Scan barcode
stroutqb22's review against another edition
5.0
Very well explained principles and very straightforward
tittypete's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting but idealist at best. Hard line to the point of foolhardy at worst. Illuminating in its impact on the Bushes and Reagan's of the world. Ultimately more depressing in that aspect than hopeful.
gsatori's review against another edition
2.0
When one is reading this, I think it is important to place it in context, not just historical, but biographical. Goldwater would change his views tremendously through the years, and become far more socially progressive, to the point that he would be stoned today by many of those folks calling themselves Republicans.
reaganwaggoner's review against another edition
5.0
Original review from December 2021 left below, but just reread again (March 2022).. brilliantly written moral, economic, and political case for true conservatism. See below for original review
••••••
This book is fantastic - a manifesto on limited government and adhering to constitutionalism. This is not an assault on human rights, but, rather, encouragement of human rights in the form of uplifting the state.
The federal government intercedes far too often, rather than allowing the state to run its own course. Its objection, of course, is that often the state does not do as it should. However, it is the job of the people, not the federal government, to regulate the state.
“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 the social order. “ - Goldwater
“Was it then a democracy the Framers created? Hardly. The system of restraints, on the face of it, was directed not only against individual tyrants, but also against a tyranny of the masses.” - Goldwater
“A republic - If you can keep it” -Franklin
Ways power of gov may be measured (my rough notes)
1. Size of financial operations (hundred billion dollars a year vs 3.5 billion less than 3 decades ago
2. scope of activities, according to chicago tribune “ biggest land owner, property manager, renter, mover and hauler, medical condition, lender, ensure, mortgage broker, employer, debtor, taxer and spender and all history.”
3. portion of earnings government appropriates for own use
4. extent of government interference and regulation in daily life
“The need for “economic growth” that we hear so much about these days will be achieved, not by the government harnessing the nations economic forces, but by emancipating them.” -Goldwater
Brilliantly said - this is true conservatism. It truly is a shame that neither of our two parties maintains a meaningful commitment to the principle of states rights.
••••••
This book is fantastic - a manifesto on limited government and adhering to constitutionalism. This is not an assault on human rights, but, rather, encouragement of human rights in the form of uplifting the state.
The federal government intercedes far too often, rather than allowing the state to run its own course. Its objection, of course, is that often the state does not do as it should. However, it is the job of the people, not the federal government, to regulate the state.
“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 the social order. “ - Goldwater
“Was it then a democracy the Framers created? Hardly. The system of restraints, on the face of it, was directed not only against individual tyrants, but also against a tyranny of the masses.” - Goldwater
“A republic - If you can keep it” -Franklin
Ways power of gov may be measured (my rough notes)
1. Size of financial operations (hundred billion dollars a year vs 3.5 billion less than 3 decades ago
2. scope of activities, according to chicago tribune “ biggest land owner, property manager, renter, mover and hauler, medical condition, lender, ensure, mortgage broker, employer, debtor, taxer and spender and all history.”
3. portion of earnings government appropriates for own use
4. extent of government interference and regulation in daily life
“The need for “economic growth” that we hear so much about these days will be achieved, not by the government harnessing the nations economic forces, but by emancipating them.” -Goldwater
Brilliantly said - this is true conservatism. It truly is a shame that neither of our two parties maintains a meaningful commitment to the principle of states rights.
bucketoffish's review against another edition
5.0
Barry Goldwater was a senator from Arizona from the 50's to the late 80's, and the 1964 Republican candidate for president. He and his following of "Goldwater Republicans" were largely credited with the resurgence of modern American conservatism.
Since this was one of my first readings into conservative political philosophy, I found the ideas presented in this book to be very interesting and clearly presented. It gave me a good view into some underlying ideas which have guided the evolution of the Republican party, even to the current day.
The major theme presented in this book is Goldwater's opposition to the federal consolidation of power. In his view, the Constitution originally placed major limitations on the federal government via the 10th Amendment for very critical reasons - namely, that power tends to consolidate. He talks in length about this concept, discussing the historical growth in scope and funding of the federal government, and the associated shrinking in power of state and local governments. For instance, one mechanism of power consolidation that he points out is the use of "matched funding" from Washington to coerce state-level policy. That is, taxes are levied from citizens, and are only re-allocated to the states upon cooperation with centralized policy. He expands a lot on the view of taxes as a method of centralized control, and discusses multiple instances where tasks performed adequately by the states were for one reason or other taken over by the federal government (a development he considered unconstitutional). Goldwater talks about the growth in federal budget over the years, noting that at the time of writing it had been growing for decades at rates far outstripping inflation, population growth, or GDP growth. At the time of writing, he noted that an average laborer had to work seven days a month just to pay their federal taxes, and that neither party had been able to curb the budget growth. It is noteworthy that since he wrote this book, this rate of growth has continued to expand at the same rate.
