As many in the United States are, Barry Goldwater was extremely passionate about politics. Goldwater had a political career that lead to being a Senator of Arizona and a Republican nominee for President in the 1960s. Goldwater was a diehard conservative and went as far as to have a ghostwriter outline the political positions espoused by the stance in a book called The Conscience of a Conservative. The senator ended up losing the race for the presidency to Lyndon B. Johnson. Barry Goldwater believed that conservatism looked at people through a wholistic lens, preserved the freedom of the American people, and minimized the federal government that was far too overbearing. Barry Goldwater believed in the wholistic nature of Conservatism. In …show more content…
The Conscience of a Conservative, Goldwater explains the political position saying: ...Conservatives take account of the whole man, while 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… Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man’s spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. (Goldwater 4-5) The senator truly believed in the nurturing nature of Conservatism to someone in and outside of the political realm. Goldwater continues this thought process by going as far as to say, “Man’s most sacred possession is his individual soul…” (Goldwater 5). This goes along perfectly with what President Kennedy wanted for politics in the 1960s. In a book written by Arthur M. Schlesinger, on the author’s interactions with President Kennedy and the presidential family, Schlesinger accounts, “Kennedy, who had been critical of the Eisenhower effort to institutionalize the Presidency, was determined to restore the personal character of the office ...” (Schlesinger 681). President Kennedy wanted to reinstall individualism into the modern presidency. An essential part of Conservatism, to Barry Goldwater at least, is the protection of the freedom of American citizens. One way Goldwater explained Conservative positions on welfare was through saying, “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” (Goldwater 6). The senator does not believe that the benefits are free because ultimately the citizen pays for the welfare. This position is in stark contrast to the Supreme Court’s decision on welfare. A journal reviewing of the passing of the decision says: The lawyers and judges established the principle that welfare was a legal right and, under the banner of this principle, purged the system of condescending moralism and arbitrary administration. The critical milestones in this account are Reich’s 1964 article, the 1968 case of King v. Smith, in which the Supreme Court struck down the “man-in-the-house” rules, and the 1970 case of Goldberg v. Kelly in which the Court held that due process required a hearing prior to the termination of a welfare benefit. (Simon 3) This decision is essential to the United States’ political atmosphere moving past the 1960s. The Supreme Court set the stage for all future welfare programs. Goldwater’s responds to this train of thought saying, “...man’s political freedom is illusory if he is dependent for his economic needs on the State” (Goldwater 6). To the senator, people are not truly getting help from the government. Instead, the government is giving them benefits the person has already paid for through taxes and other means. Furthermore, Goldwater believed that the government should not interfere in the personal values of citizens. The senator displays this saying: It so happens that I am in agreement with the objectives of the Supreme Court as stated in the Brown decision. I believe that it is both wise and just for negro children to attend the same schools as whites, and that to deny them this opportunity carries with it strong implications of inferiority. I am not prepared, however, to impose that judgement of mine on the people of Mississippi or South Carolina, or to tell them what methods should be adopted and what pace should be kept in striving toward that goal. That is their business not mine. (Goldwater 31) Goldwater's position in Conservatism says that if the federal government passes laws to control how the states approach education would be a direct strip of freedom. This is completely against all the Goldwater stands for. This stance is also against the political movements of the time. David Burner wrote a book commenting on the political climate of the 1960s saying, “The rights movement sought, in effect, to bring black Americans under the Declaration of Independence…it should be an aim of a good society to eliminate...barriers...That principle will never, can never, become fully realized, but it is an imperative toward which American politics should strive” (49). Barry Goldwater believed that the federal government was far too large and Conservatism had the ability to shrink it to its proper size.
The senator believes that the Constitution is the answer to fixing the federal government. Goldwater tells readers, “...the Constitution which is an instrument, above all, for limiting the functions of the government, and which is as binding today as when it was written” (Goldwater 10). Moreover, Goldwater adds on to this by wroting, “The federal government has moved into every field in which it believes its services are needed...Inside the federal government both the executive and judicial branches have roamed far outside their constitutional boundary lines” (Goldwater 13). This act was an atrocious crime to the senator. Goldwater’s observation is supported by Arthur M. Schlesinger in A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House. Schlesinger wrote, “...President Eisenhower, accustomed all his life to the military staff system, and to the needs of a regime more concerned with consolidation than with innovation” (681). The presidency was becoming more about expansion of political power than the prosperity of the American people. Goldwater furthers this point by giving advice to other politicians saying, “...state officials throughout the land to assert their rightful claims to lost state power; and for the federal government to withdraw promptly and totally from every jurisdiction which the Constitution reserved to the states” (24). In the senators mind, shrinking the size of the federal government and ensuring the individual rights of the states was imperative to the success of the United
States. To Barry Goldwater, Conservatism protected the interest of the whole person, ensured freedom to every American, and made the federal government return to its Constitutional place. Goldwater truly believed in the power of Conservatism to change the world. In The Conscience of a Conservative, the ghostwriter was able to display the political positions of Barry Goldwater and gave readers an insight to Conservatism in the 1960s. Although the senator lost to Lyndon B. Johnson to become the next American president, Goldwater still had a successful career and influenced the future of politics in the United States. Goldwater sought out what was, to the senator, the best for America.
