGE mistake.
It is very much like the true fascists of today who call themselves "antifa" (anti-fascists). They simply need to be exposed for their true beliefs and actions - state controls and violence.
But other than that important semantic error, I remember few other problems with the book, and indeed really liked the analysis of most all the issues. Highly recommended for all who are interested in classical liberalism and a non-religious based, rational conservatism.
Some years later, not many, I found out about the real meaning of "liberalism" as coming from the word "liberty" (freedom from coercion, primarily governments, but also from slaveholders, mafia, thieves, murderers, etc.). That caused me to take issue with Goldwater's championing the term "conservative" instead of "liberal" or at least the "classical" understanding of liberalism. Just because people who believed in more and more state controls took over the use of the word "liberal," should not mean that those who really understood and fought for the ideal of liberty should give in and accept the opposite word (conservative) to describe themselves. Abandoning the beautiful word and goal of liberty/liberal was a HUGE mistake.
It is very much like the true fascists of today who call themselves "antifa" (anti-fascists). They simply need to be exposed for their true beliefs and actions - state controls and violence.
But other than that important semantic error, I remember few other problems with the book, and indeed really liked the analysis of most all the issues. Highly recommended for all who are interested in classical liberalism and a non-religious based, rational conservatism.
July 9, 2016
I rated this book as amazing not because of its content, but its ability to make me see how conservative thought makes sense to its practitioners. I've always had that, "how can they see it that way? They must be insane," kind of rationale, and this book succinctly sums up an alternative worldview, one I don't agree with, but better understand now. Every leftie/pinko/liberal bleeding heart should read this book.
August 16, 2018
I first read this book when it was published in 1960. At that time Goldwater was considered the far-right wing of the republican party. I found it fascinating to reread this considering all the changes that have occurred since 1960. Goldwater is now considered too liberal for the conservative party. Many of the methods Goldwater sited for reducing government were found over time not to work and many of his other ideas and beliefs were proven not workable. To be fair some ideas did work successfully. I was appalled at his stand on civil rights. He refusal to accept Brown v Board of Education. He also did not think the federal government should be involved in education or welfare.
The book was well written and easy to read. The book was actually written by Goldwater’s speech writer, L. Brent Bozell. Bozell was William F. Buckley’s brother-in-law. Most of the book is dated. I found it helpful to take a step back in time and review how much the pollical parties have changed since 1960. Maybe it is time for the parties to re-evaluate themselves considering the extreme divide in the country today. Maybe it is time to return to the middle.
I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is very short at almost three hours. Johnny Heller does an excellent job narrating the book. Heller is a voice-over artist and award-winning audiobook narrator. He was Publisher Weekly’s best audiobook narrator for 2008, 2009, and 2011. Heller won the Listen-up Award in 2008 to 2013 and was an Audie Award Nominee in 2014.
The book was well written and easy to read. The book was actually written by Goldwater’s speech writer, L. Brent Bozell. Bozell was William F. Buckley’s brother-in-law. Most of the book is dated. I found it helpful to take a step back in time and review how much the pollical parties have changed since 1960. Maybe it is time for the parties to re-evaluate themselves considering the extreme divide in the country today. Maybe it is time to return to the middle.
I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is very short at almost three hours. Johnny Heller does an excellent job narrating the book. Heller is a voice-over artist and award-winning audiobook narrator. He was Publisher Weekly’s best audiobook narrator for 2008, 2009, and 2011. Heller won the Listen-up Award in 2008 to 2013 and was an Audie Award Nominee in 2014.
April 16, 2024
As the political season is upon us, I recently decided to read Barry Goldwater’s “The Conscience of a Conservative.� I was a bit surprised at what I read. There was little concern for the social agenda which has dominated conservative conversations in recent years. One might argue that back in 1960 at the book’s writing, the “culture wars� were not on anyone’s radar screen. Even in later life, however, Goldwater sparred intensely with religious and social conservatives. Their agenda does not seem to be Goldwater’s.
Goldwater’s agenda is freedom. His primary observation of human nature is its diversity. Each human being is unique, and it is the responsibility of each individual to realize his or her full potential. When government must exercise control, that action should occur at the most local level possible. Politics, for Goldwater, is “the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of the social order� (pg 5). In modern parlance, Goldwater is probably more libertarian than conservative.
