On Barry Goldwater

Goldwater is one of those curious political figures. Despite the fact that he was, at least in terms of his bid for President, an abject failure, he is fondly remembered by many - including lots of Libertarians. In fact, you often see a picture of him on Libertarian websites - often between pictures of Ayn Rand and F. A. Hayek. In some respects, he's like an American equivalent of Michael Foot. Obviously, their political views were completely different, but they both are painted as passionate ideologues and noble losers.

I have to be honest here - I think that Goldwater's 1964 campaign for President was an unmitigated disaster. He was so bad in it that he handed a landslide victory to LBJ - who then went forward to dramatically increase the size of the US state. Don't believe me when I say he fucked it up? Take a look at this:

I think the correct term is a landslide - and it wasn't in Goldwater's favour. I guess that's one of the reasons why he is still viewed with rose-tinted glasses: he never had to make any of the compromises that all Presidents have to make. It is far easier to be ideologically consistent when you don't have to actually exercise political power.

Of course, that campaign gave us the oft-quoted slogan that is perhaps best defines Barry Goldwater:

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Like many famous pieces of rhetoric, it is a striking, memorable and, unfortunately, largely bollocks. Extremism is always a vice - it involves turning your mind off to alternative viewpoints, shutting down debates and believing zealously in the "truth" of your own position. In fact, I'd argue that extremism leads to the defacement of liberty. Likewise, moderation is the way justice works - the entire justice system is designed to limit emotion and extremism. Moderation is arguably vital to justice.

But it is a political slogan, and designed to provoke emotions rather than stand up to detailed analysis. Unfortunately, it also fails as an effective political slogan. Think about the context - it was the height of the Cold War. The Cuban Missile Crisis and the murder of a US President were all recent history. Many voters would also have lived through the results of the extremists of the 1930's - in other words, World War Two. It was naive at best to make a statement like that - and it created a big stick with which LBJ could beat Goldwater. In fact, the notorious Daisy commercial can be traced back to that statement:

As a Presidential candidate, Goldwater failed. And in doing so, I don't think that he really revealed himself to be a champion of freedom.

But despite all this, I still think that Goldwater was, in his own way, a champion of liberty if only because he was so consistent about his views. Look at his later career - he stood against the increasing Christian domination of the Republican party. He believed abortion was a personal choice, not something that the government should legislate for or against. Likewise, he didn't care about homosexuals serving in the military - and he certainly didn't back the often homophonic stance of many Republicans. And this statement is still pertinent today:

When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

Read those words, and think about Bush Junior. Or the moronic Sarah Palin. People who mistake being a Christian fundamentalist with being a champion of liberty. Goldwater understood that religion and politics need to be kept separate, and that some matters truly are about personal responsibility and personal choice. Forget his wibblings about extremism and liberty, and focus instead on his coherent and necessary resistance against the religious right in the US. His stance and his words are essential if you want to understand why the zealots who seem to be running the Republican party at the moment are not friends of liberty, but rather the exact opposite.