-
Putting Heritage in DeMint Condition
May 10, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Military Might, Out of the Wilderness
May 8, 2013 | 115 comments
-
Not Wanting to Write About Nothing Good
April 30, 2013 | 126 comments
-
Perez Abomination Grows
April 23, 2013 | 81 comments
-
Tea Partiers for Freedom
April 16, 2013 | 12 comments
Streetcar Line
Of Goldwater and of Black Gold in the Water
A Liberator then, and still so today.
Forty-nine years ago, Barry Goldwater had some things to tell conservatives that are still relevant today. Please allow a digression, though, before we see what the late, great senator from Arizona had to say.
This past Tuesday afternoon, the Drudge Report posted as its lead, top-of-page item the report that Louisiana federal district judge Martin L.C. Feldman had issued a well-reasoned injunction to stop the Obama administration’s moratorium against deepwater oil drilling (the judge thus would allow the drilling to resume). At that very moment, sitting open right in front of me on my desk was a 1963 publication that contained a poem by the selfsame Martin L.C. Feldman. The poem isn’t very comprehensible without familiarity with T.S. Eliot’s “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” and with the nursery rhyme “Who Killed Cock Robin?” But Feldman’s theme can be summed up as a criticism of those “who think they think,” but who don’t actually come down from their ivory towers or leave their social clubs in order to do the practical, real-world work of… well, of making the real world work. “The Etherized Patient,” Feldman writes, “still remains prone/ Never wanting to rise, it seems.”
As a judge 47 years later, Feldman’s injunction stands as a rebuke to the Obamites who “think they think” but who seem to have no conception, from within their self-selected ideological bubble, of how their oh-so-noble oil-drilling moratorium will affect the practical, real-world work of many tens of thousands of people who depend on the oil, and the drilling of it, for their livelihoods.
All of which is fine, but, how did my desk come, purely coincidentally, to feature a 47-year-old publication containing a poem by now-Judge Feldman?
My godfather Ben C. Toledano had asked for copies of the publication; that’s how. He had lost his copies in Hurricane Katrina. The publication was “Liberator,” a conservative journal founded at Tulane University by my father in April 1961. As far as I can tell, “Liberator” published just five issues in a little more than two years. Its small contributors list, though, turned out to be a font of future achievements. Feldman became a federal judge. Toledano, who served as editor of the final issue (with my dad still as publisher), was a path-breaking Republican nominee for mayor of New Orleans and for U.S. Senate from Louisiana. My dad later became Louisiana’s Republican National Committeeman. The first campus correspondent (every other major Louisiana college had a correspondent associated with Liberator) from Louisiana State University was Stanwood Duval Jr., who also is a federal district judge. (He turned out to be liberal, unfortunately; you can’t win ‘em all!) A campus correspondent from Louisiana Tech was one Stanley Tiner, who later became editor in chief of the major dailies in Shreveport, Mobile, Oklahoma City, and Biloxi — at the last of which, in his current position, he won a Pulitzer Prize.
A later correspondent from LSU was Morton Blackwell, now the conservative movement stalwart who runs the Leadership Institute and is in his sixth term as Republican National Committeeman from Virginia. A “corresponding editor” and writer was Helen Reddy, now known as Helen Blackwell. In addition to being Morton’s wife, she is a longtime and cherished leader of Republican women’s groups in Northern Virginia.
“Liberator” featured letters to the editor from William F. Buckley Jr., Sen. Strom Thurmond, National Review’s Frank S. Meyer (also the subject of a full-length interview), and other worthies. And “Liberator” featured exclusive essays by conservative intellectual theorist and historian Russell Kirk, and — as the cover story of the very first issue — by the aforementioned Sen. Barry Goldwater. These were all people who did not settle for merely “think[ing] they think” while actually “never wanting to rise” to do anything real. Not bad for a decidedly thin little journal printed on cheap yellow paper, out of the home apartment of a newlywed law student.
All of that digression leads us back around to Goldwater and the exclusive essay he did for my father’s “Liberator” in April 1961, expressing confidence in a “rapidly approaching period of vigorous conservatism in American political thinking.” It features an entire subsection titled with an odd-sounding (to today’s ears) phrase, “The Whole Man.” I had heard Goldwater use this phrase elsewhere on video, in the opening sentence of his 1964 GOP nomination acceptance speech at San Francisco’s Cow Palace. He also used the phrase several other times in that speech, but never explained it, not even really in context, so that it sounded almost like an affectation. But there in “Liberator,” three years earlier, Goldwater explained what he meant.
Conservatives are interested in the whole man, while the radical-liberals confine their interest to the material side of his nature. Conservatives believe that man is in part an economic and animal creature, but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires.… The conservative respects the individuality of man, realizing that man’s spiritual and material development is not something that can be directed by outside forces. Every man, for his individual good and the good of his society, is responsible for his own development. The choices that govern his life are choices that he, not a super-state, must make. And these are choices that must involve the whole man [emphasis Goldwater’s own], if they are to be the right choices. If life were concerned only with material things, as the Liberal approach indicates, then I suppose the conduct of some men might be justified. The materialistic philosophies of Marx and Engels, which call for the suppression of the individual and glorify the collective, are only acceptable to people who deny the possibility of a more significant explanation for man’s existence….
