Topic: John McCain
Goldwater's Heir? Is John McCain really Goldwater's heir?by RS Davis
(libertarian)
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
John McCain occupies the seat that paleoconservative (the closest thing in the GOP to libertarian) icon Barry Goldwater left. He was billed as Goldwater's intellectual heir, but as Matt Welch tells us, "McCain's famous regulatory zeal on the Senate Commerce Committee - meddling into the affairs of amateur athletes, Hollywood marketers and tobacco companies - has been the opposite of Goldwater's principled libertarianism, and indeed the younger maverick never did understand why the man he replaced in the Senate failed to fully embrace him."
Let's look at the two men. Goldwater said:
I have little interest in streamlining government or in 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 have failed 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 be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty, and in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
On the flipside, McCain, rather than embracing the individualist spirit of this nation and endeavoring to allow free men to realize their own potential, stated:
We are fast becoming a nation of alienating individualists, unwilling to put the unifying values of patriotism ahead of our narrow self-interests.
Goldwater on gay rights:
The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay, you don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it.
McCain on gay rights:
I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona.
Goldwater on gays in the military:
Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar...You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.
McCain on gays in the military:
We have the best-trained, most professional, best- equipped, most efficient, most wonderful military in the history of this country, and I'm proud of every one of them. There just aren't enough of them. So I think it would be a terrific mistake to even reopen the issue. The policy is working. And I am convinced that that's the way we can maintain this greatest military. Let's not tamper with them.
Barry Goldwater famously asked "Where is the politician who has not promised to fight to the death for lower taxes- and who has not proceeded to vote for the very spending projects that make tax cuts impossible?"
And John McCain, who is supporting all of these massive new corporate welfarist government bailouts - only stipulating that the fleecing of the American consumer needs an "oversight committee" - proves his point for him. Perhaps McCain is just trying to serve as a cautionary example of what can happen when we get all the things about which Goldwater warned us?
Meanwhile, in the same state, a Republican named Jeff Flake of Arizona's Sixth District appears to be making a case that he is the true intellectual heir of Goldwater:
"The federal government's propensity to bail out failing companies in struggling industries ought to be troubling to all taxpayers," said Flake. "Aside from the fiscal impact of spending money that the federal government doesn't have, these bailouts will likely have the opposite of their intended effect."
"Federal bailouts may stave off short-term economic damage, but the long-term economic outlook will be much worse if the market is not allowed to make its own adjustments."
"While the Bush Administration certainly shares blame for these bailouts, this Congress may designate itself as the ‘Bailout Congress' if we follow through on a rumored bailout of the auto industry."
Is there still any potent strain of Goldwater conservatism left in the Republican Party? The onslaught of attacks and smears - as well as the snubbing - of Ron Paul this election cycle leads this writer to say no.
McCain seems to be against everything for which Goldwater stood - replacing freedom with "national greatness," saying things like "I would rather have a clean government than one…where ‘First Amendment rights’ are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice I’d rather have a clean government."
The western Republicans like Flake and Ron Paul give me some hope that there is an undercurrent of paleoconservatism left, but it is being completely overwhelmed by the neoconservative movement, which I believe has changed the face of the GOP forever.
As Goldwater presciently predicted, the modern GOP sees a Goldwater conservative not as even an anachronism of the principles that they once held, but quite simply, as a liberal. If Goldwater was a liberal, well, I'll wear that badge proudly, too.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 14 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of RS Davis only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. RS Davis is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-09-24 06:15:16
Agree totally with your points. My only bone of contention is that I don't think the Republican party ever really embraced real freedom as a whole. Even most of those who voted for Goldwater in most cases did so more because they supported those things he was statist about, rather than those things he advocated for freedom.
Reagan's support was a later example of the same phenomenon. Yes, he had libertarian supporters, but most of his supporters were social conservatives and neo-cons (although they were just called "hawks" at that time).
Although, in fairness to Reagan, all the neocons told him he should under no circumstances meet with the Soviet Union, and he told them to go jump off a bridge.
Truly, Reagan was the last Republican president to resist the neoconservatives to any degree.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