Every other concern of Goldwater flows out of this agenda of freedom—the defeat of the Soviet Union, his reverence for the rule of law, the importance of federalism, his opposition to federal welfare programs, and his disagreement with court decisions and legislation on desegregation. The last is probably the most controversial. Goldwater agrees with the proposition that racial segregation in schools is wrong, but he believes that Brown vs. Board of Education is wrongly decided as an encroachment of the federal courts on what is a state issue. For some, they view Goldwater’s position as an issue in semantics hiding racism. Others saw a man who desegregated his family department stores and worked to end segregation in the Arizona National Guard and in the schools and restaurants of Phoenix. Those facts, alas, are not in the book. Nonetheless, one still wonders how the agenda of freedom applied to unenforced civil right laws dating back to Reconstruction or the judicial activism of “separate but equal.�
In the preface of my edition, George Will suggests that Goldwater’s conservatism was greatly influenced by his Arizona upbringing. The spirit of the West certainly promotes individualism and a desire for limitless opportunity. Perhaps, being raised in Texas, I found some attraction in Goldwater’s agenda of freedom. Moreover, I agree with Goldwater that there are human needs for which the government cannot provide. Unfortunately, since this book was about government, Goldwater had little to say about meeting those needs. Goldwater is silent on what is most important. Similarly, the Declaration of Independence hails the importance of the “pursuit of happiness� but is silent on what happiness actually is. Apparently, the individual has the freedom to decide. This isn’t a criticism of the book, but it reminds me that politics isn’t the source of my salvation. Instead, a free society merely gives me the opportunity to seek it.
Goldwater’s agenda is freedom. His primary observation of human nature is its diversity. Each human being is unique, and it is the responsibility of each individual to realize his or her full potential. When government must exercise control, that action should occur at the most local level possible. Politics, for Goldwater, is “the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of the social order� (pg 5). In modern parlance, Goldwater is probably more libertarian than conservative.
Every other concern of Goldwater flows out of this agenda of freedom—the defeat of the Soviet Union, his reverence for the rule of law, the importance of federalism, his opposition to federal welfare programs, and his disagreement with court decisions and legislation on desegregation. The last is probably the most controversial. Goldwater agrees with the proposition that racial segregation in schools is wrong, but he believes that Brown vs. Board of Education is wrongly decided as an encroachment of the federal courts on what is a state issue. For some, they view Goldwater’s position as an issue in semantics hiding racism. Others saw a man who desegregated his family department stores and worked to end segregation in the Arizona National Guard and in the schools and restaurants of Phoenix. Those facts, alas, are not in the book. Nonetheless, one still wonders how the agenda of freedom applied to unenforced civil right laws dating back to Reconstruction or the judicial activism of “separate but equal.�
In the preface of my edition, George Will suggests that Goldwater’s conservatism was greatly influenced by his Arizona upbringing. The spirit of the West certainly promotes individualism and a desire for limitless opportunity. Perhaps, being raised in Texas, I found some attraction in Goldwater’s agenda of freedom. Moreover, I agree with Goldwater that there are human needs for which the government cannot provide. Unfortunately, since this book was about government, Goldwater had little to say about meeting those needs. Goldwater is silent on what is most important. Similarly, the Declaration of Independence hails the importance of the “pursuit of happiness� but is silent on what happiness actually is. Apparently, the individual has the freedom to decide. This isn’t a criticism of the book, but it reminds me that politics isn’t the source of my salvation. Instead, a free society merely gives me the opportunity to seek it.
July 1, 2012
This book really opened my eyes to true Conservative principles-- unlike those that are presented by the modern Republican Party. Many of the ideas expressed in this book are very relevant to the problems we deal with today. That is, except for the last (and largest) chapter that dealt with the Soviet threat. I really appreciated all Mr. Goldwater put forth in this book and it will definitely shape the political decisions I will make in the future.
April 28, 2010
A true conservative, not like the perfidious neocons of late: for a strong defense, constitutionally limited government (anti-New Deal!), pro-labor (but against forced union shops), and against the welfare state and redistribution. What a massive improvement a Goldwater presidency would have been; how much better our country had he won in 1964!
July 27, 2018
This was an annoying book, and I expected that. I still thought it would be valuable for understanding the state of the conservative party now, and it was, but that just made it more frustrating.
Goldwater (I know the book was mainly assembled by Bozell, but he did so basing it on Goldwater speeches) claims everything is about freedom, but when you look at the actual follow-through, it becomes the freedom of those who have money to keep it and make more. This is not terribly surprising from a man who inherited a department store.
It is also not surprising to see the focus on exceptional men, and not the common man. I suppose this makes it easier to be so against any federal standards or funding for education, because that would be the great equalizer, and he clearly does not believe in that.
There are a few things that come to mind.
1. It is common now for people to call the Daisy girl ad unfair. I didn't think that was true after reading more specifically about the ad, but even more now after reading Goldwater's endorsed words on nuclear weaponry, they are horrifyingly irresponsible. His evident ignorance about how any of it worked is inexcusable.
2. Beyond that, time having shown that he was wrong about the Soviets and how the Cold War would go doesn't seem to have changed any attitudes. And sure, if Kansas under Sam Brownback hasn't shown anyone the folly of supply side economics, okay, conservatives just aren't into learning, but that's horrifying.