The Liberals, with their emphasis on collectivism and conformity, and their willingness to use compulsion to achieve their ends, are actually suggesting a course of action which thoughtful men have rejected throughout history. The reason man must be treated as an individual is because he has an individual immortal soul. Thus, his freedom comes from God — as do all of his rights. In the scheme of things, government’s only proper role is in the protection of man’s God-given freedoms and rights. [All emphases again are Goldwater’s own.]
The conservative recognizes that the concentration of power in the hands of the few has always been the undoing of those who aspired to the fruits of freedom. Aware of the overbearing evidence of history as to the truth of this postulate, the conservative is fearful of the concentration of power which accompanies central government.
And then, with high relevance today, this: “I am convinced that most Americans now want to reverse the trend. I think that concern for our vanishing freedoms is genuine. I think that the people’s uneasiness in the stifling omnipresence of government has turned into something approaching alarm….”
If this doesn’t sound like an erudite explanation of the roots of the TEA Party phenomenon, you’re not paying attention. If Goldwater’s warnings don’t sound like today’s concerns about the Obamites, you’re not listening. If the late Arizona senator and today’s Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina (for one example) do not look like philosophical twins, your eyesight clearly has grown dim. (As an aside: It is too bad the current senior senator from Arizona, John McCain, understands all this no better than a rooster comprehends Aquinas. One can always hope that his primary threat from J.D. Hayworth can make McCain learn.)
Goldwater’s ideals stem from classic, limited-government, libertarian-leaning wisdom. They are ideals that echo today in the well-expressed beliefs of Ohio’s Joe the Plumber, and of the furniture refinisher in Spanish Fort, Alabama, and of the Sarah Palin-admiring young mother in Pocatello, Idaho. These people’s concern for vanishing freedoms is genuine. Their uneasiness about stiflingly omnipresent government approaches alarm. And they are absolutely right to feel that way.
But note what Goldwater said about “the whole man.” Note that the concerns are not merely economic or material. Note that both the roots and the fruits of conservatism are spiritual as well. And note that the spiritual and material parts of conservatism are not an “either/or” proposition, but a “both/and.” They are necessarily so. They are not two separate features grafted into a coalition, but naturally part and parcel of each other and mutually dependent on each other as complementary features of a single whole.
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (88) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Quin Hillyer
More Articles From Streetcar Line
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/25/of-goldwater-and-of-black-gold
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
TennesseeVolunteer| 6.25.10 @ 8:33AM
Quin, as a small boy I remember my Dad supporting goldwater in a small Democratic town in Ohio. I remember the ridicule he got from family and neighbors.
After reading about the "Whole Man' I now understand my Dad a little better. And his memory is all the more dear to me because, like many men, I am my Fathers Son.
My wife is the President of a very successful Catholic school that the Nuns (when the school had some) had almost run into the ground.
Now she has no nuns at the school other than they come from the Mother House to "advise".
They are all into environmentalism and womens rights being inserted into the curriculum. they never even talk about God, or his role, unless it has to do with their liberal agenda. they would also do well to read about goldwater.
Thanks for a great memory of my Dad right after Fathers Day!
Ted| 6.25.10 @ 9:42AM
Tennessee Volunteer,
Depending on where you are, if you need REAL nuns, look to the Nashville Dominicans. Most women's religious orders in the USA are Catholic in name only.... But the Nashville Dominicans are the real deal.
Tim*| 6.25.10 @ 3:31PM
Ted's Right !
Same goes for The Grey Nuns Of The Sacred Heart.
Alan Brooks| 6.26.10 @ 8:48PM
Goldwater, WFB, Reagan...
the three greats are dead, and now the young Turks with less dignity are running the show.
Ryan| 6.25.10 @ 8:37AM
I don't know that you and Huckabee necessarily disagree. I suspect you feel as I do about this new wave of neo-objectivism by those who read too much into Ayn Rand's idea that "I ask nobody to live for me, and I will live for nobody;" the first part may be true, but I feel that the second part is something that I am called to do as a Christian, both individually and with my church (but not forced to by my government).
Of course, I think most Tea Partier-types would agree as well - they may ask "Who is John Galt?" but would heartily disagree about not living for their fellow man.
Hardliner libertarians DO seem to, at times, only look at their pocketbook (either that, or their usual downfall - adamant drug legalization). Being pro-choice - without considering that an unborn child may be a human being with rights - sometimes doesn't enter into their paradigm, either.
Ryan| 6.25.10 @ 8:38AM
Oh, one other thing.
T-E-C-H, TECH TECH TECH!
GO DAWGS GO!
Sorry, you mentioned my alma mater.
free palestine| 6.25.10 @ 8:37AM
"124 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 1,441 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000"
http://www.ifamericansknew.org.....tml#source
arlo price| 6.25.10 @ 9:19AM
If hamas, fatah and the plo weren't using the palestinian kids as human shields the numbers would be a lot less.
