Scan barcode
A review by icgerrard
The Conscience of a Conservative by Barry M. Goldwater
2.0
Superficial reflections on what conservatism truly is with a veneer of philosophical weight. Especially concerning is his false dichotomy between man's material and spiritual needs. Setting aside the slippery nature of what "spiritual" even is (he seems to think it's vaguely equivalent to dignity and individualism), it is even less obvious how government assistance in material matters must necessarily degrade the recipient. Goldwater repeats the worn out talking point that government assistance reduces a sense of personal responsibility and simply produces lazy free-loaders. However, this is a claim that is simply not backed up in the long run. How ever many people choose to be "lazy" on government welfare, it has been shown again and again that most people want to better themselves. And government interference is a reasonable way to try to correct structural inequality.
His other particularly irksome claim is that a graduated tax is confiscatory. He asserts this is so based on two principles: taxed contributions are involuntary, and therefore reduce individual freedom; we shouldn't punish the wealthy for being more richly rewarded with abundance for their work by taking away said reward. The first principle is I think very clearly revealed as a false tension by the idea of government sponsored healthcare. Supposing you have to pay twice as much under a free system to get good healthcare as a government system where you get better healthcare. Setting aside whether this can be practically implemented, even the hypothetical possibility reveals the dogmatic nature of the original assertion. Is the ephemeral concept of "freedom" so intransigent that you are degraded by getting something better for half the cost, simply because the government was involved? As for the second principle, we have progressed enough since this text's writing for many people to appreciate that it is not reasonable to see personal wealth accumulation as simply a just reward for superior toil. Not that it can't be...but likely there is much more at play.
As some other reviewers have noted, however, his opinion on corporate political spending is spot on. Even though he roots his objection in opposition, primarily, to union political spending, he is honest enough to also say corporations should be given no more leeway than he wishes unions be given. And while I think a reasonable argument can be made with respect to the distinctions between unions and corporations on this point, it's a prescient observation on his part given that it was union based political activity that laid the framework giving us Citizens United.
Perhaps the part of the text which aged least well, though it's hard to pick, is his discussion of Brown. He takes a state's rights stance which says that, while personally he was opposed to segregation, that it still doesn't justify the government's interference in the state's monopoly on education. His ability to come down so hard on this is through his over-reading of the tenth amendment (hello fourteenth amendment?), something that explicitly under-girds the entirety of the work.
Overall, I was particularly struck by how much closer he was to being a libertarian (minus parts of the cold war discussion at the end) than many modern conservatives. Yet, he also strays far away from libertarianism in his fear of true democracies (he hits on the false dichotomy between us having a true democracy versus republic out of fear of the masses). This fear seems inseparable from the work, because without it I'm not sure how he could justify his fear of government. Even while celebrating America and freedom, ostensibly in part because we are a country of self-governance, he clearly doesn't believe that the people acting through the government are truly acting as the people. Once the people act through the government, he seems to presume that there is an immediate antagonism between the will of the people and the "compulsory" nature of the government interference. This conclusion doesn't seem necessary, unless you are afraid of the people themselves.
It is, however, a clear work and sheds light on the evolution of conservatism as we know it today. Given its length, it's worth the read for a historical perspective. Although, you shouldn't feel badly about skipping the end part about Russia.
His other particularly irksome claim is that a graduated tax is confiscatory. He asserts this is so based on two principles: taxed contributions are involuntary, and therefore reduce individual freedom; we shouldn't punish the wealthy for being more richly rewarded with abundance for their work by taking away said reward. The first principle is I think very clearly revealed as a false tension by the idea of government sponsored healthcare. Supposing you have to pay twice as much under a free system to get good healthcare as a government system where you get better healthcare. Setting aside whether this can be practically implemented, even the hypothetical possibility reveals the dogmatic nature of the original assertion. Is the ephemeral concept of "freedom" so intransigent that you are degraded by getting something better for half the cost, simply because the government was involved? As for the second principle, we have progressed enough since this text's writing for many people to appreciate that it is not reasonable to see personal wealth accumulation as simply a just reward for superior toil. Not that it can't be...but likely there is much more at play.
As some other reviewers have noted, however, his opinion on corporate political spending is spot on. Even though he roots his objection in opposition, primarily, to union political spending, he is honest enough to also say corporations should be given no more leeway than he wishes unions be given. And while I think a reasonable argument can be made with respect to the distinctions between unions and corporations on this point, it's a prescient observation on his part given that it was union based political activity that laid the framework giving us Citizens United.
Perhaps the part of the text which aged least well, though it's hard to pick, is his discussion of Brown. He takes a state's rights stance which says that, while personally he was opposed to segregation, that it still doesn't justify the government's interference in the state's monopoly on education. His ability to come down so hard on this is through his over-reading of the tenth amendment (hello fourteenth amendment?), something that explicitly under-girds the entirety of the work.
Overall, I was particularly struck by how much closer he was to being a libertarian (minus parts of the cold war discussion at the end) than many modern conservatives. Yet, he also strays far away from libertarianism in his fear of true democracies (he hits on the false dichotomy between us having a true democracy versus republic out of fear of the masses). This fear seems inseparable from the work, because without it I'm not sure how he could justify his fear of government. Even while celebrating America and freedom, ostensibly in part because we are a country of self-governance, he clearly doesn't believe that the people acting through the government are truly acting as the people. Once the people act through the government, he seems to presume that there is an immediate antagonism between the will of the people and the "compulsory" nature of the government interference. This conclusion doesn't seem necessary, unless you are afraid of the people themselves.
It is, however, a clear work and sheds light on the evolution of conservatism as we know it today. Given its length, it's worth the read for a historical perspective. Although, you shouldn't feel badly about skipping the end part about Russia.