Barry Goldwater: On Christian Conservatives

Source:Jason Vanderbeck- Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater, on the Christian-Right.

"“On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.

I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism.”

~Barry Goldwater

Speech to the Senate

1981” 

From Shin Do

Source:Shin Do- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater, R, Arizona- Mr. Conservative 

When you look at Barry Goldwater and his politics, you have to look at Conservatives and conservatism and what Conservatives actually believe believe and what conservatism actually is and what it isn’t.

There are Conservatives and then there are Conservatives who are very different and don’t sound like Barry Goldwater or William F. Buckley and other Conservatives who represent the Center-Right at least in America.

There are political Conservatives who are conservative in a constitutional sense and they believe in conserving the U.S. Constitution and our individual rights. If you want to use the term Conservative-Libertarian that would be fine, but that’s what they’re about meaning the job of government is to protect out individual rights and protect all of them for all of us and every American including our civil liberties. And not trample on them because our liberties and free choice violates one’s religious beliefs like members of the Christian-Right in America.

And there are Religious Conservatives, or Cultural Conservatives, Christian Conservatives. I don’t like using the term Social Conservative like the Family Research Council and other groups like that, because my definition of a Social Conservative is someone who believes in conserving our social or personal freedom, not trying to use big government to trample on our personal freedom and civil liberties.

Political Conservatives are what’s known as Constitutional Conservatives. People who believe in conserving our Constitution, not trampling on it because some of our rights protect what the Christian-Right would call immoral behavior. And not just abortion, but homosexuality, pornography, adultery, entertainment, and unfortunately I could go on.

The Ron Paul’s of the world and to a certain extent his son Senator Rand Paul even though he goes to sleep every night with President Donald Trump politically, ( and I mean that figuratively ) represent what’s left of the Constitutional-Conservative or Conservative-Libertarian movement. The Conservatives on CNN the so-called Never-Trumpers people like Tara Setmayer, Amanda Carpenter, S.E. Cupp, the faction of the Republican Party that use to dominate the GOP really until George H.W. Bush left The White House in 1993 and the Christian-Right essentially took over that party.

Conservatism, in a political sense is about conserving the U.S. Constitution. That’s what conservative is about which is conserving what you believe in and value and in a political and governmental sense that means conserving the U.S. Constitution and our individual rights. Not trying to use big government to erase them, because our individual freedoms violates one’s religious and moral beliefs.

Christian-Conservatives, are different because they’re not about the U.S. Constitution, but instead their interpretations of the Bible and conserving their Christian way of life. And believe that big government has a role to play in seeing that no one lives outside of their religious and moral values and outside of their cultural lifestyle. It’s not individual freedom that they’re interested in, but their religious and moral values.

When I think of Conservatives, I think of Barry Goldwater and the movement that he represented and still represents today. People who believe in individual freedom period and that it’s not the job of big government to decide how free Americans should live in what they do in the privacy of their homes and free time, just as long as they’re not hurting innocent people with what they’re doing.

I don’t think of people who believe their religious and moral values should be forced on everyone else in America, including non-Christian or even non Protestants or non-fundamentalists. And I don’t think of people who believe America is being going to hell since 1965 or so morally and are worried that modern America doesn’t look like the America they grew up with culturally, or even ethnically and racially. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Politico Magazine: Larry Sabato: How Goldwater Changed Campaign Forever

Source: Politico Magazine-

Source:Politico Magazine

Not many if any Republicans including Senator Barry Goldwater expected Goldwater to win the 1964 presidential election by defeating President Lyndon Johnson and for Congressional Republicans to do anything in Congress. They were expecting big defeats as it related to both the presidential election and Congress. But that wasn't what the 1964 general elections were about for Goldwater Republicans Goldwater Conservatives.

1964 to follow up about what I wrote yesterday, was to create a choice and give Americans a choice in who to vote for. Present a Republican Party that was completely different from the GOP from the 1950s and completely different from the FDR/LBJ progressive Democratic Party. A party that was a lot less government especially federal government oriented. A party that was lot more federalist and more individualistically oriented. That wanted to turn power over to the states and people over their own affairs.

They wanted to create a new party that Conservatives and other right-wingers would feel welcome in. And take power away from the Northeastern Progressives that had been running the GOP and perhaps even make Progressives feel unwanted in the GOP. 1964 wasn't about winning for Barry Goldwater and other Republicans, but building a winning coalition that could put Republicans back in power in the future. That they simply didn't have going into the 1964 general elections.