Goldwater states that the goal of the government should be to maximize the freedom of each person. It does this by providing only the bare services necessary for creating stability. He lists as examples of essential services the upholding of courts and laws, protection from foreign threats, and the removal of monopolies that constrain the free market. In fact, in addition to the government Goldwater mentions both powerful corporations and powerful unions as threats to freedom, and as valid targets for government intervention. In Goldwater's view, the centralization of power in any entity had multiple problems. First, he stated that centralized power was less accountable to the people. Second, he stated that centralized decision making was less effective than localized governing, with some discussion of free-market equilibrium forces. He also talked a lot about the concept of freedom, stating that it was a natural right that was slowly being eroded by the government. It is notable that his views in this vein led him during his lifetime to endorse stances such as abortion rights and marijuana legalization, views which later ran counter to the Evangelical faction of the modern Republican party but which found play with the Libertarian faction.
Goldwater's most controversial stance, I think, was his opposition to federal civil rights legislation. Though he agreed with progressive stances, he argued that the government did not have the ability to effectively enforce, nor the right to make laws on this matter, and that they should instead be governed on the local and state level, or simply handled between the individuals affected. It was his view that government could not effectively intervene in this area without major impositions on individual rights. If I understand my history correctly, it was this kind of stance that led to the modern racial split in US politics. He notes in his defense that being opposed to certain legislation did not mean that Republicans did not find the policies useful or important - only that they were not proper for, or most effectively handled by the federal government. He placed a lot of emphasis on voluntary association and voluntary action, for reasons of effectiveness and morality, and made the case that government action violated these principles.
I think the ideas presented in this book can be seen clearly in the development of Republican policies. The election of Reagan, the growth of the Tea Party, and even the election of Trump are consistent and understandable given the worldview espoused here. In fact, I was strongly reminded of the latter event upon reading Goldwater's quote, "It will come when Americans... decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic. Who will proclaim in a campaign speech: 'I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones...'". It's also easy when reading this book to see the origin of the modern preoccupation with the "deep state", and with the "nanny state". The ideas described here also explain why Republicans were so vehemently against Obamacare and centralized healthcare in general.
The final chapter, in my opinion, becomes a bit bizarre. Goldwater's intense dislike of centralized power consolidation is seen in his lengthy and vitriolic rant against communism. Written during the height of the Cold War, this chapter reads like a McCarthy-era parody. Goldwater states that it is certain that we are reluctant to use nuclear weapons, but that the communists have no compulsions. We are content to live peacefully, but the communists are obsessed with world domination and will never rest. We keep our word, but the communists always lie. When the communists ask for peace treaties and nuclear disarmament, it's because they want to trick us. When other countries become Red it's because the communists are masters of propaganda and espionage. People in communist countries are "enslaved" and waiting to be freed by the United States. We should incite and support guerrilla warfare in other countries. Cultural exchanges serve no purpose because the communists will try to trick the population into thinking "that the Soviet people are 'ordinary people' just like ourselves; that Communism is just another political system", and that this would make Americans "fail to grasp how evil the Soviet system really is", etc. (yes, that last example is verbatim). Luckily, the Cold War did end, nations did denuclearize, and communist countries did not try to take over the world. This chapter really shows the origins of a lot of Republican foreign policy today though.
I think the ideas presented here describe much of modern Republican politics - namely, a tendency to try to reduce taxes, defund government, and reduce regulations and rights legislation at all levels, combined with a strong tendency towards foreign interventionism and border defense.
Since this was one of my first readings into conservative political philosophy, I found the ideas presented in this book to be very interesting and clearly presented. It gave me a good view into some underlying ideas which have guided the evolution of the Republican party, even to the current day.
The major theme presented in this book is Goldwater's opposition to the federal consolidation of power. In his view, the Constitution originally placed major limitations on the federal government via the 10th Amendment for very critical reasons - namely, that power tends to consolidate. He talks in length about this concept, discussing the historical growth in scope and funding of the federal government, and the associated shrinking in power of state and local governments. For instance, one mechanism of power consolidation that he points out is the use of "matched funding" from Washington to coerce state-level policy. That is, taxes are levied from citizens, and are only re-allocated to the states upon cooperation with centralized policy. He expands a lot on the view of taxes as a method of centralized control, and discusses multiple instances where tasks performed adequately by the states were for one reason or other taken over by the federal government (a development he considered unconstitutional). Goldwater talks about the growth in federal budget over the years, noting that at the time of writing it had been growing for decades at rates far outstripping inflation, population growth, or GDP growth. At the time of writing, he noted that an average laborer had to work seven days a month just to pay their federal taxes, and that neither party had been able to curb the budget growth. It is noteworthy that since he wrote this book, this rate of growth has continued to expand at the same rate.