In Mark R. Levin’s book, THE LIBERTY AMENDMENTS, he proposes amendments to the Constitution called “The Liberty Amendments” (Levin 18). His hope for producing this book of proposed amendments is to “spur interest in and, ultimately, support for the state convention process.” (Levin 18). Levin states he undertook this project because he believes the way that the Constitution, as originally structured, “is the necessity and urgency of restoring constitutional republicanism and preserving the civil society from the growing authoritarianism of federal Leviathan” (Levin 1). Levin believes that the Congress operates in a way that was not intended by the Framers of our country, and has become oppressive to its people in its laws (Levin 3). He also
Feingold’s position as the only senator voicing opposition to the Patriot Act did not come without controversy. Despite all difficulties, Feingold never questioned his choice, and in fact declared that it was, “probably one of the best things [he’d] ever done.” Feingold acknowledged that he agreed with much of the Patriot act, however saw that certain provisions, “trampled on constitutional rights.” He declared that, as an elected representative, he took an oath to the Constitution that, “wasn’t an oath of convenience,” and displayed unyielding devotion to his fight to def...
Federalist 51 is an essay written by James Madison in support of the creation of the United States Constitution which would serve as the replacement for the faulty Articles of Confederation. Madison along with several other federalists wrote a series of anonymous essays that eventually became to be known as the Federalist Papers. The purpose of these essays was to inform the public about the suggested structure for the new government that would protect our natural rights. Madison’s paper Federalist 51 outlines a description of the foundation of the new government where each branch of the government would have its own unique and separate powers exclusive to that branch and the power to check and balance the other branches.
Since its very conception, the Constitution of the United States has while holding great reverence, been a great topic of debate amongst the political scholars left to analyze it in all its ambiguity. Two such scholars, John Roche and Charles Beard, in their analyses of the Constitution aim to tackle a layer of the uncertainty: how democratic the Framers truly intended the Constitution to be. John Roche speaks in unquestionably high regard of the Framers in advocating that they so evidently compromised their own values in order to create a democratic document that would strengthen the US as a whole. Charles Beard conversely insists that as the economic elite of their time, the Framers were influenced primarily by their private interests to
You may think that the Constitution is your security - it is nothing but a piece of paper. You may think that the statutes are your security - they are nothing but words in a book. You may think that elaborate mechanism of government is your security - it is nothing at all, unless you have sound and uncorrupted public opinion to give life to your Constitution, to give vitality to your statutes, to make efficient your government machinery. (Brown)
Larry Sabato author of “A More Perfect Constitution” implies the United States Constitution could use some revision. Written over two hundred years ago, I do not think this concept is astonishing. I believe the founding father were aware of potential flaws, allowing for amendments or changes. Sabato book proposes some changes and the “calling for a twenty-first-century constitutional convention.” This book review will look at four of Sabato suggestions; reforming the Senate, balancing the budget, a six-year presidential term, and the Electoral College. These four recommendations were of greatest interest and intrigue. Although I do agree with all his ideas, I do feel there is more to improvement in our constitution and commend his efforts is awakening the American people to a need for reform.
The Constitution of the United States explicates the enumerated powers that the people have granted to their public administration. A narrow interpretation of the Constitution would mean denying the government the powers granted to them to keep order, equality, and fairness. An expanded interpretation would “extend words beyond their natural and obvious import, and we might question the application of the term…” (244). It is the government’s responsibility to exercise powers that cannot be exercised by its governed people. There are no guidelines in the Constitution’s composition that discloses how to interpret the language; therefore, it is in the hands of three federal branches of government to decipher the Constitutions meaning.
...diverse republic, where it would be difficult for factions to gain majority power. However, Madison knew that to large of a republic would lead to a country with no cohesion among its states. Madison notes that if the republic would get too large, their representatives would take little notice of local issues. In federalist 10, Madison states that Federalism would solve the problem of a large republic. Madison argues that no matter how large constituencies of representatives in the federal government, state and local officials will look after local matters. These local officials will have smaller constituencies, which will take care of any local problems that may arise. In federalist 51, Madison continues his argument of federalism, stating that federalism is supposed to protect liberty; by making sure one department or branch of government does not grow to large.