1966 was about Republicans winning right-wing seats in Congress in House districts and Senate seats. So they could become a factor in Congress again and no longer be buried in the minority in Congress. 1968 is when Richard Nixon figured out how Republicans can win back the White House and win more seats in Congress. And 1968 is where we really see the political flip in American politics. Where Southern states look Republican and Northern states look Democratic. But it all started in 1964 and Barry Goldwater deserves a lot of credit for it.
Cool Old Videos: Barry Goldwater-Speaks Out: 1964 Campaign Film

American Thinker: Scott Mayer- Goldwater 2.0 and 'Smart Conservatives'

Source:Amazon- Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative.

"Two prominent authors from the conservative side of the aisle have recently written thought-provoking articles highlighting Barry Goldwater’s particular brand of conservatism and how it relates to politics in 2014.  But I must admit the stark contrast between the two pieces has me a little befuddled.

The first article as written by Jeffrey Lord in The American Spectator makes the case that based upon what America has today become -- Goldwater and his limited-government message has been vindicated...

From American Thinker 

"From the documentary "Mr. Conservative: Goldwater On Goldwater" (2006)" 

Source:Moon Rogue- Washington Post Conservative columnist George Will, talking about Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater, as part of the 2006 HBO documentary Mr. Conservative.

From Moon Rogue

I'm not sure what Scott Mayer means by "Smart Conservative" and I read his entire post on the American Thinker. So I'll give you my own interpretation of what a Smart Conservative is. It would be a real Conservative classical Conservative if you will. Not someone who bashes big government with one hand as they are trying to expand it on the other hand. Like with President George W. Bush in the early 2000s with No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act and later the Medicare prescription drug expansion which by the way wasn't paid for.

Or today's so-called Conservatives who sound like Ron Paul when it comes to the welfare state and putting down government involvement in the economy. While at the same time wanting to expand government when it comes to the Federal Government regulating marriage to prevent gays from getting married. Or trying to outlaw pornography from the Federal level. Or trying to keep the failed War on Drugs alive at the federal level. Representative Michele Bachmann (thank God she's leaving Congress at the end of this year) comes to mind as a fake Conservative.

Similar to Ronald Reagan Barry Goldwater suffers from a case of cherry picker's disease. People who claim to love the man and say they are that type of Republican or Conservative. But only based that love and affection on a handful of issues and policies. They cherry pick what they love about them and ignore their disagreements with them on issues they disagree on. Or even worst try to convince people that their political idols don't actually believe in what they believed.

The fact is Barry Goldwater doesn't represent the Republican Party of today. But at best a wing of the party the conservative libertarian wing of the party that may be strong enough to nominate their first Republican presidential candidate since 1964 in 2016. And of course I'm thinking of Senator Rand Paul and you see other Conservative Libertarians in Congress along with Senator Paul like Senator Mike Lee, Senator Ron Johnson, Senator Jeff Flake, Representative Justin Amash and Representative Walter Jones who represent this wing of the party in Congress as well.

But Barry Goldwater even though he probably is the father of the modern conservatism today and back then that type of conservatism is a classical form of it. The real thing which is how I would put it that truly believes in limited government and federalism and just doesn't cherry pick where they support limited government based on things they like and dislike. But believes the individual and states should be making of the decisions about their own affairs when it comes to both domestic and personal issues. Instead of those key and personal decisions being micro-managed from Washington.

Moog Rogue: Mr. Conservative: Barry Goldwater at The 1964 Republican National Convention

Source:The FreeState 

What sounded like an extreme statement in 1964 when America was still in the New Deal/Great Society Progressive Era of the Democratic Party, in a country that was just starting to move right, sounds like a very intelligent, logical, mainstream view today. Whether it was coming from the Right or Left, because what Senator Goldwater was saying was what was called extremism back in the early and mid 1960s, was about individual freedom. And moving past the welfare state in America and giving more Americans individual freedom over their own lives.

And Senator Goldwater wasn’t just talking about economic freedom, but personal freedom as well. Which is why Ron Paul Libertarians like Barry Goldwater as well. And what he was also saying that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue, meaning that you are in favor justice and going to do what it takes to protect and advance justice in America. But you can’t get their with a half-hearted approach. That it has to be real and you have to go all the way.

The Republican Party certainly changed in 1964. They were still the civil rights party that President Johnson and the Democratic Leadership in Congress had to rely on their more progressive members in Congress for their votes. But you had this conservative libertarian faction in the party, that was already there, but now big enough where they became the mainstream faction of the party. It would be nice to see the GOP today with there Northeastern Moderate Progressives and Conservative Libertarians in the Midwest and West without the Religious-Right. They would be a lot more competitive for the White House now.