3. That makes one of the most frustrating things the afterword by Robert F Kennedy Jr on how the party has betrayed Goldwater by becoming what they are today. Kennedy blames it on the recruitment of the religious right - which Goldwater did not approve of - but if you are basing your policies on ignorance and contempt for the common man so rich people can be richer, and order is more important than justice, especially in regards to civil rights, then that isn't so far from his ideal. Goldwater may not have thought it would get so ugly, but the pre-Trump GOP didn't want things to get this openly ugly either and they are still cooperating.
To be fair, it is the anti-vaxx Kennedy, so it does make sense in a sad way.
Goldwater (I know the book was mainly assembled by Bozell, but he did so basing it on Goldwater speeches) claims everything is about freedom, but when you look at the actual follow-through, it becomes the freedom of those who have money to keep it and make more. This is not terribly surprising from a man who inherited a department store.
It is also not surprising to see the focus on exceptional men, and not the common man. I suppose this makes it easier to be so against any federal standards or funding for education, because that would be the great equalizer, and he clearly does not believe in that.
There are a few things that come to mind.
1. It is common now for people to call the Daisy girl ad unfair. I didn't think that was true after reading more specifically about the ad, but even more now after reading Goldwater's endorsed words on nuclear weaponry, they are horrifyingly irresponsible. His evident ignorance about how any of it worked is inexcusable.
2. Beyond that, time having shown that he was wrong about the Soviets and how the Cold War would go doesn't seem to have changed any attitudes. And sure, if Kansas under Sam Brownback hasn't shown anyone the folly of supply side economics, okay, conservatives just aren't into learning, but that's horrifying.
3. That makes one of the most frustrating things the afterword by Robert F Kennedy Jr on how the party has betrayed Goldwater by becoming what they are today. Kennedy blames it on the recruitment of the religious right - which Goldwater did not approve of - but if you are basing your policies on ignorance and contempt for the common man so rich people can be richer, and order is more important than justice, especially in regards to civil rights, then that isn't so far from his ideal. Goldwater may not have thought it would get so ugly, but the pre-Trump GOP didn't want things to get this openly ugly either and they are still cooperating.
To be fair, it is the anti-vaxx Kennedy, so it does make sense in a sad way.
February 21, 2014
I read this book when it was originally published in 1961, I think. I had the opportunity to work on the Goldwater campaign as a 16 year old volunteer specializing in passing out flyers, drinking beer and talking up Republican young ladies. Goldwater's ideas were characterized as radical at the time but he paved the way for Reagan's conservatism in 1980. He was a charismatic and inspirational speaker and leader and his ideas still resonate today.
April 13, 2010
Barry Goldwater would have no place in the Republican party of today. His political thought here is far more in line with what most of us would classify as libertarian. To hear any modern republican claiming Barry Goldwater is a clear example of ignorance speaking or outright lies. The neocons and the religious right should read this book and either come clean about not being truly conservative, or straighten themselves out.This book is basically a statement of Goldwater's position on various topics and he does so with clarity and conviction.
In the afterward a view of Goldwater's life after this book gave some fascinating insights to how a true Constitutional conservative behaved in the 80s and 90s.In 1981, when Jerry Falwell said good Christian should be concerned about Sandra Day O'Connor nomination to the Supreme Court, Barry Goldwater countered, "Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass." In 1989 he said the Republican party had been taken over by "a bunch of kooks" and he(a very religious man) also said had no respect for the Religious Right. In 1994 he led efforts to pass a federal bill banning job discrimination against homosexuals and declared himself an "honorary gay."
I will admit to regarding libertarianism as the bastard child of the GOP, turns out, really? The GOP are the bastards.
In the afterward a view of Goldwater's life after this book gave some fascinating insights to how a true Constitutional conservative behaved in the 80s and 90s.In 1981, when Jerry Falwell said good Christian should be concerned about Sandra Day O'Connor nomination to the Supreme Court, Barry Goldwater countered, "Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass." In 1989 he said the Republican party had been taken over by "a bunch of kooks" and he(a very religious man) also said had no respect for the Religious Right. In 1994 he led efforts to pass a federal bill banning job discrimination against homosexuals and declared himself an "honorary gay."
I will admit to regarding libertarianism as the bastard child of the GOP, turns out, really? The GOP are the bastards.
Want to read
June 18, 2023Zach says read this.
December 13, 2015
While I don't agree with much of what Goldwater has to say, he does say it in a straightforward and honest manner. And he does admit that Republicans even in his day were no more honest in cutting spending than they are today -- they just spend it in other ways.
He also pointed out that it is irresponsible to cut taxes before cutting spending.
"I believe that, as a practical matter, spending cuts must come before tax cuts. If we reduce taxes before firm, principled decisions are made about expenditures, we will court deficit spending and the inflationary effects that invariably follow.
"It is in the area of spending that the Republican Party's performance, in its seven years in power,* has been most disappointing."
