Take a photo of a barcode or cover
32 reviews for:
The Conscience of a Conservative
Sean Wilentz, C.C. Goldwater, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Barry M. Goldwater, George F. Will
3.18 AVERAGE
32 reviews for:
The Conscience of a Conservative
Sean Wilentz, C.C. Goldwater, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Barry M. Goldwater, George F. Will
3.18 AVERAGE
challenging
fast-paced
High-minded justifications for some of the worst ideas in U.S. history
reflective
medium-paced
I really enjoyed the first 2/3 of the book. I thought he did a good job of explaining the conservative perspective on specific social issues without getting bogged down in minutia. It is not a text for deep understanding of conservative issues but it is a good, if slightly dated, overview
The section discussing the Soviets though, was showing it's age.
The section discussing the Soviets though, was showing it's age.
funny
medium-paced
Very well explained principles and very straightforward
A fascinating piece of political history if nothing else. Goldwater comes dangerously close to making some real arguments, but the vast majority of this is not necessarily a call to action or a gameplan of policy but a light dissemination of the idealistic functions of a government not hampered by partisan division. Too often when Goldwater (or his ghostwriters) attempt to make a point using any kind of statistic or tangible evidence, the thought is terminated by some form of "I don't have the space or time to devote here..." Being that the book is less than 200 pages as it is, they had plenty of time and space. Remarkably little of this makes a cogent observation about a specific problem and even less often offers a solution.
While I agree with a few sentiments: union privelege and education dysfunction being really the only two - in my mind - I'm frustrated by the conclusions. Education in the 60s, much as it is now, was a mess, and SHOULD fall under state's purview and not the federal government's, Goldwater argues. I agree with this observation to a certain extent, but that's all it is: an observation. There's nothing here about what can be done to rectify this issue, just a damnation of the government and those who run it in not running it better (re: to his specific standards.)
The fact that Goldwater was considered a radical in his time is wild to me, considering most of this is pretty tame and even rational by today's standards. I can only imagine that elites like the Kochs espousing his Libertarian ideologies would have him rolling in his grave, especially since he plainly condemns the idea of corporations owning controlling interests in specific industries and using monetary power to influence governmental policy.
If all conservatives who wield political power today operated themselves in the way that Goldwater presents himself between the pages of this book, I truly believe we'd live in a better society. The problem is, however, that this book is essentially political propaganda written I'm sure with the purpose of promoting himself as a Presidential candidate (a race which he would go on to lose in the largest defeat in American history), so therefore I don't believe it can be taken at face value. A carefully curated smattering of idealistic beliefs is about as valuable and significant as a fart in the wind.
While I agree with a few sentiments: union privelege and education dysfunction being really the only two - in my mind - I'm frustrated by the conclusions. Education in the 60s, much as it is now, was a mess, and SHOULD fall under state's purview and not the federal government's, Goldwater argues. I agree with this observation to a certain extent, but that's all it is: an observation. There's nothing here about what can be done to rectify this issue, just a damnation of the government and those who run it in not running it better (re: to his specific standards.)
The fact that Goldwater was considered a radical in his time is wild to me, considering most of this is pretty tame and even rational by today's standards. I can only imagine that elites like the Kochs espousing his Libertarian ideologies would have him rolling in his grave, especially since he plainly condemns the idea of corporations owning controlling interests in specific industries and using monetary power to influence governmental policy.
If all conservatives who wield political power today operated themselves in the way that Goldwater presents himself between the pages of this book, I truly believe we'd live in a better society. The problem is, however, that this book is essentially political propaganda written I'm sure with the purpose of promoting himself as a Presidential candidate (a race which he would go on to lose in the largest defeat in American history), so therefore I don't believe it can be taken at face value. A carefully curated smattering of idealistic beliefs is about as valuable and significant as a fart in the wind.
reflective
medium-paced
A watershed text for the conservative revival of the 60s. Goldwater gives a powerful and confident voice special kind of myopic and privileged perspective that is characteristic of American conservatism and libertarianism. This 2-3 hour read purports to contain the “common sense” solutions to the problems that the United States faced in that day. It is because of simplifications and omissions that readers may leave this text feeling enlightened and confused why the armies of professional diplomats, lawyers, politicians, and movement leaders of Goldwater’s time disagreed with him. History has shown the conclusions here to have been largely false, especially those regarding civil rights and national security. Still, readers will find here the roots of conservative ideologies of today even if, ironically, Goldwater himself would detest the modern Republican Party on principle.
I'm glad I read this and was surprised that I agreed with a lot of what he said. However, as with most things, the current conservative movement picks and chooses what parts they want to adopt and what parts they choose to ignore. Goldwater felt that religion and corporations had no place in politics and was pro gay marriage by the end of his career. I think it's an interesting part of the dialogue.
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.
Barry Goldwater was a shortsighted idiot and left an extremely dangerous legacy behind that is stronger today than ever before. Smh.