Guy John: Video: U.S. Senator Robert Taft on Meet The Press, January 20, 1952

Source:The Daily Post

America’s role in the world post World War II and where is our place in the world. And what we needed to do to defend ourselves and work with our allies so that Russia wouldn’t try to invade Europe and expand their Communist empire. Senator Taft who truly was a Conservative Republican perhaps the Barry Goldwater of his time and the Barry Goldwater in Congress of his time, made a really interesting point about NATO which is responsible for defending Europe for the most part. And a position that I hold today about who should defend Europe.

Senator Taft wasn’t taking an isolationist position on foreign policy as it related to Europe. He wasn’t saying that if Russia invades Europe, then that is Europe’s business and America shouldn’t get involved. He was saying that if America is going to be part of NATO, than the European states that get most of the security and benefits from NATO should pay for that defense. Instead of America essentially being responsible for the entire defense of the United States, which twice the size of the European Union in land and have to defend Europe as well.

And Senator Taft was right then and he was right today. America is essentially responsible for the defense of both the United States and European Union. Canada can defend themselves and is now committing the resources to do that under the Harper Government. But while America is still at or around four-percent GDP as far as national defense, Europe is at around one-percent. With Britain, Germany and France being a bit higher than that. But one of the reason why these social democracies in Europe spend so little on their national defense, is because they’re social democracies. They spend a lot on infrastructure and education and very little on defense. Because America is responsible for their defense.

Documentary Fan: 1952 Republican National Convention: U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen Defends Robert Taft

Source:The FreeState

The political wave or tide that Senator Everett Dirksen is talking about in this speech is the 1952 Republican sweep. Other than holding Congress from 1947-48, they were completely shutout of power in Washington and the Federal Government, at least as far as being in charge of anything from 1933-53. The Democratic Party, won five straight presidential elections during this period. And again except for 1947-48, held both the House and Senate in Congress during this whole period as well. That changed in 1952 thanks to Dwight Eisenhower as he won the presidency and Congressional Republicans won back the House and Senate in 1952.

Senator Dirksen, initially supported Mr. Conservative at least during his time, Senator Robert Taft for president in 1952. They were both strong Conservative Republicans, from the Midwest, who served in Congress together for twelve-years. They knew each other and the other’s politics and character very well. Dwight Eisenhower, hadn’t announced he was a Republican until he decided to run for president in 1952. He could he being a career U.S. Army officer. So it wasn’t very clear really until General Eisenhower became President of the United States where the General was politically and ideologically.

The Republican Party in 1952 whether they nominated General Dwight Eisenhower or Senator Robert Taft for president, felt this year was definitely their time. Of course they felt that way in 1948 when they barely lost that election as well with Tom Dewey. But 1952 was different for them because they had a great nominee and perhaps the most popular person in America at the time in Ike Eisenhower. And of course the Democrats held the White House for twenty-years at this point and held both chambers of Congress for most of that time as well. President Harry Truman, had been president for eight years at this point and he and his administration were unpopular. So Republicans had a lot to feel good about in 1952.

Documentary Fan: Video: ABC News, Everett Dirksen's Washington

Source:The Daily Post

When was the last time that a Congressional leader was loved and respected by both parties. That is how much Congress has changed since Everett Dirksen was there because he was loved and respected by both parties when he was in Congress and when he was the Senate Republican Leader. But now Republicans and Democrats in Congress tend to look at each other as enemies and not colleagues or even opponents. Not many people being more familiar with how Congress worked than Everett Dirksen, who served a total of thirty-four years in Congress. Both in the House of Representatives and Senate. House from 1933-49 and the Senate from 1951-59. And was also Senate Minority Leader from 1959-69.

You might be able to say that Minority Leader Dirksen had all the power in the Republican Party in Washington in the 1960s. Excluding 1960 with President Dwight Eisenhower and 1969 with President Richard Nixon. You might be able to say that from 1961-69 Minority Leader Dirksen was the Washington power structure for the GOP. Because Democrats held the White House and both chambers of Congress from 1961-69 in this period. Huge majorities in both the House and Senate from 1961-67. Which meant for Congressional Republicans to get anything done in this period or to stop legislation that the Congressional Democratic Leadership was pushing, they needed both Leader Dirksen and the Southern Caucus of right-wing Democrats in Congress.

The 1960s was also a much different time as far as Washington politics and Congressional politics. Not all Democrats were liberal or progressive. The Democratic Party had the right-wing Southern Caucus in the House and Senate. The Democratic Party leaned Left, but had a large right-wing faction. Not all Congressional Republicans were conservative, but certainly leaned right. And they had a progressive faction in the Northeast. Which meant for either President Jack Kennedy or President Lyndon Johnson to get things done in Congress, especially in the Senate, they needed Minority Leader Dirksen’s help to cutoff filibusters from Conservative Republicans and right-wing Democrats. And to bring along some of his Progressive Senators.