Goldwater states that the goal of the government should be to maximize the freedom of each person. It does this by providing only the bare services necessary for creating stability. He lists as examples of essential services the upholding of courts and laws, protection from foreign threats, and the removal of monopolies that constrain the free market. In fact, in addition to the government Goldwater mentions both powerful corporations and powerful unions as threats to freedom, and as valid targets for government intervention. In Goldwater's view, the centralization of power in any entity had multiple problems. First, he stated that centralized power was less accountable to the people. Second, he stated that centralized decision making was less effective than localized governing, with some discussion of free-market equilibrium forces. He also talked a lot about the concept of freedom, stating that it was a natural right that was slowly being eroded by the government. It is notable that his views in this vein led him during his lifetime to endorse stances such as abortion rights and marijuana legalization, views which later ran counter to the Evangelical faction of the modern Republican party but which found play with the Libertarian faction.
Goldwater's most controversial stance, I think, was his opposition to federal civil rights legislation. Though he agreed with progressive stances, he argued that the government did not have the ability to effectively enforce, nor the right to make laws on this matter, and that they should instead be governed on the local and state level, or simply handled between the individuals affected. It was his view that government could not effectively intervene in this area without major impositions on individual rights. If I understand my history correctly, it was this kind of stance that led to the modern racial split in US politics. He notes in his defense that being opposed to certain legislation did not mean that Republicans did not find the policies useful or important - only that they were not proper for, or most effectively handled by the federal government. He placed a lot of emphasis on voluntary association and voluntary action, for reasons of effectiveness and morality, and made the case that government action violated these principles.
I think the ideas presented in this book can be seen clearly in the development of Republican policies. The election of Reagan, the growth of the Tea Party, and even the election of Trump are consistent and understandable given the worldview espoused here. In fact, I was strongly reminded of the latter event upon reading Goldwater's quote, "It will come when Americans... decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic. Who will proclaim in a campaign speech: 'I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones...'". It's also easy when reading this book to see the origin of the modern preoccupation with the "deep state", and with the "nanny state". The ideas described here also explain why Republicans were so vehemently against Obamacare and centralized healthcare in general.
The final chapter, in my opinion, becomes a bit bizarre. Goldwater's intense dislike of centralized power consolidation is seen in his lengthy and vitriolic rant against communism. Written during the height of the Cold War, this chapter reads like a McCarthy-era parody. Goldwater states that it is certain that we are reluctant to use nuclear weapons, but that the communists have no compulsions. We are content to live peacefully, but the communists are obsessed with world domination and will never rest. We keep our word, but the communists always lie. When the communists ask for peace treaties and nuclear disarmament, it's because they want to trick us. When other countries become Red it's because the communists are masters of propaganda and espionage. People in communist countries are "enslaved" and waiting to be freed by the United States. We should incite and support guerrilla warfare in other countries. Cultural exchanges serve no purpose because the communists will try to trick the population into thinking "that the Soviet people are 'ordinary people' just like ourselves; that Communism is just another political system", and that this would make Americans "fail to grasp how evil the Soviet system really is", etc. (yes, that last example is verbatim). Luckily, the Cold War did end, nations did denuclearize, and communist countries did not try to take over the world. This chapter really shows the origins of a lot of Republican foreign policy today though.
I think the ideas presented here describe much of modern Republican politics - namely, a tendency to try to reduce taxes, defund government, and reduce regulations and rights legislation at all levels, combined with a strong tendency towards foreign interventionism and border defense.
icgerrard's review against another edition
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.
davidfosco's review against another edition
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
4.0
Well written, concise, and to the point. Mr. Goldwater lays the issues of a nation at the feet of its people for close observation.
Reading this book decades after its release shows the cyclical nature of politics, and should encourage conservatives and libertarians alike.
Reading this book decades after its release shows the cyclical nature of politics, and should encourage conservatives and libertarians alike.
jemmania's review against another edition
informative
fast-paced
5.0
Published in 1960, this seminal work laid the foundation for the Reagan Revolution in the 1980s. Goldwater, with plain but eloquent English, lays out his views on Government Spending, Winning the Cold War, and The Welfare State. A must read regardless of party affiliation. V based.