R Martin| 6.25.10 @ 11:57AM
There's lots of land in the middle east where the petulant Palestinians can settle, and they would then be among like minded zealots who danced in the streets when the Twin Towers fell. I hope Israel doesn't yield another inch to those cutthroats.
CalMark| 6.25.10 @ 12:13PM
First, zealot, what is the relevance to this article?
Second, how is it that the Palestinians, after more than a half-century, still haven't made anything of themselves? Any group (however wronged) not obsessed primarily with hate would have found a way to build a society with schools, trade, even some light industry. The Palestinians have none of these.
Zealot, you and those like you are hateful losers just like the awful people whose water you carry. Go crawl back into the stinking hole from whence you (and they) come.
vtwin| 6.25.10 @ 2:12PM
I agree, it doesn’t appear to have anything to do with the conservative masturbation offered by the above commentary .
Cal Mark| 6.25.10 @ 5:36PM
Somehow, conservatives don't see the need for obsessive haunting of leftie publications.
If you don't like conservative commentary, don't come here. We won't miss you.
P.S. Your hate is showing.
Louis Jenkins| 6.25.10 @ 8:47AM
Dear Mr. Hillyer:
A good article. "...the duty of the whole man is to rise up from stupor on behalf of liberty." I think most of the posters here are doing just that. Let's hope that it carries through to Nov.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.25.10 @ 10:14AM
OK, Quin!
You are back on your "game".
Thank you so much for that work. I am so glad the term "alarmed" rather than "concerned" was used.
...though actually, as I have commented before, "fear is so far in my rear-view mirror it is out of sight."
Personally, I am too busy acting....and trying to look ahead. I reference a comment yesterday that quoted Stalin...about "...who counts the votes."
If whole men and women cannot prevail in November...and during the lame duck period following.....I hope each of you editors are developing "go yee therefore" articles.
God bless
Margie| 6.25.10 @ 11:17AM
"Libertarian leaning?" I'm not so sure Goldwater would appreciate that defining of his conservative outlook. From what I've learned about Libertarianism, it is exactly what you have defined in your article as the other half, the half that excludes the whole man, the half that insists on dogma and fiscal responsibility only, and tends toward the Left's ideology rather than conservatism. I see it as the enemy of conservatism. Conservatism is for the rule of law whereas Libertarianism claims no laws in the name of freedom. From their platform: "We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes."
It is just as Utopian believing as the Left. "Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands."
"We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression.
The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as
policeman for the world."
I'm not so sure what you mean by libertarian leanings, but these "leanings" have nothing to do with conservatism.
Nick| 6.25.10 @ 11:47AM
Margie,
Mr. Goldwater is labeled as "libertarian leaning" because later in his life he was pro-choice and pro-homo rights.
Margie| 6.25.10 @ 12:05PM
Ah then all the more reason to state that these leanings are not only not conservative, but contain no wisdom at all.
I think it is a mistake that many conservatives believe that libertarianism is a kin to conservatism. They think it means "wanting freedom." It reminds me of how the enviro-mentalists try and say "we want clean air, clean water, etc." Who doesn't want that? No, but there is a specific agenda that the Libertarians have.
Here's part of it, again from their platform: "We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups." ~Typical non-interventionist Leftist claptrap.
Are Libertarians willing to see the "whole man?" Are they able to?
RCV| 6.25.10 @ 12:13PM
Barry Goldwater:
"I don't have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the country."
"A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right."
Margie| 6.25.10 @ 12:37PM
If he truly said those things, then in his drive for conservatism he obviously made a wrong turn toward Libertarianism.
Typical Leftist view on abortion. It's murder but they call it a "right." All in the name of freedom, of course.
Al Adab| 6.25.10 @ 1:06PM
The inherent error of Libertarianism is that it overlooks what the Founders knew well, that there is a moral order essential to man and that Government exists to protect it and allow it to flourish.
That order cannot be imposed, which some Conservatives hope to do, nor can it be ignored except at our peril.
Margie| 6.25.10 @ 1:12PM
Hi Al Adab,
When you say that some conservatives hope to impose it, what do you mean? I have heard Libertarians accuse us of this only because we believe in the rule of law. They claim we are therefore "statists."
The rule of law is of course imposed, is it not?
Al Adab| 6.25.10 @ 2:15PM
Hi Margie,
Without giving a list of specific issues where "imposition" comes into play lets just say that some in the Conservative movement wish to mandate by law those moral values which once were commonly accepted throughout the society.
The worship of Diversity is dangerous in that it becomes Idolotry when it, rather than Liberty, (God given to each of us as you noted yesterday) takes precedent in our thinking.
The Conservative "agenda" if such exists cannot be written into positive Law without becomming Talmudic in its application. It is only through a common cultural consensus, based on the Western Canon, that Conservatism can prosper. It is that consensus that Conservatives hope to conserve and maintain. It is the breakdown of that consensus, enginered by design in academia and other realms, which endangers our Freedom.