Similar to Senator Robert Byrd and Everett Dirksen was sort of the Bob Byrd of him time, but if neither one of them weren’t in Congress for so long, they could’ve both been Congressional historians. And of course a lot of the knowledge they picked up about Congress had to do how long that they were in Congress. Both serving in the House and Senate, but also because they both served in the Congressional Leadership. So when you hear Everett Dirksen talk about Congress, you know you’re hearing from someone who actually knew what they were talking about. Someone who was not just respected, but loved by both Republicans and Democrats and someone who represents the best of our Congress and its two chambers.

Jack Hunter: Video: Downgrading Liberalism?

Source:The FreeState

I blame the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress’s of the early 2000s with their two-trillion in tax cuts, that weren’t paid for and their two unpaid for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and their Medicare expansion. Their constant borrow and spending that stayed with President Bush throughout his administration. And President Obama’s and his Democratic Congress in his first two years for failing to reverse those policies. Leaving in the borrow and spending to deal with the Great Recession. And of course the Great Recession, as well as the Democratic and Republican leaderships for their inability to take on their fringes when. It comes to the debt doing things they view as completely unacceptable, for the downgrade of 2011.

But I put more blame on Speaker Boehner, than I do President Obama. Because they had a long-term comprehensive deal in place in the summer of 2011 that put tax reform on the table. That the Speaker walked away from, because the Tea Party views closing tax loopholes even as tax increases that should never be passed into law. But Jack Hunter is dead wrong to blame what he views as liberalism, a warped view at that, for the American downgrade. Since it is really the Great Recession that has had a lot to do with the current debt situation. Along with two unpaid for wars that are now in the trillions of dollars and both Democrats and Republicans increasing the role of government. As they’ve both decreased the revenue sources to pay for that government expansion.

If you really want to blame the downgrade on anyone, blame it on the policies and people who put those policies in place for the downgrade. I know that sounds like a warped concept, but commonsense tends to sound warped in Washington to begin with. President Bush, comes in with a four-trillion debt and leaves with a eleven-trillion debt and the Great Recession. Which didn’t happen by accident. Again, the two unpaid for wars that are still not over. Three-trillion in tax cuts, that weren’t paid for, that didn’t have much if any positive effect in the economy. The seven-hundred-billion dollar Medicare expansion from President Bush that wasn’t paid for. Most of the spending in the Obama Administration, has been to deal with the Great Recession. Not to create new Federal programs. If you want to downgrade anything, downgrade Bush/Cheney neoconservatism.

Moog Rogue: Video: Mr. Conservative: Barry Goldwater's Opposition to The 1964 Civil Rights Act

Source:The FreeState

I have a lot of respect for Barry Goldwater, he’s probably my favorite Conservative. But as Julian Bond says in this video, Senator Goldwater was just plain wrong about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And what I would add to that is that because here’s a man a sitting United States Senator probably the most effective and intelligent Conservative spokesmen in Congress who was constantly speaking out in favor of individual freedom. Saying that states rights trumps individual freedom and the constitutional rights of individuals.

And that states have the right to deny their residents the same constitutional rights as other residents of their state. Even by race that somehow states rights trumps individual rights which is of course unconstitutional. These civil rights laws weren’t about telling states how they can govern themselves, but that they have a duty just like the Federal Government to comply with the United States Constitution. And have to enforce their own laws equally. For all of their citizens.

What the 1964 Civil Rights Act is about, is that all Americans regardless of race or ethnicity should be treated equally when it comes to their race and ethnicity. Not be treated better or worst and when it comes to public accommodations including business’s open to the public, that the public is everybody. That business’s can’t deny people access to their business because they don’t like race or complexion. Americans don’t have to like each other and think well and be nice to each other. But that is different from denying people access simply because you don’t like their race or ethnicity.

Conel Rad: Video: The Choice 1964: Barry Goldwater Campaign Film

Source:The FreeState

There’s a book that was written in 2005 or 2006 essentially called the The Choice, a Glorious Defeat For Conservatives. I’m paraphrasing, but that’s pretty close where the author argues that Barry Goldwater’s 1964 Presidential election landslide loss inspired so many young people. Especially Conservatives to join the American Conservative movement and get involved in American Conservative politics. And even work for Conservative Republicans, or become Conservative Republicans themselves.

