 This is Classics of Liberty from libertarianism.org and the Cato Institute, narrated by Caleb Brown. Today's classic is Barry Goldwater's 1960 book, The Conscience of a Conservative, Part 1. In 1954, one Clarence Mannion began broadcasting a weekly radio show, The Mannion Forum, to hundreds of stations and perhaps millions of listeners around the country. For decades until his death in 1979, Mannion preached a philosophy of limited, divided and non-intrusive government. Like a broad array of Americans on the right, Mannion and his circle of financial supporters and activists broke from the Eisenhower Rockefeller wing of liberal internationalist Republicans throughout the 1950s. In the 1958 midterm elections, the GOP lost several important seats in the northeast and west, amidst a cracking Republican Party fractured by divisions, the liberal establishment and the traditionalist conservative outsiders. One Republican senator managed to ignite fire and excitement in his base that dismal year. Eying Barry Goldwater for advancement, Clarence Mannion commissioned Leo Brent Bozell Jr. to ghostwrite a book that could fuse political culture and practice into a powerful movement. In 1960, the Mannion click published The Conscience of a Conservative under the name of Senator Barry Goldwater in plenty of time to send 500 copies directly to Republican National Convention delegates. The book was a smashing success beyond anyone's expectations, most of all Goldwater, who had been somewhat apathetic about the project. Over three and a half million copies sold and its success garnered Goldwater enough national fame to secure his party's nomination in 1964. For Goldwater's own generation of left behind rugged individualists, the students he led in political rebellion and the young Reaganites following in their footsteps, Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative was an unparalleled foundational text. It begins by identifying the most important distinctions between movement conservatives and their well-meaning but misguided fellows left and right. Chapter 1 The Conscience of a Conservative I have been much concerned that so many people today with conservative instincts feel compelled to apologize for them or if not to apologize directly to qualify their commitment in a way that amounts to breast-beating. Republican candidates, Vice President Nixon has said, should be economic conservatives but conservatives with a heart. President Eisenhower announced during his first term, I am conservative when it comes to economic problems, but liberal when it comes to human problems. Still other Republican leaders have insisted on calling themselves progressive conservatives. These formulations are tantamount to an admission that conservatism is a narrow mechanistic economic theory that may work very well as a bookkeeper's guide but cannot be relied upon as a comprehensive political philosophy. The same judgment though in the form of an attack rather than an admission is advanced by the radical camp. We liberals, they say, are interested in people. Our concern is with human beings while you conservatives are preoccupied with the preservation of economic privilege and status. Take them a step further and the liberals will turn the accusations into a class argument. It is the little people that concerns us, not the malefactors of great wealth. Such statements from friend and foe alike do great injustice to the conservative point of view. Conservatism is not an economic theory, though it has economic implications. The shoe is precisely on the other foot. It is socialism that subordinates all other considerations to man's material well-being. It is conservatism that puts material things in their proper place, that has a structured view of the human being and of human society in which economics plays only a subsidiary role. The root difference between the conservatives and the liberals of today is that conservatives take account of the whole man, while the liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature. The conservative believes that man is in part an economic, an animal creature, but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand, in the name of a concern for human beings, regard this satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society. They are, moreover, in a hurry, so that their characteristic approach is to harness the society's political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel progress. In this approach, I believe they fight against nature. Surely the first obligation of a political thinker is to understand the nature of man. The conservative does not claim special powers of perception on this point, but he does claim a familiarity with the accumulated wisdom and experience of history, and he is not too proud to learn from the great minds of the past. The first thing he has learned about man is that each member of the species is a unique creature. Man's most sacred possession is his individual soul, which has an immortal side, but also a mortal one. The mortal side establishes his absolute differentness from every other human being. Only a philosophy that takes into account the essential differences between men and accordingly makes provision for developing the different potentialities of each man can claim to be in accord with nature. We have heard much in our time about the common man. It is a concept that pays little attention to the history of a nation that grew great through the initiative and ambition of uncommon men. The conservative knows that to regard man as part of an undifferentiated mass is to consign him to ultimate slavery. Secondly, the conservative has learned that the economic and spiritual aspects of man's nature are inextricably intertwined. He cannot be economically free or even economically efficient if he is enslaved politically. Conversely, man's political freedom is illusory if he is dependent for his economic needs on the state. The conservative realizes thirdly that man's development in both spiritual and material aspects is not something that can be directed by outside forces. Every man for his individual good and for the good of his society is responsible for his own development. The choices that govern