Washington wrote regarding the events of the war, "I can never trace the... causes, which led to these events, without acknowleding...the goodness of Providence. To that superintending Power alone is our retraction from the brink of ruin to be attributed."
That Power is the one that can again restore our land, but we must abandon our idolotry to achieve that blessing.
Margie| 6.25.10 @ 7:35PM
Al Adab,
As to your first paragraph~ we've always had laws against human behavior, it's not something new. Am I misunderstanding you or are you sounding rather Libertarian? :^)
Here's something Chuck Colson wrote concerning the "freedom" of Libertarianism. Good stuff.
Al Adab| 6.25.10 @ 10:14PM
No, I think you have the idea. Moral behavior is inate and the law must reflect that. While cultural differences are real, Roman infanticide for example, it was still wrong.
Moral life cannot be decided by the voters or the latest poll. There are absolutes. Someday we (including Ken, Grz, Gill et al) need to have a real conversation. God speed.
Margie| 6.25.10 @ 10:59PM
Al Adab,
I'm pretty sure I understand what you're saying, and it is hard to communicate this way. I was thinking the same thing. It'd be so much better to be able to speak face to face. Well, if we don't ever get to in this life, perhaps in the next, by the Grace of God.
Here's what I think you're saying~ that yes, our laws reflect our morals, and without good morals we won't or can't have laws to reflect them. That in that way, they cannot be "legislated." Do I have it right? That I understand. Wasn't it John Adams who said something like that our form of government couldn't work unless the people were a moral people?
At the same time and having said that though, we have a world that is, and a country that is sliding quickly and has been for decades and heading over the cliff and yet I still refuse to stop fighting. I know you do too.
God speed to you also.
Al Adab| 6.26.10 @ 1:11PM
I think we're on the same page. Our laws need to reflect Moral Absolutes (very un PC that) and neither are to be changed simply for convenience or popular "fads" or fashion. In fact unjust laws- think enforced emperor worship for example- are those which violate the conscience or the morals.
Where the Libertarian fails is in not recognizing that even though we are sovereign individuals, that condition comes from our Creator who grants us our rights. It is to Him, not to the state, that we owe our Freedom.
We'll all keep fighting.
Tim*| 6.26.10 @ 4:26PM
Ya might wanna check the facts .
" Libertarians shifted back to the Republican column in 2008, supporting John McCain over Barack Obama by 71 to 27 percent. Although many libertarian intellectuals had a real antipathy to McCain, the typical libertarian voter saw McCain as an independent, straight-talking maverick who was a strong opponent of earmarks and pork-barrel spending and never talked about social issues. "
Margie| 6.26.10 @ 6:29PM
Al Adab,
So well said! Thank you.
Margie| 6.25.10 @ 7:35PM
oops. Here it is~
http://www.breakpoint.org/comm.....e-darkness
Nick| 6.25.10 @ 12:38PM
Yes, give me the 1964 Goldwater anyday:
"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!"
Margie| 6.25.10 @ 12:48PM
Yes, let's go with that. The remembrance of his great contribution to conservatism. I'm willing to chalk off the latter years to old age!
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.25.10 @ 1:13PM
Margie,
WELCOME BACK!
You bring a sense of the "whole man" back into our conversations.
Please forgive these idiots that live in "Sin" (capitalized singular).
They have turned their backs on God...and so...have turned their backs on goodness and light.
We must continue to pray for their repentance.
Ken
Margie| 6.25.10 @ 2:02PM
Thank you, Ken. You pay me such a fine compliment today!
I forgive them.. will they forgive me? Repentance as a way of life.
RCV| 6.25.10 @ 1:25PM
Those comments in 1964 are entirely consistent with what BG always was: a frontier libertarian, not a social conservative. His wife worked for Planned Parenthood and he had nothing but disdain for religious conservatives.
ejp| 6.25.10 @ 2:01PM
And in Goldwater's advanced years, it seemed like the only time you ever heard his name was when he would get invoked by the Left to bash Reagan and the Religious Right and every other conservative staying true to principle. I always saw Goldwater as a sell-out in his advancing years, preferring to be adored by the Ben Bradlees and all the other "beautiful people" of the DC elite. And to me, it was utterly hypocritical of him to deride the Religious Right for their devotion to principle, when he chose in 1964 to cast the most inexcusable vote of his career against the Civil Rights Act on narrow principled grounds (not racist) which is a stigma conservatives are still living with to this day in their efforts to make inroads with the black community.
ejp| 6.25.10 @ 2:01PM
And in Goldwater's advanced years, it seemed like the only time you ever heard his name was when he would get invoked by the Left to bash Reagan and the Religious Right and every other conservative staying true to principle. I always saw Goldwater as a sell-out in his advancing years, preferring to be adored by the Ben Bradlees and all the other "beautiful people" of the DC elite. And to me, it was utterly hypocritical of him to deride the Religious Right for their devotion to principle, when he chose in 1964 to cast the most inexcusable vote of his career against the Civil Rights Act on narrow principled grounds (not racist) which is a stigma conservatives are still living with to this day in their efforts to make inroads with the black community.
ejp| 6.25.10 @ 2:04PM
Oh and let's also not forget Barry backing Ford over Reagan in 1976 right out of the box. This coming at a time when the Religious Right didn't even exist as a movement. Go through his autobio, and he'll have the most venemous invective about Nixon, but JFK always got the fawning "my good friend" descriptions, as if JFK (guaranteed to warm the hearts of the DC Elite).
hyrdr| 6.26.10 @ 5:55AM
RCV
You werent aborted were you.