And I agree with this because without 1964, Congressional Republicans do not pickup something like forty-five seats in the House in 1966. Still about thirty short of a majority, but put them in contention for 1968 to win back the majority in the House. And I believe they picked up 4-5 seats in the Senate, but they were in the low-thirties as far as Senators after 1964. Barry Goldwater won ten states in 1964, but I believe seven of them were in the South. Which was right-wing Democratic country. And what Senator Goldwater did in 1964 was expand the playing field for the Republican Party by bringing in new Conservatives to the Republican Party.

Without 1964 Richard Nixon doesn’t get elected President of the United States in 1968. Because again Barry Goldwater expanded the playing field in 1964 and brought in more right-wingers to them Republican Party and out West. But in the South and brought in Libertarians from the West and Religious-Conservatives from the South. That use to back right-wing Democrats who were against things like civil rights. Barry Goldwater and Dick Nixon brought in right-wingers to the Republican Party as well especially from the South.

Because pre 1964, the Republican Party was mostly a Midwest and Northeastern party, but Goldwater and Nixon changed that for the GOP. And all of these Southern right-wingers to the GOP kept moving along in the 1970s as well. To the point that President Nixon is reelected in a landslide in 1972. More Southern and Western Republicans are elected Governor and to Congress both House and Senate in 1978. And of course go up until 1980 when Ronald Reagan is elected President and Senate Republicans win back the Senate for the first time since 1952.

I do not believe that Barry Goldwater ran for President in 1964 expecting to win. Even though I’m sure he would’ve taken the job had he won it. But he ran against Progressive big government basically from the New Deal to the Great Society. And to show Americans that there was another way to govern America and another competing vision of where to take America. And made conservatism mainstream in America.

Jack Hunter: Conservatism's Future: Young Americans For Liberty

Source:The FreeState

The Barry Goldwater conservative movement of the mid 1960s and even late 1960s launched Ron Reagan into office as President of the United States in 1980. But actually Congressional Republicans didn’t get the majority back in the House, or Senate in the mid and late 1960s, but made them a strong minority in both chambers. As well as Richard Nixon elected and reelected President of the United States in 1968 and 72. Placed Ron Reagan in strong place to be the GOP frontrunner for President.

After losing in 1976, Ron Reagan became the Republican frontrunner in 1980. The way Gerry Ford governed as President of the United States in the mid 1970s, fiscally conservative, as well as respecting personal freedom and civil liberties, all of these things started with Barry Goldwater when he ran for President in 1964. And took sixteen years for it all to come together with a Republican president in 1980, a Republican Senate for the first time, since 1952 and a large Republican minority in the House of Representatives in 1980 as well. Where House Republicans led by Minority Leader Bob Michael, could work in coalition with right-wing Southern Democrats in the House. To pass and block legislation.

What happened with the Barry Goldwater conservative movement of the mid 1960s and what it finally led up to and what’s going on with the Ron Paul libertarian movement of today in the Republican Party, both have one thing in common. That neither one was big enough to be a governing coalition in the United States. Or even a leading coalition in the Republican Party. Where they hold a lot of leadership positions. Back in the mid 1960s, America was still in the LBJ Great Society Progressive Era.

Where Americans by in large wanted and liked big government taking care of them. And we are obviously pass that now. But Ron Paul’s problem in the Republican Party are the Neoconservatives and Religious-Right are still in charge of the Republican Party. But what they also have in common with the Goldwater Conservatives of the 1960s, is the old-guard is dying off and losing influence. While the Goldwater Conservatives were growing back then. And the Libertarian Republicans are growing today, as the Religious-Right and Neoconservatives are dying off and losing influence.

As then U.S. Senator Jim DeMint said back in 2012 before he became President of the Neoconservative Heritage Foundation political action group, “the Republican Party needs to become more Libertarian for them to be successful in the future.” But they do not have to embrace all of their positions, but they have to move in that direction on social issues. And get back to being a real fiscally conservative party. And stop nominating presidential candidates who run as fiscal Conservatives, but have records that suggest otherwise. Who run as Religious-Conservatives, but have records that also suggest otherwise. And get back to being a real Conservative-Libertarian Federalist party again. That can compete and be successful all over America.

It's Time For a Change: Video: Raymond Massey For Barry Goldwater in 1964

Source:The Daily Post

What apparently Raymond Massey wasn’t aware of is that Senator Goldwater was in favor of a full-out war against North Vietnam. And doing what it took to win that war and secure that country for the democrats in the South to govern a United Democratic Vietnam. President Lyndon Johnson was the so-called peace candidate in the 1964 presidential election. Even though President Johnson escalated the Vietnam War by getting America completely involved and in the war. And doing a lot of the fighting and supplying the resources to South Vietnam and ourselves to fight and end this war. The so-called Tet Offensive of 1965 put America not only in this civil war in Vietnam. But with a lot of if not most of the responsibility for winning this war. And trying to prevent Vietnam from going communist. Which it did anyway by 1975-76.