his life are choices that he must make. They cannot be made by any other human being or by a collectivity of human beings. If the conservative is less anxious than his liberal brethren to increase social security benefits, it is because he is more anxious than his liberal brethren that people be free throughout their lives to spend their earnings when and as they see fit. So it is that conservatism throughout history has regarded man neither as a potential pawn of other men nor as a part of a general collectivity in which the sacredness and the separate identity of individual human beings are ignored. Throughout history, true conservatism has been at war equally with autocrats and with democratic Jacobins. The true conservative was sympathetic with the plight of the hapless peasant under the tyranny of the French monarchy and he was equally revolted at the attempt to solve that problem by a mob tyranny that paraded under the banner of egalitarianism. The conscience of the conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being. Today, therefore, he is at odds with dictators who rule by terror and equally with those gentler collectivists who ask our permission to play God with the human race. With this view of the nature of man, it is understandable that the conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. The conservative is the first to understand that the practice of freedom requires the establishment of order. It is impossible for one man to be free if another is able to deny him the exercise of his freedom. But the conservative also recognizes that the political power on which order is based is a self-aggrandizing force, that its appetite grows with eating. He knows that the utmost vigilance and care are required to keep political power within its proper bounds. In our day, order is pretty well taken care of. The delicate balance that ideally exists between freedom and order has long since tipped against freedom practically everywhere on earth. In some countries, freedom is altogether down and order holds absolute sway. In our country, the trend is less far advanced, but it is well along and gathering momentum every day. Thus, for the American conservative, there is no difficulty in identifying the day's overriding political challenge. It is to preserve and extend freedom. As he surveys the various attitudes and institutions and laws that currently prevail in America, many questions will occur to him, but the conservative's first concern will always be, are we maximizing freedom? I suggest we examine some of the critical issues facing us today with this question in mind. Chapter 2 The Perils of Power The New Deal, Dean Atchison wrote approvingly in a book called A Democrat Looks at His Party, conceived of the federal government as the whole people organized to do what had to be done. A year later, Mr. Larson wrote A Republican Looks at His Party, and made much the same claim in his book for modern Republicans. The underlying philosophy of the new republicanism said Mr. Larson is that, quote, if a job has to be done to meet the needs of the people, and no one else can do it, then it is the proper function of the federal government. Here we have, by prominent spokesman of both political parties, an unqualified repudiation of the principle of limited government. There is no reference by either of them to the Constitution, or any attempt to define the legitimate functions of government. The government can do whatever needs to be done. Note, too, the implicit but necessary assumption that it is the government itself that determines what needs to be done. We must not, I think, underrate the importance of these statements. They reflect the view of a majority of the leaders of one of our parties, and of a strong minority among the leaders of the other. And they propound the first principle of totalitarianism, that the state is competent to do all things, and is limited in what it actually does only by the will of those who control the state. It is clear that this view is in direct conflict with the Constitution, which is an instrument, above all, for limiting the functions of government, and which is as binding today as when it was written. We are advised to go a step further and ask why the Constitution's framers restricted the scope of government. Conservatives are often charged, and in a sense rightly so, with having an overly mechanistic view of the Constitution. It is America's enabling document. We are American citizens. Therefore, the Conservatives' theme runs, we are morally and legally obliged to comply with the document. All true. But the Constitution has a broader claim on our loyalty than that. The Founding Fathers had a reason for endorsing the principle of limited government, and this reason recommends defense of the constitutional scheme even to those who take their citizenship obligations lightly. The reason is simple, and it lies at the heart of the Conservative philosophy. Throughout history, government has proved to be the chief instrument for thwarting man's liberty. Government represents power in the hands of some men to control and regulate the lives of other men, and power, as Lord Acton said, corrupts men. Absolute power, he added, corrupts absolutely. State power, considered in the abstract, need not restrict freedom, but absolute state power always does. The legitimate functions of government are actually conducive to freedom, maintaining internal order, keeping foreign foes at bay, administering justice, removing obstacles to the free interchange of goods. The exercise of these powers makes it possible for men to follow their chosen pursuits with maximum freedom. But note that the very instrument by which these desirable ends are achieved can be the instrument for achieving undesirable ends that government can, instead of extending freedom, restrict freedom. And note, secondly, that the can quickly becomes will the moment the holders of government power are left to their own devices. This is because of the corrupting influence of power, the natural tendency of men who possess some power to take unto themselves more power. The tendency leads eventually to the acquisition of all power, whether in the hands of one or many, makes little