Tim*| 6.25.10 @ 4:37PM
" When Reagan challenged Ford for the presidential nomination in 1976, Goldwater endorsed Ford, looking for consensus rather than conservative idealism. As one historian notes, "The Arizonan had lost much of his zest for battle."
Tim*| 6.25.10 @ 4:52PM
Uh Oh ! Goldwater was up to the " z " in Alzheimer's .
" A few years before his death he went so far as to address the right wing, "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have."
Al Adab| 6.25.10 @ 11:18AM
A question I've not heard answered, although I'm not always up to speed, is how far offshore is the deep water well and how far does our territorial water extend? Is the well within those limits or is there some other extension of jurisdiction of which I'm not aware?
Seriously, more information would be welcome.
Roscoe| 6.25.10 @ 4:11PM
It's hard to say precisely how far offshore it is because the LA coastline near there is difficult to define, but call it 49 miles from Venice, LA, on a line almost due south (just a little east) from New Orleans. While US territorial waters extend 12 nautical mi., the US' exclusive economic zone extends 200 nautical mi.
Al Adab| 6.25.10 @ 4:58PM
Thanks, I needed the geography lesson. Is there some statutory authorization that grants federal jurisdiction over the exclusive economic zone?
I'm wondering by what do they claim to have regulatory authority including grants of leases so far offshore. Could not a "wildcater" just set up and drill in the offshore waters outside whatever limit is claimed? Admittedly the expense in ocean water is great.
Roscoe| 6.26.10 @ 12:25AM
President Reagan's Proclamation 5030 of Mar. '83: Paraphrasing here.. "... within the exclusive economic zone the US has to the extent permitted by international law....sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting....natural resources ... of the seabed & subsoil...[and] jurisdiction with regard to the establishment and use of ... installations and structures having economic purposes...". The proclamation hasn't been successfully challenged as far as I know.
K7UGA| 6.25.10 @ 11:28AM
I was privileged in my day to know the man. He wrote that his intent was not to make government more efficient, but to reduce it's size.
That is the clarion call and it remains today as it did then, the goal of Conservatives.
Oldefarte| 6.25.10 @ 12:00PM
Quin, GREAT, GREAT article, as usual! Sadly, after being typically BRAINWASHED from four years at our shared university and from extremely liberal family members' influence, I philosophically rejected Goldwater and conservatism [it was only after graduating into the real world that I eventually became enlightened toward the fallacy of liberalism]. His EXTREMISM IN THE DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE [which was hung around his neck by Johnson and the Democrats] now rings constantly inside my sixty four year old ears [and even more loudly post 11/4/08]. As I think you conclude, the time/need for political action by conservatives is at hand, and at the very least, to inform one's self of the TRUTH from today's alternative media sources and most importantly to VOTE. I do respectfully disagree with your theory that liberals have no conception of the consequences of their actions concerning the oil moratorium upon those whose financial livelihoods depend upon same, etc. I think that they know full well what will occur, and furthermore, that they want such policies to cuase the destruction which they know will result. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I believe that THE CHOSEN ONE was purposely placed as a trojun-horse type candidate, and now that he's established can, along with the other liberal Democrats, disembark from said horse and attempt destruction of our American way of life. The oil well explosion, I think, was a useful tool [aka Emmanuel event] to promote/diocatate their cap & tax political agenda!!!!!!!
Cal Mark| 6.25.10 @ 12:10PM
This article is absolutely dead-on!
The most important point appears at the end (O, Editor, where art thou?): too many of those who most enjoy the blessings of liberty are too comfortable to take part in its protection.
That's how we end up with the cowardly, narcissistic, cocktail party invitation-obsessed GOP crowd in Washington, a pathetic collection of useless drones who crow about "sacrifices" for "public service" as though they could actually succeed in the real world.
We get stuck with such wretched nothings because those who really have succeeded, the real conservative leaders can't be bothered to leave their comfortable existence and do their part.
Oldefarte| 6.25.10 @ 12:38PM
PS: The significance of Feldman's judicial overturning of the oil moratorium cannot be fully understood by those not completely familiar with the economics of south Louisiana. Every business/job, from snowball stands on Carrollton Ave to major corporate businesses on Poydras Street, depend upon [in one form or fashion] the oil industry for their own livelihoods. The possible destruction of the fishing industry is terrible enough, but when you add to that the elimination of the offshore [Louisiana] oil industry, you're talking about comdemning the state's economy to Hades. Feldman's wording demonstrates his knowledge of same; and this liberal Democrat administration's partisaned/political actions in placing a complete moratorium on the production of deepwater oil were purposely intended to demolish the oil industry of the Gulf Coast and its dependant-upon-same working population!!!!!