He was honest in that he didn't claim that tax cuts pay for themselves; he advocated fiscal discipline BEFORE giving big tax cuts, an idea that didn't carry over to later generations of politicians.
His ideas on cutting spending and getting the federal government out of some areas where it doesn't belong are logical. However, to expect that private charity has ever or will ever take care of the disabled and provide health care to those who don't have is ridiculous.
On the Cold War and dealing with the Soviets, though, he pretty much lost all grasp of reality. He advocated for small "clean" battlefield nukes to use. Right, like that would not have resulted in an escalation that would have probably wiped out our species.
He also thought that sacrificing millions of lives was better than giving up "freedom." More likely his ideas would have turned the planet into a lifeless rock, as an all-out nuclear war would have done. Also, being dead is about as not-free as one can become.
He advocated for refusing to recognize the communist governments or cultural exchanges and visits between leaders, and he thought negotiation was a sign of weakness. If the two sides had not had any communications, it would have made war more -- not less -- likely.
In hindsight we see that the course that leaders on both sides took showed itself to be a great accomplishment: We're all here and children don't have five eyes and glow in the dark. Except around Chernobyl, maybe.
Again, four stars for Goldwater for being honest, and plain and succinct.
Also, this, which is not from the book but is perhaps his most prescient utterance:
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
* He was talking about the Eisenhower administration.
He also pointed out that it is irresponsible to cut taxes before cutting spending.
"I believe that, as a practical matter, spending cuts must come before tax cuts. If we reduce taxes before firm, principled decisions are made about expenditures, we will court deficit spending and the inflationary effects that invariably follow.
"It is in the area of spending that the Republican Party's performance, in its seven years in power,* has been most disappointing."
He was honest in that he didn't claim that tax cuts pay for themselves; he advocated fiscal discipline BEFORE giving big tax cuts, an idea that didn't carry over to later generations of politicians.
His ideas on cutting spending and getting the federal government out of some areas where it doesn't belong are logical. However, to expect that private charity has ever or will ever take care of the disabled and provide health care to those who don't have is ridiculous.
On the Cold War and dealing with the Soviets, though, he pretty much lost all grasp of reality. He advocated for small "clean" battlefield nukes to use. Right, like that would not have resulted in an escalation that would have probably wiped out our species.
He also thought that sacrificing millions of lives was better than giving up "freedom." More likely his ideas would have turned the planet into a lifeless rock, as an all-out nuclear war would have done. Also, being dead is about as not-free as one can become.
He advocated for refusing to recognize the communist governments or cultural exchanges and visits between leaders, and he thought negotiation was a sign of weakness. If the two sides had not had any communications, it would have made war more -- not less -- likely.
In hindsight we see that the course that leaders on both sides took showed itself to be a great accomplishment: We're all here and children don't have five eyes and glow in the dark. Except around Chernobyl, maybe.
Again, four stars for Goldwater for being honest, and plain and succinct.
Also, this, which is not from the book but is perhaps his most prescient utterance:
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
* He was talking about the Eisenhower administration.
March 4, 2013
I often read books written by people who have views that are vastly different than mine (I mean, what's the point of reading what you already agree with?). Still, I was hoping for at least a relatively intelligent presentation of the conservative viewpoint and was sorely disappointed. Everything pretty much boils down to "The Founding Fathers said it, so it must be right," which is as stupid as stupid gets. Conveniently ignoring that fact that we live in more complex society with somewhat more advanced communication technology than the Pony Express, Goldwater essentially argues that the federal government really has no business doing much of anything and that we should let the states and individuals take care of health care, civil rights and every other topic under the sun. I did agree with him on one subject (I don't believe that anyone should be forced to join a union), but thought the rest of his ideas were pretty silly and dangerously naive. The real problem is that while we do need the federal government to deal with things that require coordination and synchronization between the states and other government entities, we still haven't figured out a way to make the federal government more efficient, effective and responsive to its customers.
October 12, 2020
Clear, concise, and bold. I don't know much about the man, but the conservative principles in this book are great and much needed again.
I found myself agreeing with almost everything he said (almost). The book is dated (lots about the Cold War with the Soviet Union) but the principles are timeless.
Goldwater deals with the difference between conservatism and socialism, communism, and Republican pragmatism. He speaks to education, military, labor unions, welfare, taxation, and the United Nations.
This is the type of book I'd like my children to read once they are interested in politics.
I found myself agreeing with almost everything he said (almost). The book is dated (lots about the Cold War with the Soviet Union) but the principles are timeless.
Goldwater deals with the difference between conservatism and socialism, communism, and Republican pragmatism. He speaks to education, military, labor unions, welfare, taxation, and the United Nations.
This is the type of book I'd like my children to read once they are interested in politics.
April 14, 2009
Dated? Yes.
Full of ideas that I think range from crazy to mind boiling? Yes.