difference to the freedom of those left on the outside. Such, then, is history's lesson, which Messers Atchison and Larson evidently did not read. Release the holders of state power from any restraints other than those they wish to impose upon themselves, and you are swinging down the well-traveled road to absolutism. The framers of the Constitution had learned the lesson. They were not only students of history but victims of it. They knew from vivid personal experience that freedom depends on effective restraints against the accumulation of power in a single authority. And that is what the Constitution is, a system of restraints against the natural tendency of government to expand in the direction of absolutism. We all know the main components of the system. First is the limitation of the federal government's authority to specific delegated powers. The second, a corollary of the first, is the reservation to the states and the people of all power not delegated to the federal government. The third is a careful division of the federal government's power among three separate branches. The fourth is a prohibition against impetuous alteration of the system, namely Article V's torturous but wise amendment procedures. Was it then a democracy the framers created? Hardly. The system of restraints on the face of it was directed not only against individual tyrants, but also against a tyranny of the masses. The framers were well aware of the danger posed by self-seeking demagogues, that they might persuade a majority of the people to confer on government vast powers a turn for deceptive promises of economic gain. And so they forbade such a transfer of power, first by declaring in effect that certain activities are outside the natural and legitimate scope of the public authority, and secondly, by dispersing public authority among several levels and branches of government in the hope that each seat of authority, jealous of its own prerogatives, would have a natural incentive to resist aggression by the others. The framers were not visionaries. They knew that rules of government, however brilliantly calculated to cope with the imperfect nature of man, however carefully designed to avoid the pitfalls of power, would be no match for men who were determined to disregard them. In the last analysis, their system of government would prosper only if the governed were sufficiently determined that it should. What have you given us a woman asked Ben Franklin toward the close of the Constitutional Convention? A republic, he said, if you can keep it. We have not kept it. The Atchisons and Larson's have had their way. The system of restraint has fallen into disrepair. The federal government has moved into every field in which it believes its services are needed. The state governments are either excluded from their rightful functions by federal preemption, or they are allowed to act at the sufferance of the federal government. Inside the federal government, both the executive and judicial branches have roamed far outside their constitutional boundary lines, and all of these things have come to pass without regard to the amendment procedures prescribed by Article 5. The result is a leviathan, a vast national authority out of touch with the people and out of their control. This monolith of power is bounded only by the will of those who sit in high places. How did it happen? How did our national government grow from a servant with sharply limited powers into a master with virtually unlimited power? In part, we were swindled. There are occasions when we have elevated men and political parties to power that promised to restore limited government and then proceeded after their election to expand the activities of government. But let us be honest with ourselves. Broken promises are not the major cause of our trouble. Kept promises are. All too often we have put men in office who have suggested spending a little more on this, a little more on that, who have proposed a new welfare program, who have thought of another variety of security. We have taken the bait, preferring to put off to another day the recapture of freedom and the restoration of our constitutional system. We have gone the way of many a democratic society that has lost its freedom by persuading itself that if the people rule, all is well. The Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville, probably the most clairvoyant political observer of modern times, saw the danger when he visited this country in the 1830s. Even then he foresaw decay for a society that tended to put more emphasis on its democracy than on its republicanism. He predicted that America would produce not tyrants but guardians, and that the American people would console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in lead strings because he sees that it is not a person nor a class of persons, but the people at large that hold the end of his chain. Our tendency to concentrate power in the hands of a few men deeply concerns me. We can be conquered by bombs or by subversion, but we can also be conquered by neglect, by ignoring the constitution and disregarding the principles of limited government. Our defenses against the accumulation of unlimited power in Washington are in poor shape, I fear, than our defenses against the aggressive designs of Moscow. Like so many other nations before us, we may succumb through internal weakness rather than fall before a foreign foe. 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, but bemoaning the evil will not drive it back and accusing fingers will not shrink government. The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to men who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power they have been given. It will come when Americans, in hundreds of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the constitution and restore the republic. Who will proclaim in a campaign speech, I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed in their purpose or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is needed before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can. That was Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative Part 1. Find more classics of liberty at libertarianism.org.