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.25.10 @ 1:37PM
Oldefarte,
You know.....between LA and TX, we can demonstrate total "fuel cutoffs" to 3/4s of the country.
Check out your own search engine and type in oil pipelines...and study the maps.
If a bunch of independent cuss pipeline hands lose their jobs because of the communists,(pardon the shorthand), they WILL demonstrate true power.
...no heat...no diesel...no gasoline...little natural gas.
There is a constitutional rule that ..."no ex-post facto".
ie: you cannot pass a law against something that has already happened.....and indict a person or persons.
Also,
those thousands of miles of pipelines are totally impossible to protect........hmmmmm.
...and Washington DC begins to starve in only three days. (no diesel for food trucks).
New York city begins to starve in 3 days.
And Cleveland, and Detroit, and Philly, and...well you get the idea.
I hope I cannot be indicted for reminding us that "we the people" cannot be 'governed' without our consent.
Have a great weekend.... We don't HAVE to wait until November.
Oldefarte| 6.25.10 @ 3:34PM
Ken, I agree 150%-----LET EM FREEZE TO DEATH; or NO TICKY, NO WASHY. Have a good weekend yourself!!!!!
LindaF | 6.25.10 @ 1:40PM
My knowledge of Goldwater, prior to 2001, was the famous daisy commercial. My family, as a unit, voted the straight Demo ticket.
Only in the last few years have I come to appreciate Goldwater and Reagan's foresight.
John DuBose| 6.25.10 @ 6:11PM
It is true that there are differences between libertarians and conservatives. They mostly involve views about social issues and how active
our military should be overseas.
But in the age of OBAMA, their importance fades to almost nothing. Lets all put them aside until the quasi-socialist, control freak laden, DEM party is thoroughly defeated.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.25.10 @ 7:07PM
Mr. Dubose,
Welcome to the conversation.
Right on, brother! Well spoken!
Margie| 6.25.10 @ 7:39PM
Put them aside until the DEM party is thoroughly defeated. I agree. How will that happen? It will happen if the Libertarians will vote 'R' in order to win. And all conservatives need to get out and vote 'R'.
Yosemeti Sam| 6.26.10 @ 3:04AM
Hmmm.
Goldwater - Arizona.
LBJ - Texas.
Political titans?
Intriguing question.
Two 'saddle-up' juxtaposed Vietnam era extra-USA counterpoints.
But - fact check:
Arizona and Texas - major historical highway illegals transit states facilitated by political cum pimping business parochialism.
The America illegals infestation genesis, it had to start - somewhere!
Take a bow - Arizona and Texas!
Take a bow - Goldwater and LBJ!
BTW, Americas' 'second' language - thanks LBJ.
Oldefarte| 6.26.10 @ 2:25PM
On a related issue, it's been reported that Representative Joseph Cao of Louisiana was one of two Republicans who voted FOR passage in the House of the DISCLOSE ACT [which basically is the Democrats' partisaned attempt to prevent the corporations from make political contributions, while insuring labor unions' rights to do so]. THANK YOU to all the Louisiana morons who elected and now politically support this imbicile, Joseph Cao] !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Margie| 6.26.10 @ 6:19PM
Hey Oldefarte,
Is there ever really any candidate who, after they get elected doesn't let the voters down? I can't think of one. It's the nature of the beast so to speak, isn't it? What I really truly believe is that most Americans who aren't pure Communists, really do want basically the same thing. To live in a free country, to practice what ever religion we want (or none), to be able to choose our form of work, make money and pursue happiness. Politics is almost like a religion in a way. There are so many "denominations" and they end up dividing us. There really ought not be denominations. I know that's totally un PC to say but it's just the truth. It's why we're divided.
If we have a 2 party system~ The Leftists, and the rest of us, then why can't we just band together and choose conservative candidates to run in "The rest of us" party, the dreaded 'R' party~ and WIN this thing. It's our country that's at stake. This is my only reason for my constant saying what I say.
We need to win.
RednekWhiteskinBlucollar| 6.27.10 @ 1:25AM
Ronald Reagan didn't let the voters down. In fact he exceeded their expectations. At home, he revived the economy. Abroad, he toppled the Soviets. Reagan is our greatest president, bar none. Washington doesn't count: he's in a class by himself. And Jefferson had so much less to fight against, and to undo.
Margie| 6.27.10 @ 9:27AM
RWB,
While I agree with you about Reagan, there were and still are people who have felt that he let them down on certain issues. And they still talk about it today and blame him for certain things. Isn't immigration one of those things?
My whole point is that no one candidate will ever be everything one person wants.