Important? Definitely.
Even if you disagree with everything Goldwater stood for, it's still arguably one of the more important books about the United States and US Politics.
Full of ideas that I think range from crazy to mind boiling? Yes.
Important? Definitely.
Even if you disagree with everything Goldwater stood for, it's still arguably one of the more important books about the United States and US Politics.
March 21, 2021
Essential reading for every Patriot.
February 3, 2009
This book is not impressive given its near-scriptural reputation among conservatives, and is every bit the match of a contemporary political convention speech in terms of both puff and pabulum. There is practically no analytic depth on any of the numerous topics he (or, rather, his ghostwriter, L. Brent Bozell--see the front matter) forwards, and much of the book isn't even an argument, but just a recitation of assertions which are only weakly interrelated, if at all. Richard Posner (judge for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals) is a much more formidable champion of right-libertarianism, but suffers the ignominy of not really being a "thought leader" on the political Right--probably because he does too much actual thinking in place of the obligatory Two Pages of Hate (or twenty, or two hundred).
I've long had a prejudice that conservatives were more about ideological pageantry than intellectual rigor, let alone empirical verification, and sadly for my attempts at a dialogue with conservatism, this book and its reputation validate my biases rather than challenging me. The garden-variety conservative of the past thirty years is is a specimen whose brain, to all appearances, can't conceive of a market model any more sophisticated than David Ricardo's. For all the reverence in which Adam Smith's name is held by free-market advocates, these folks haven't yet caught up to him. You'd think this would strike them as odd, given that Smith's views, more nuanced and empirical than Ricardo's, actually antedate the latter's economic writings. I guess the fact that Smith published in 1776 is supposed to lend The Wealth of Nations a mystique that, like a wine of ancient vintage, is better prized for its age than actually engaged by the palate.
The modern conservative movement is preoccupied with victimization, whether it contemptuously mocks the phenomenon in the brutal pasts of some criminal defendants; ridicules the disadvantaged, disabled, and others who benefit from "leftist" public welfare programs; or embraces it in the case of crime victims' rights bills and its own imagined status as a savagely oppressed minority (being mostly white, mostly male, mostly Christian, and mostly middle-class--or better). This perhaps explains why 1964, not exactly a watershed year for Republicans electorally, is regarded as seminal by conservatives. In reading this title, I came to feel that it was the political reorientation of the Republican Party that year (including the welcoming with open arms of archetypal segregationist, Strom Thurmond) that carries Goldwater's manifesto in its draft, and not the other way around.
As noted above, the rhetorical thrust of this book is not persuasive. I don't state that evaluatively--I mean that it doesn't even try to persuade. It is mostly a roster of policy propositions baldly asserted. This is not the sort of work that brings people into the movement; it tells them what creed they need to recite if they want to be a member of the (then) New Guard. Necessarily, the wrangles and disputes that produced it, like those that wring party platforms into being, are hidden from view.
Alternatively, a true Goldwater believer can assert that this book is merely a collection of reflected rays from his scintillating intellect--but again, the mechanism is concealed. If that is so, is it because Goldwater's reasoning processes are unimportant?
On 7 October 2008, Aaron posted a goodreads review with which I found myself in vigorous agreement; I will quote the most relevant part.
"While advocating protection of Constitutionally reserved state powers and excising the Federal Government from Constitutionally prohibitted activities, Goldwater's work does not thoroughly resolve the fundamental questions and issues that this adjustment to federal powers would leave unresolved or potentially exacerbate.
Maybe such a diagram was unnecessary in Goldwater's day. Maybe his contemporaries knew how to resolve these tensions in neat local solutions, but I think in our day that many of us either never knew those communities or have been so long in the brine of the pervasive contemporary progressive philosophy that we don't remember. This is what I had hoped most to find, and mostly didn't."
Aaron gave the book four stars; given the denotations of goodread's star-rating system, I find this startling.
So that's a counter-recommendation. Don't waste your time, unless you want to be able to say honestly what so many College Republicans furtively imply of themselves--you have actually read this famous book. Because I am the sort of person who derives some satisfaction from reading purportedly holy texts and not being blinded to Damascus, and I reckon I am not alone, it may be a worthwhile experience even if an unpleasant one. I cannot help the suspicion that there were other political books published in 1964 that were every bit as poor as this one, and are now deservedly forgotten.
I've long had a prejudice that conservatives were more about ideological pageantry than intellectual rigor, let alone empirical verification, and sadly for my attempts at a dialogue with conservatism, this book and its reputation validate my biases rather than challenging me. The garden-variety conservative of the past thirty years is is a specimen whose brain, to all appearances, can't conceive of a market model any more sophisticated than David Ricardo's. For all the reverence in which Adam Smith's name is held by free-market advocates, these folks haven't yet caught up to him. You'd think this would strike them as odd, given that Smith's views, more nuanced and empirical than Ricardo's, actually antedate the latter's economic writings. I guess the fact that Smith published in 1776 is supposed to lend The Wealth of Nations a mystique that, like a wine of ancient vintage, is better prized for its age than actually engaged by the palate.