Jeff Quitney: Video: Barry Goldwater Speaks Out 1964: Goldwater For President Committee

Source:The Daily Post

The Goldwater Presidential Campaign movies might of not have been the most professionally made movies. But they were somewhat ahead of their time, because they were made by the Goldwater Campaign and gave Senator Goldwater the opportunity, 15-20 minutes on network television to layout exactly where he was on the issues and what he wanted to do as President. And to show Americans that he wasn’t crazy. That he wasn’t the person that President Johnson and his campaign were trying to make him look like. As well as other Democrats that were trying to make Senator Goldwater look crazy.

Because Senator Goldwater believed in things like individual freedom and personal responsibility. If I was alive and old enough to vote in 1964, instead of being born eleven years later, I would’ve voted for President Johnson, because of Civil Rights. That he believed individual rights over states rights. Southern Democrats as well as some Republicans in Congress like Barry Goldwater, believed in the opposite. And when President Johnson was against getting American Armed Forces involved in the Vietnam War. Of course that changed later in 1965. But in 1964 President Johnson was the peace candidate, but Senator Goldwater wasn’t crazy. But a Classical Conservative who believed in individual freedom.

This film of course is a propaganda film by the Goldwater Campaign. An opportunity for them to layout where he is. Get out the message of what they want Americans to think about Barry Goldwater. And not hear the other side, but this film does give people an idea of where Barry Goldwater was politically. That he believed in individual freedom and personal responsibility. Peace Through Strength, that his foreign policy of course would’ve been different from President Johnson.

Senator Goldwater would’ve taken a much harder approach to the Vietnam War and would’ve not only had sent American troops there, but we would’ve been there to win the war, even for Vietnam itself. Which I believe would’ve been a very bad mistake, because that would’ve left us there to occupy that country, similar to Iraq. But with a President Goldwater we wouldn’t have seen the Great Society and perhaps more of a free market approach to solve those problems.

I would’ve love to of seen a presidential debate between President Johnson and Senator Goldwater. It wouldn’t have been an interesting as a presidential debate between Barry and President Kennedy. But it still would’ve been a very good debate, because we would’ve seen both men as they are. Rather than how the media portrays them and Americans would’ve had a clear choice in who to vote for.

Bill McCune: Video: Barry Goldwater: An American Life

Source:The Daily Post

Anyone whose not as familiar with American Conservatism as much as they would like to be and would like to learn more about American Conservatism, I have some suggestions on how to do that. Stop watching Fox News or using it as a main source of info, because it’s really mostly neoconservative commentary. And don’t read publications that claim to be Conservative but are really Neoconservative. Big Government Republicanism, like Commentary or Human Events. Unless you are interested in neoconservatism. But if you are really interested in learning about American Conservatism, research Barry Goldwater because that’s what it’s about. Read the book Conscience of a Conservative that was written by Senator Goldwater in 1960. That book lays out the conservative vision for America.

American Conservatism is about freedom and Americans being able to live independently of the state, especially the Federal Government. As far as being able to pay our own bills, our living expense and so forth. And that Americans should be able to live their own lives as they see fit as long as we are not hurting innocent people with what we are doing. Senator Goldwater even believed in the right to collectively bargain, just as long as workers weren’t forced to join labor unions. Barry Goldwater’s politics didn’t change as some Republicans and others have charged today. The Republican Party has changed to the point that Senator Goldwater couldn’t win the Republican nomination for President today.

Thats how far to the Right the party has moved. When Senator Goldwater left Congress in 1987, the Republican Party was still the Conservative Party in America. Now it’s probably the farthest right party that we have in America and that’s different. Barry probably could win the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. Even though they probably wouldn’t of liked his foreign policy views. Senator Goldwater wasn’t an isolationist, but other than that he would’ve fit in very well with the LP. And they would’ve taken him. But the Religious-Right would’ve tried to kick Senator Goldwater, Mr. Conservative out of the GOP.

Barry was a real Conservative. Senator Goldwater wasn’t interested in things like homosexuality and pornography, he had a gay grandson. And his famous line about Gays in the military, was that he didn’t care if soldiers were gay or straight, but could they shoot straight. He also said that the religion doesn’t belong in politics as it relates to policy and that abortion isn’t a political issue. But freedom of choice issue. And that he didn’t want Big Government in his wallet or bedroom. All reasons why he wouldn’t fit into the Republican Party today.