As for Washington, he will always be number one in my book but yes, Reagan is number one to me too, as for Presidents in more recent times. :^)
RedneckWhiteskinBluecollar| 6.28.10 @ 12:15AM
Apart from Washington (in a class by himself), our greatest president is: fill-in-the-blank.
Correct answer: Reagan. Because he did more to uphold, and salvage, the Constitution, than any other president. But for Reagan, the modern conservative movement might have come to naught. As it seems to be trying to do at this moment.
If not Reagan, then who is our greatest president? Apart from Washington.
Number two is Jefferson; the revolution of 1800 and all that. But Jefferson had less to overcome.
Margie| 6.28.10 @ 11:43AM
Yes, yes, yes! Reagan is number one aside form Washington. :^)
Have I made myself perfectly clear now?
Oldefarte| 6.27.10 @ 10:17AM
Margie, Of course you're correct in that all politicians LET US DOWN, but with Cao [who is Republican] types, they additionally masquerade themselves as Republicans when in fact they are Lewinskifying the Democrats. Snowe and Collins are other typicals of this breed, but my point was/is that Cau, even though representating a impoverished district in Louisiana, is going way beyond same and climbing into the LINCOLN BEDROOM, if you get my drift. His voting for the Disclose Act is nothing but a pandering to LABOR UNIONS and DEMOCRATS whose candidates would be bettered and their contribution coffers enhanced if this act [which was a rebuttal against the recent SCOTUS ruling allowing corporations/businesses more freedoms in advertising/promoting of Republican candidates] became law. For Cao to vote FOR this act is traitorous to the Republican Party!!!!
Margie| 6.27.10 @ 11:27AM
Oldefarte,
Well then the voters will just have to vote him out next time around if that's what they want to do.
One thing the Traitor-in-Chief (speaking of traitors) has done is to effectively wake people up to the fact that what he represents is one corrupt devilish party with evil intents and purposes.
Yes, the Republicans we vote for may screw up royally and so what we do is continue letting them know by not re electing them and in the meantime get involved in the process ourselves and back conservatives and make sure they get nominated. Nobody has control over what they do after they are elected but what is great about this country is that we get to boot them out if we the people don't think they're up to the job.
I see it as extremely hopeful that the nation is waking up to the reality that is the Obama nation and they aren't liking it. The only thing I hope happens though is that some on our side don't allow themselves to be used as useful idiots by the Left and not vote for the Republican candidate for President based on their "values". I say win first and then you will be able to use your values.
There is no party so traitorous to the American Dream as the Democrat party.
Excelsior!
Oldefarte| 6.27.10 @ 12:58PM
Margie, I wholeheartedly agree, but I think the PROBLEM concerns PARTY MANAGEMENT. Democrats seem to [at least in recent years] be better at marshalling/unifying their comandable troops, whereas Republicans sometimes do not. The RINO labeling is in fact true and this needs to be corrected [not strict conservatism, but loyal to the point of disqualification from political/financial support for those advocating INCREASED GOVERNMENT SPENDING, which is what got us into the toilet that we're now into].
Margie| 6.27.10 @ 1:53PM
I agree about party management. The Left are militant, ruthless, canniving, willing to destroy. Our side isn't like that. (Except when we're busy tearing each other apart).
I think the only way to solve the problem of Party manangement is if we ourselves take it over!
Tim*| 6.27.10 @ 9:24AM
" Gallup earlier this year found a slight increase in the number of Americans identifying as independents -- about 37 percent, compared with 35 percent who said so in 2008. That makes independents a critical bloc in the fall elections to determine which party controls Congress. "
Northern Rebel| 6.27.10 @ 11:17AM
Hi Folks!
I came to this debate a little late, but you didn't miss anything I would have contributed, because of the well thought out discussion between Margie, and Al Adab.
Nice work! Your thoughts stimulate others to think for themselves, and that's the highest form of debate.
My quick definition of libertarianism, is wanting to be left alone by government to do as you please, as long as no harm comes to others.
That philosophy is a good one 95% of the time.
For the other 5%, one must add moral boundries.
Constitutional Conservatism adds those much needed boundries.
Margie| 6.27.10 @ 11:49AM
NR,
Thanks for the kind words! Ya know, I had no idea what a Libertarian stood for until coming here. I had some vague idea thinking it had to do with the love of freedom, but I have sadly learned otherwise. I cannot agree with the philosophy or the platform of the Libertarian party for the reasons I mentioned above, in that their platform is one of non-interventionism mainly, which speaks for itself.
What I also found quite surprising and revealing as well as to my point is how Goldwater despised conservative Christians. I find this is also a basic thread with Libertarianism. Basically Libertarianism will have to be at odds with Christianity in that it is an anything goes philosophy. Christianity means following the absolute Truth which Libertarianism cannot abide. The philosophy of "do whatever you want, it's ok as long as it doesn't hurt someone else", is actually the same exact philosophy as the Left.
This is why I say it is Leftism cloaked in conservative's clothing. David Horowitz has it down pat. While there are individuals who want freedom and may want to be left alone so to speak, yes don't we all but I say beware of the true platform of that groupthink. It's like conservatism without a conscience.