The modern conservative movement is preoccupied with victimization, whether it contemptuously mocks the phenomenon in the brutal pasts of some criminal defendants; ridicules the disadvantaged, disabled, and others who benefit from "leftist" public welfare programs; or embraces it in the case of crime victims' rights bills and its own imagined status as a savagely oppressed minority (being mostly white, mostly male, mostly Christian, and mostly middle-class--or better). This perhaps explains why 1964, not exactly a watershed year for Republicans electorally, is regarded as seminal by conservatives. In reading this title, I came to feel that it was the political reorientation of the Republican Party that year (including the welcoming with open arms of archetypal segregationist, Strom Thurmond) that carries Goldwater's manifesto in its draft, and not the other way around.
As noted above, the rhetorical thrust of this book is not persuasive. I don't state that evaluatively--I mean that it doesn't even try to persuade. It is mostly a roster of policy propositions baldly asserted. This is not the sort of work that brings people into the movement; it tells them what creed they need to recite if they want to be a member of the (then) New Guard. Necessarily, the wrangles and disputes that produced it, like those that wring party platforms into being, are hidden from view.
Alternatively, a true Goldwater believer can assert that this book is merely a collection of reflected rays from his scintillating intellect--but again, the mechanism is concealed. If that is so, is it because Goldwater's reasoning processes are unimportant?
On 7 October 2008, Aaron posted a goodreads review with which I found myself in vigorous agreement; I will quote the most relevant part.
"While advocating protection of Constitutionally reserved state powers and excising the Federal Government from Constitutionally prohibitted activities, Goldwater's work does not thoroughly resolve the fundamental questions and issues that this adjustment to federal powers would leave unresolved or potentially exacerbate.
Maybe such a diagram was unnecessary in Goldwater's day. Maybe his contemporaries knew how to resolve these tensions in neat local solutions, but I think in our day that many of us either never knew those communities or have been so long in the brine of the pervasive contemporary progressive philosophy that we don't remember. This is what I had hoped most to find, and mostly didn't."
Aaron gave the book four stars; given the denotations of goodread's star-rating system, I find this startling.
So that's a counter-recommendation. Don't waste your time, unless you want to be able to say honestly what so many College Republicans furtively imply of themselves--you have actually read this famous book. Because I am the sort of person who derives some satisfaction from reading purportedly holy texts and not being blinded to Damascus, and I reckon I am not alone, it may be a worthwhile experience even if an unpleasant one. I cannot help the suspicion that there were other political books published in 1964 that were every bit as poor as this one, and are now deservedly forgotten.
November 8, 2019
Easy read. He argues very basic principles as to why Conservatives believe that it is morally right that government exist to expand, not diminish, freedom of the individual.
November 23, 2009
When George W. Bush ran for the Republican presidential nomination as a “compassionate conservative,� I knew, without ever having read Conscience of a Conservative, that he did not understand conservatism as “a comprehensive political philosophy� (to use Barry Goldwater’s words). I suspected then that Bush’s so-called “compassionate� conservatism would bear little resemblance to the political philosophy I associate with conservatism. It is timely that this edition of Conscience of a Conservative should have been reprinted on the heels of the Bush administration. Under a Republican-controlled congress and the presumably “conservative� President Bush there occurred what George Will refers to in the introduction of this book as “the largest federal intervention in primary and secondary education in American history…the largest farm subsidies..the largest expansion of the welfare state…since Lyndon Johnson,� who, ironically, defeated Goldwater for the presidency in 1964.
This book is, unfortunately, a bit outdated. I had hoped for a concise overview of the philosophy, principles, and concerns of conservatives, and although I somewhat got that here, this analysis was a little too tied to the specific policy concerns of 1960, and thus it read more like a campaign tract than a philosophical apologetic. Nevertheless, the concerns Goldwater expresses in these pages still apply today, only, one might say…more so. Goldwater’s primary concern was to arrest the amassing of power in the hands of the federal government, a threat against which the Constitution was created to protect us, but which began to occur in the 20th century and has only increased since “The Conscience of a Conservative� was first published. Goldwater’s other primary concern was to win the Cold War, which has come and gone; but at least some of what he has to say on the matter could apply to today’s ideological and political war against jihadism.