“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself,” are words written by James Madison in The Federalist Papers No. 51. The Federalist Paper No. 51 is one of several documents that compose the Federalist Papers, a series of essays written by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton promoting the ratification of the Constitution. In this particular paper, several principles are used as arguments for ratification. Specifically, a main argument discussed is the means this government would have to self-regulate itself. Following the sentence quoted above is, “A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” The auxiliary precautions Madison refers to is one of the many principles of our government that is still in action today, a system of checks and balances. Such a principle was born from the Constitution as a result of the existence of three branches and their division of powers.
Millions of viewers tuned into the National Broadcasting Company television network for a special broadcast on the 27th of October. Viewers were anticipating Ronald Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” speech. Reagan was acknowledged for his acting in motion pictures and television episodes since 1937, and was now being seen in an unfamiliar role. Reagan emerged in support of the Republican nominee Barry Goldwater. Barry Morris Goldwater was a businessman and five-term United States Senator from Arizona and the Republican Party's nominee for president in the 1964 election. “A Time for Choosing” was effective, because he gave personal examples to capture the audiences’ attention, and gave humor to a tough subject.
Since the writing of the Constitution there has been innumerable arguments regarding its meaning, but only one side is correct-- the Republicans. The Federalists’ ideology regarding the Constitution reverted back to the government they had just escape...
“The Constitution leaves in its wake a long legacy, forever shaping the fate of many other countries. Whether those countries are currently in a state favorable to liberty or not, it is undeniable that the U.S. Constitution’s principles have caused people to rethink how to organize their political systems” (Hang). Time has only added value to the Constitution, for every time we reference it in our lives it is a testament of our trust and loyalty in what it states about our rights as individuals and the role the government plays in our lives. When it was written, the Constitution was the law of the land that gave people rights they had previously lived without. Similarly, we live lives of choice and independence because of the same document while other countries limit all the rights we are guaranteed in the Constitution. Simply put, “The Constitution is important because it protects individual freedom, and its fundamental principles govern the United States. The Constitution places the government 's power in the hands of the citizens. It limits the power of the government and establishes a system of checks and balances”
Over the course of American History, the champions of a stronger presidency have almost always prevailed. State does not have anyone to represent them. Levin states “furthermore, state sovereignty is not a top priority for most senators because the state legislatures hold no sway over them” (Levin, 47.) Senators have no interest in what the states want. The federal government told the states that they have to rise the drinking age or...
The conservative movement has played a crucial role in American politics in the post war era. Ronald Story and Bruce Laurie indentify various elements of the American conservatism. These elements include challenging authoritarian governments and modernist culture, upholding tradition, Christian religion and the rule of law, defending western civilization, and supporting republicanism. American conservatism has been characterized by competing ideologies and tension throughout history. The Americans who are politically liberal and economically conservative favor free trade, minimal state intervention, low taxes, and a small government. On the other hand, conservatives hold the view that American traditional values are normally undermined by secularism. Social conservatives have always opposed same-sex marriages and abortion, and instead have been supporting the idea of integrating prayer into the school curriculum (Story and Laurie 1).
Modern liberalism and modern conservatism are both political outlooks that involve acceptance or support of the balance of the degree of social equality and social inequality; while they tend to avoid political changes that would result in extreme deviation of society to either side. Modern liberalism and modern conservatism tend not to be as centrist or middle-of-the-road ideologies as they once could be. Ideology is a set of ideas and beliefs that guide the goals, expectations, and actions of a group (Webster’s Dictionary). Individuals who are conservative or liberal tend to have views that align within a political party, whether it be Republican or democratic, but this is not always the case. There are conservative democrats, such as, Jim Costa and Jim Cooper and there are liberal republicans, such as, Nathaniel Banks and George Washington Julian. Another name for conservative democrats would be blue dog democrats while the nickname for liberal republicans is the Rockefeller republicans. These two ideologies tend to be more of the centrist ideologies. Modern liberals tend to be members of the Democratic Party because they support a wide range of welfare programs and government support of the public sector and tighter corporate regulations (PP Modern Liberalism). U.S. Conservatism evolved from classical liberalism, which makes them similar, yet there is many differences between modern conservatism and modern liberalism. There are principles and tenets that govern each ideology. A tenant is a belief or idea that is held as being true from a group (Webster’s Dictionary). In understanding both ideologies, it is imperative to have an understanding of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism was built on ideas from the seventeenth ...