John DuBose| 6.28.10 @ 11:10PM
Libertarianism is an entirely secular concept of how governments should operate. Libertarians mostly do not see a conflict with Christain virtue. There are many intensely Christian Libertarians. Indeed, a major point is that real virtue only comes from within ( wanting to please God by the contents of one's heart and actions. )
Libertarians believe that it is entirely appropriate
for governments to prohibit and punish certain clearly defined behaviors. But they also believe that these rules should be minimized so that when honest conscience shines through, everyone can see that it comes from the big guy upstairs.
Coerced virtue is really not virtue at all.
Lazarus| 6.27.10 @ 12:03PM
Oh Ye of Little Faith.
http://libertarianchristians.com/
Margie| 6.27.10 @ 12:18PM
By thier links ye shall know them. Lew Rockwell, and Anti-War.com? No thanks, and you prove my point. Typical Leftist sites.
This is the very 'cloak' I am speaking of.
Lazarus| 6.27.10 @ 1:08PM
Marge stated ,"Basically Libertarianism will have to be at odds with Christianity in that it is an anything goes philosophy. Christianity means following the absolute Truth which Libertarianism cannot abide. "
Libertarian Christians are Christians ,as much as you .
Do not attempt to slander .
You conveniently left out links : The Mises Institute , Vox Populi , Foundation For Economic Freedom ,etc.
These are NOT Liberal sights.
Margie| 6.27.10 @ 1:42PM
So you agree with Lew Rockwell and Justin Raimondo then?
p.s.~ you don't hide your identity very well, Timmy*.
Lazarus| 6.27.10 @ 1:20PM
Margie stated , " I cannot agree with the philosophy or the platform of the Libertarian party for the reasons I mentioned above, in that their platform is one of non-interventionism mainly, which speaks for itself. "
What's your cloak ?
Horowitz opposed American intervention in the Kosovo War, arguing that it was unnecessary and harmful to U.S. interests.
Margie| 6.27.10 @ 1:39PM
Here comes the typical deceit. The Kosovo/Bill Clinton bombing? LOL.
That doesn't disprove Horowitz' definition of Libertarianism. He is still correct. And non-interventionism is still Leftist.
Shw me where Horowitz is wrong about Libertariamism.
Margie| 6.27.10 @ 3:00PM
Not Liberal?
Mises has as as a few of its authors, Lew Rockwell and Justin Raimondo. Two lunatics. Also AmSpec's own Doug Bandow.
Favorites of the Toddards and Red Phillips'. Nuff said.
Vox Populi ~ The "voice" of the Liberal Georgetown University?
Northern Rebel| 6.27.10 @ 5:56PM
Margie:
The major difference between libertarians, and liberals, is libertarians just want to be left alone, but liberals think they know how you should run your life and spend your money, better than you do.
Check out John Stossell's show on the fox business channel if you can. He is a libertarian, and explains his positions better than most.
Libertarians agree with us, a lot more often than they agree with liberals.
Margie| 6.27.10 @ 7:07PM
NR,
I have one question, that you may think on later after you listen to David Horowitz speak. If Libertarians are our friends, why do they HATE this man?
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=1Xrd1ZuamSg&feature=related
Margie| 6.27.10 @ 7:42PM
Sorry, that link was messed up. Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=cbVLnTG2WJk&feature=related
Margie| 6.27.10 @ 7:48PM
Ah well, if at first you don't succeed. Can't get it to post.
The title of the video at YouTube is, "David Horowitz - The Tactics of Obama's Administration."
FeralCat| 6.27.10 @ 8:34PM
We hear praise of a power-wielding, arm-twisting President who “gets his program through Congress” by knowing the use of power. Throughout the course of history, there have been many other such wielders of power. There have even been dictators who regularly held plebiscites, in which their dictatorships were approved by an Ivory-soap-like percentage of the electorate. But their countries were not free, nor can any country remain free under such despotic power. Some of the current worship of powerful executives may come from those who admire strength and accomplishment of any sort. Others hail the display of Presidential strength simply because they approve of the result reached by the use of power. This is nothing less than the totalitarian philosophy that the end justifies the means If ever there was a philosophy of government totally at war with that of the Founding Fathers, it is this one.
- Barry Goldwater
Margie| 6.27.10 @ 9:24PM
Pray tell, what on earth is he saying, then? Is he saying he thinks there ought to be no President?
Just what philosophy of government is he speaking of? Or isn't it up for debate?
FeralCat| 6.27.10 @ 10:27PM
He is not saying there should be no President. He is saying that we should stick with the more limited power President (and government for that matter) that the Founding Fathers envisioned and not have a despot, like you-know-who.
Margie| 6.28.10 @ 10:26AM
Hard to tell since I have no idea who he's addressing and which philosophy of government he is referring and I will have to look that up.
I hope he isn't referring to our republican form of government. Being that he had some rather militant and nasty Libertarian views I'm not going to assume he WASN'T referring to our form of government. I'll do my own research.