Goldwater does give us a look at conservatism in a nutshell, however. He argues that political philosophy should not be concerned only with the material well being of men: “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…Liberals, on the other hand…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 [i:]compel[/i:] ‘progress� In this approach, I believe they fight against Nature.�
In speaking of spiritual man, Goldwater is by no means speaking as a religious conservative. Indeed, he loathed the so-called “religious right� that rose to power within the Republican party in the 1980’s. When asked if he thought we should allow gays in the military, Barry Goldwater, in characteristic glib fashion, replied, “You don't need to be straight to fight and die for your country; you just need to shoot straight.� Goldwater’s conservatism was of the libertarian republican variety, a small-government conservatism (very much unlike that of George W. Bush) that focused on individual liberty (“government governs best when it governs least -- and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality�), individual responsibility, national sovereignty, and national interest.
Though Goldwater lost the presidential election, he did so in what George Will describes as a “spectacularly creative failure.� For a time, at least, the conservatives did seize the Republican party apparatus, and as a consequence, conservatism was not without its successes. The top income tax rate is no longer 91%, and likely never will be again. The Cold War has been won, and welfare (not the medical variety, which was expanded under Bush) is no longer quite the system of life-long, poverty-perpetuating entitlement it once was. However, today, despite these handful of successes, the Goldwater brand of conservatism has once again been relegated to a back corner of the Republican party.
This book is, unfortunately, a bit outdated. I had hoped for a concise overview of the philosophy, principles, and concerns of conservatives, and although I somewhat got that here, this analysis was a little too tied to the specific policy concerns of 1960, and thus it read more like a campaign tract than a philosophical apologetic. Nevertheless, the concerns Goldwater expresses in these pages still apply today, only, one might say…more so. Goldwater’s primary concern was to arrest the amassing of power in the hands of the federal government, a threat against which the Constitution was created to protect us, but which began to occur in the 20th century and has only increased since “The Conscience of a Conservative� was first published. Goldwater’s other primary concern was to win the Cold War, which has come and gone; but at least some of what he has to say on the matter could apply to today’s ideological and political war against jihadism.
Goldwater does give us a look at conservatism in a nutshell, however. He argues that political philosophy should not be concerned only with the material well being of men: “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…Liberals, on the other hand…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 [i:]compel[/i:] ‘progress� In this approach, I believe they fight against Nature.�
In speaking of spiritual man, Goldwater is by no means speaking as a religious conservative. Indeed, he loathed the so-called “religious right� that rose to power within the Republican party in the 1980’s. When asked if he thought we should allow gays in the military, Barry Goldwater, in characteristic glib fashion, replied, “You don't need to be straight to fight and die for your country; you just need to shoot straight.� Goldwater’s conservatism was of the libertarian republican variety, a small-government conservatism (very much unlike that of George W. Bush) that focused on individual liberty (“government governs best when it governs least -- and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality�), individual responsibility, national sovereignty, and national interest.
Though Goldwater lost the presidential election, he did so in what George Will describes as a “spectacularly creative failure.� For a time, at least, the conservatives did seize the Republican party apparatus, and as a consequence, conservatism was not without its successes. The top income tax rate is no longer 91%, and likely never will be again. The Cold War has been won, and welfare (not the medical variety, which was expanded under Bush) is no longer quite the system of life-long, poverty-perpetuating entitlement it once was. However, today, despite these handful of successes, the Goldwater brand of conservatism has once again been relegated to a back corner of the Republican party.
March 30, 2020
I rate The Conscience of a Conservative a one star not because I disagree with the arguments of limited government (which I do disagree with), but because Barry Goldwater uses this book to move many themes of hate and discrimination.
The book is extremely dated. It shows its age when he only refers to men as proper stewards of freedom, to recipients of welfare as animals, to black children as equal in God's eyes but not any others. The list goes on. At times, his arguments for limited government start to crack and reveal behind it a real prejudice for anyone that doesn't look like him or believe exactly how he does.
The fact that he spends a third of the book discussing how the United States should defeat "World Communism" is another testament to how this book cannot stand as an informative source in current political discourse. The United States has adversaries in much of the same parts of the globe that were in Goldwater's time, but the nature of national competition has moved on. His demand that we create an armada of small scale "clean" nukes for use in small scale conflicts is legitimately insane, even for the time in which he wrote this.
I read this book in preparation for reading Jeff Flake's book by the same title. However, as I finished reading this book, I second guessed my plan to read it because of the not so hidden themes of discrimination and prejudice that Goldwater trots out under the guise of limited government. To author a book under the same name in order to attempt to claim the mantle of the Goldwater leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
"...One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." It says "for all" Goldwater, not just you and your friends.
The book is extremely dated. It shows its age when he only refers to men as proper stewards of freedom, to recipients of welfare as animals, to black children as equal in God's eyes but not any others. The list goes on. At times, his arguments for limited government start to crack and reveal behind it a real prejudice for anyone that doesn't look like him or believe exactly how he does.
The fact that he spends a third of the book discussing how the United States should defeat "World Communism" is another testament to how this book cannot stand as an informative source in current political discourse. The United States has adversaries in much of the same parts of the globe that were in Goldwater's time, but the nature of national competition has moved on. His demand that we create an armada of small scale "clean" nukes for use in small scale conflicts is legitimately insane, even for the time in which he wrote this.