CP Harding: U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen: The Difference Between a Democrat and Republican in 1967

Source:The FreeState

Former U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen 1959-69, explained it perfectly what it means to be a Conservative and what conservatism is. Or as perfectly as it can be explained in a three-minute video. When he said a Conservative is someone who believes in conserving freedom and our values. At least in a political sense and of course its different in a religious context and of course there's neoconservatism. Conservatism, is about fiscal responsibility. Not spending more than you take in and not spending money on things that you shouldn't be funding.

And when it comes to politics, the government not spending money on things that could be spent and run better by others. Conserving constitutional rights and individual freedom and individualism. Without Minority Leader Dirksen, the 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 Voting Rights Acts as well as the 1968 Fair Housing Law ,doesn't become law. Because he convinced several Republican Senators to vote for those laws and not to block them. But voting for cloture which is a Senate term and how the Senate cuts off debate and votes on legislation. Minority Leader Dirksen, didn't believe in civil and constitutional rights for some, but for all. Actually more Congressional Republicans voted for the civil rights laws than Congressional Democrats.

Minority Leader Dirksen was a big part of the passage of the civil rights laws on the 1960s. Because he was a Republican that would work with Senate Leader Mike Mansfield 1961-77 and President Lyndon Johnson 1963-69. They had to work with the Senate Minority Leader on civil rights issues, because of the Southern Caucus, which was a Far-Right voting block in Congress. That would block and vote against civil rights legislation. Those Democrats would probably be Neoconservative, or Religious Conservative Republicans today like Senator Jim DeMint and others.

Because even Minority Leader Dirksen was the leader of a small minority in the Senate in the 1960s. Because of the Southern Caucus he had leverage to use against the Senate Democratic Leadership and the Johnson Administration. Conservatism, on foreign policy is about yes a strong defense that can not only protect our country, but vulnerable allies who can't defend themselves against large aggressors. But only using our military to protect our national interest not force democracy around the world. Which is what Neoconservatives believe in, or abusing constitutional rights to protect the country. But protecting those rights to keep the country safe.

There are still some Classical Conservatives in the Republican Party today. Senator Rand Paul, Senator John McCain, Representative Jeff Flake and a few others. But in a lot of ways Everett Dirksen represents what the Republican Party used to be before religious conservatism and neoconservatism came onto the scene in the Republican Party in the late 1970s. But before that the Republican Party was almost purely a classical conservative Party, with a progressive Northern wing. That until Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan came onto the scene wasn't able to convince enough voters to put them in power. But when those people and others came in, they've been a pretty powerful party ever since.

Conel Rad: Video: Barry Goldwater 1964 Campaign Film: Sleaze Montage

Source:The FreeState

Entertaining movie, or an entertaining clip from a movie and in this sense as well as others, during Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign. This movie, was probably 12-20 years ahead of its time by using short films instead of just campaign ads to broadcast his political message. And bringing in the film industry. My problem with this film is that it sort of contradicts Senator Goldwater’s political message of individual freedom. And suggests that part of the problem with American society is pornography and sex. And that we have too much sexual freedom and perhaps government should do something about it.

And since Senator Goldwater was running for President, perhaps the Federal Government should do something about it. And he mentions that people who are in favor of sexual freedom, do it under the protection of the First Amendment. And that perhaps the First Amendment doesn’t protect Freedom of Expression. Which is course is a big part of what the adult entertainment industry is about, expressing how people feel about sex. This film would’ve been better suited for a Christian Right theocratic Candidate. Like Pat Robertson or Michelle Bachmann or Mike Huckabee or a Rick Santorum.

Someone who believes that part of America’s problems are that our morals have declined and as former U.S. Senate and presidential candidate Alan Keyes said, “the problem with America is that we have a Moral Crisis and that the Federal Government should try to fix it.” Part of what Mr. Keyes meant about our “Moral Crisis” was the adult entertainment industry. A movie like this is not for a political candidate who preaches the message of individual liberty and freedom.

Someone whose anti-Big Government and pro-limited government, because individual Liberty is more than just low taxes and regulations and economic freedom. But the freedom for individuals to live their own lives and not for government to try to run their lives for them. Someone who believes that government should be used to protect people from themselves as well as others, is not a big fan of individual liberty. Except when people are living their lives exactly as they want them to.

Entertaining film and worth watching, but I’m disappointed it comes from someone who preaches the message of individual liberty and freedom. This film is better suited for Theocrats not Classical Conservatives which is what Barry Goldwater was and even if he made this film to appeal to Religious Conservatives back then, who weren’t very powerful in American politics yet, then this film was designed to make Senator Goldwater look like something he’s not. Which is a big problem with American politics and still is.