I read this book in preparation for reading Jeff Flake's book by the same title. However, as I finished reading this book, I second guessed my plan to read it because of the not so hidden themes of discrimination and prejudice that Goldwater trots out under the guise of limited government. To author a book under the same name in order to attempt to claim the mantle of the Goldwater leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
"...One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." It says "for all" Goldwater, not just you and your friends.
Read
August 10, 2019This book is unrateable. Since it's basically an extended campaign speech, there's no point in pointing out misleading arguments or logic gaps. I could rate it on persuasiveness, but it's already proved itself to be a classic among conservatives. I will say it's fascinating to read this with 2019 eyes. Most of the limited-government philosophies in this book are still being espoused by conservatives today (not so much during the current administration, but certainly whenever democrats are in power they remember to block any legislation that expands federal power).
The most interesting chapter is on school segregation, in which Goldwater, true to his principles, explains that while he may personally support desegregation, he supports states' rights to segregate because they know better than the federal government how to govern themselves. With the benefit of 60 years of hindsight, I don't know if you could write a better refutation of this book's entire philosophy than this chapter inadvertently does. In protecting against the potential tyranny of the federal government, Goldwater seems blind, and has no answer, to the existing, devastating tyranny being enacted by local and state-level governments against their own citizens.
The most interesting chapter is on school segregation, in which Goldwater, true to his principles, explains that while he may personally support desegregation, he supports states' rights to segregate because they know better than the federal government how to govern themselves. With the benefit of 60 years of hindsight, I don't know if you could write a better refutation of this book's entire philosophy than this chapter inadvertently does. In protecting against the potential tyranny of the federal government, Goldwater seems blind, and has no answer, to the existing, devastating tyranny being enacted by local and state-level governments against their own citizens.
February 25, 2013
As concise and lucid a summation of the basic tenants of conservative thought as you are likely to find anywhere. Much of this book is extremely prescient, and I was shocked by how well the book addresses so many of the hot-button social and economic issues Americans face today. With his chapter on the pitfalls of government stimulus packages, it almost feels as though Goldwater is confronting George W. Bush and Barack Obama head-on. The only section that's dated is the stuff pertaining to the advent of the Cold War, but even that part is far from irrelevant, as it contains many parallels with today's battles against militant Islam. THE CONSCIENCE OF A CONSERVATIVE is a smart book written in a humble, eloquent style.
March 13, 2018
What would Goldwater say about the year 2018 here in America? Not only do we not pay attention to the 1billion Chinese Communist but we can’t see that we’ve been corrupted from the inside by communism. People should pick this book up and read it, the American People should revisit this masterpiece of American political literature, God knows we need someone or something to help
Guide us away from the radicle lefts gravitational pull that seems to be sucking in the youth to its communist mindset. A must read, buy one for your family and friends, it’s well worth it.
Guide us away from the radicle lefts gravitational pull that seems to be sucking in the youth to its communist mindset. A must read, buy one for your family and friends, it’s well worth it.
December 31, 2017
This is not the timeless outline of conservative political philosophy I expected, but still fairly interesting, especially having hindsight on certain topics, such as the Cold War. Barry Goldwater was certainly a trailblazer, and many of the ideas he covered in this book are now quite mainstream or considered libertarian.
February 19, 2015
Disagree with 90% of it but this is a well written book detailing the conservative ideology which has become prominent in the US over the last 50 years. More readable than it has any right to be.
Read
December 13, 2024It's interesting seeing which conservative narratives have changed and which have remained constant since the 60s (although Barry seems to be a libertarian based on this and some positions he took on down the road)
If you change the words communism/communist to 'spaghetti monsterism/spaghetti monster' half of this book gets a lot more entertaining, and also exposes how doublethinky these positions are.
'We must defend ourselves from the spaghetti monster by, uh, defensively invading countries that might be spaghetti sympathizers'. How can one hold a suite of libertarian stances and still want the U.S. to have/exercise a monopoly of force over the world?
If you change the words communism/communist to 'spaghetti monsterism/spaghetti monster' half of this book gets a lot more entertaining, and also exposes how doublethinky these positions are.
'We must defend ourselves from the spaghetti monster by, uh, defensively invading countries that might be spaghetti sympathizers'. How can one hold a suite of libertarian stances and still want the U.S. to have/exercise a monopoly of force over the world?
May 26, 2020
This is a book that is highly engaging and has more than a few poignant moments. However, overall it has mostly served to make me very happy that Barry Goldwater was never elected President of the United States. Additionally, while I say this as a liberal, I feel this is one of the worst representations of honest and thoughtful conservatism that I have ever seen.
Read
September 4, 2020I don't want to "rate" this book since I wasn't only reading it as a primary source.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 371 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.