Krazy Kraz: Video: Barry Goldwater 1964 Speech: Freedom vs. Communism

Source:The FreeState

One of the things that I believe America had going for us over Russia in the Cold War was that we essentially had a country united behind freedom. With several variations an ideology’s to achieve exactly how we get there. Liberals who wanted a liberal democracy, conservatives who want a democratic republic, Socialists who wanted a social democracy. Libertarians who wanted to stay true to be a democratic constitutional republic. And we tried to push democracy around the world and also said to these other countries that were sort of on the fringe and could go one way or the other.

That freedom is the best form of government and that you should decide for yourself if you agree. But then figure out what type of democracy you should have on your own. Where in Russia when it was the Soviet Union, people didn’t have a choice. They got authoritarianism in a communist form. Where we had different sources and a variety of ideas we could go to in how best to protect American freedom. Where Russia just had the state to look after its people and govern the entire country.

The Soviet theory being if you give people freedom, they won’t know what to do with it and will become a threat to the state. Not the country exactly, but the State. The people in charged of the people essentially. Where in America we believe at least Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians, that the less freedom the people have, the more powerful the state is meaning the state becomes more powerful and the people have less.

Less freedom for the people to live their own lives. One of the reasons why I believe the Soviet Union collapsed, to go along with its faltering socialist Marxist economy, but also because the people saw through foreign TV and other sources, the freedom that people had in Europe and North America and what they could do with it. Liked what they saw and decided that they wanted a taste of that themselves. And told Moscow, “that you let us have or we’ll go somewhere else and get it.”

Moscow could see the breakup of the Soviet Union essentially coming and let these break away republics take off. Now not all these break aways are perfect examples of democracy. But many these countries now have more freedom then they ever had before. One of the beauty’s of freedom is that its an idea not an ideology. That several different ideology’s share. With a lot of different approaches to achieving and protecting it. And they are all against authoritarianism whatever the form. Whether its communist, theocratic or another type like in a monarchy or something. Freedom maybe the only idea that these different democratic ideology’s have in common.

Conel Rad: Video: The Choice 1964: Decay of American Morality

Source:The FreeState

There’s a book that was written by Lee Edwards that’s essentially called the 1964 Election a Glorious Defeat for the Conservative Movement, I’m paraphrasing the title. It came out in 2005 or 2006. I was working at a Book Store part-time then and being the political junky that I am and not just interested in my politics and people who think like me. I saw the book on a table in the store and bought it. I think I still have it somewhere. The premise of it was that even though Senator Barry Goldwater only won something like 40% of the Popular Vote in that Presidential Election and won like ten States.

Barry Goldwater inspired Classical Conservatives young and from the Baby Boom Generation like Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott and other young Conservatives when. Like John McCain who I believe was in Vietnam when and Alan Simpson and many more. All these people who I mentioned by the way served in Congress at least at one level and all served in Congressional Leadership, which gets to my point. All these people consider Barry Goldwater to be a hero at least to some degree and agree with him on a lot of issues. And weren’t involved in politics at least at the Federal level at the time.

And all of these young Conservatives ended up getting involved in politics, running and getting elected to Congress and then serving there for a long time. Senator John McCain obviously is still in Congress and was originally elected to the House in 1982. Some might say that Senator Goldwater’s presidential campaign was badly run because of how badly he lost electorally. But I don’t believe that’s the main reason he ran for President at the time. Going into 1964 the chances of any Republican beating Lyndon Johnson weren’t very good. Because of President Kennedy being assassinated and the country pretty much saw President Johnson’s role to carry out President Kennedy’s agenda which he agreed to do. And I believe a lot more successfully as well.

Plus America is still in the Progressive Era of the New Deal and later the Great Society. Which is another reason why the Goldwater Campaign was important for classical conservatism. Without the 1964 Goldwater Campaign, Richard Nixon doesn’t become President in 1968 or get reelected in 1972. Ron Reagan doesn’t get elected President in 1980 or reelected in 1984. Senate Republicans don’t win control on the Senate in 1980 for the first time in 28 years and hold it for two more elections after that. Republicans don’t win control of Congress for the first time in 42 years in 1994.

All of these things happened because of Barry Goldwater, who inspired generations of Conservatives to get involved in conservative politics and run for office. At the local, state and federal levels. Despite losing forty states in 1964, Senator Goldwater managed to win states that democrats use to own. Like Alabama and Mississippi and today the Republican Party now owns the Sun Belt and the rest of the Bible Belt. A region that the Democratic Party use to own. Which is a reason why Richard Nixon won some of those States just four years later. Today’s right-winger conservative classical, theocratic and neo, owe a lot of their success to Barry Goldwater.