# The Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater - Blinkist What’s in it for me? A crash course in conservatism. The 1960s in the United States have gone down in history as a time of political upheaval and cultural ferment. This period is often remembered as a left-wing rebellion against the staid 1950s by long-haired student radicals and hippies. But that’s only one part of the story.  Change was also afoot on the other side of the political spectrum.  By the time they finally reclaimed the White House in 1952, the Republicans hadn’t been in power for 20 years. Conservatives expecting the party to lower public spending and cut taxes were in for a shock, though. The “New Republicans” seemed to be just as committed to giving the state an active role in the economy as their counterparts on the left.  This was something many on the right refused to accept. Among those leading the fight for a return to first principles was Barry Goldwater, a senator from Arizona. He was convinced that, at heart, American voters were conservative. To win them over, however, the conservative movement had to establish its integrity and show that it cared about more than just wealth and status.  In 1960, Goldwater published The Conscience of a Conservative – a manifesto that gave the American right a new lease on life, and ultimately helped put it back in power before the decade was out.  In these blinks, we’ll explore the values and ideals Goldwater laid out in this revolutionary book.  Along the way, you’ll learn  how conservatism differs from liberalism; why unions should only represent voluntary members; and   how the welfare state erodes freedom. Unlike liberalism, conservatism looks at the “whole man.” What is a conservative? Before the 1930s, Republicans in the United States had a simple answer to that question: someone who believes in limited government and maximum personal freedom. But 20 years of opposition undermined this idea. By the time Dwight D. Eisenhower became president in 1952, many conservatives believed that it was necessary to – as he put it – be a “liberal when it comes to human problems.”  What these “progressive” conservatives were, in effect, suggesting was that their own creed wasn’t a comprehensive political philosophy. They couldn’t have been more wrong. The key message here is: Unlike liberalism, conservatism looks at the “whole man.”  Liberals often claim that conservatives aren’t interested in the little people, and that theirs is merely an economic theory obsessed with the bottom line. The shoe, however, is on the other foot – it’s liberals who are only concerned with material well-being and who neglect other aspects of life.  In fact, only conservatives take account of the whole man. Let’s break that down. In the liberal view of things, the job of politics is to satisfy economic needs. Give folks food, clothing, and shelter, liberals argue, and you’ve answered life’s biggest questions. Conservatives don’t see it that way. They also view humans as spiritual beings. Nurturing this superior side of human nature, they claim, is political philosophy’s highest aim.  This leads us to a second important point. When you satisfy economic needs, you can treat everyone alike – a full belly, after all, is a full belly. Spirituality is different. It can only be developed if you recognize that everyone is different; what fulfills you might not do the same for me. Satisfying spiritual needs, in other words, is only possible when we are free to decide what gives our own lives meaning. Conservatism is thus a holistic creed, buttressed by the view that humans require both economic and political freedom to flourish. Without the former, they are reliant on an external power – the state, which can deprive them of their means of survival. Without the latter, they must submit to the beliefs of others.  Crucially, conservatives understand that neither of these freedoms can be absolute. As social beings, we thrive when we can live among others in peace. This requires social order, which in turn requires certain limitations and duties such as paying taxes. In the following blink, we’ll look at how this delicate balance can be struck. The United States Constitution enshrines the principle of limited government – although both parties began ignoring it in the twentieth century. “Government,” by definition, means placing power in the hands of some men to control others. Throughout history, it has been the chief instrument by which people have been deprived of liberty. The reason for this is that power corrupts, and – as the English historian Lord Acton put it in the nineteenth century – “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Fortunately, the Founding Fathers developed a solution to this all-too-human problem.  The key message here is: The United States Constitution enshrines the principle of limited government – although both parties began ignoring it in the twentieth century.  So what does limited government mean in practice? Well, it comes down to the idea that the state has legitimate powers, which it must exercise while simultaneously being prevented from assuming additional powers.  Take the United States Constitution. It allows the federal government to maintain internal order and a justice system. These powers are coercive, but they are also conducive to freedom. Courts and police officers, for example, ensure that citizens can’t be murdered or robbed with impunity. In turn, this allows them to peacefully pursue their interests and desires.  The Constitution also places obstacles in the way of anyone who seeks to extend the power of the federal state. The division of power, for example, creates three branches of government with separate functions: the executive running the country, the legislature that passes laws, and the judiciary that administers justice. The Founding Fathers hoped that this division would give each branch an incentive to resist the others if they grew too powerful.  Tyranny, however, isn’t the only threat to liberty. As the French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville noted in the 1830s, in the United States, tyrants were always less likely than elected officials to illegitimately extend their power in return for promises of giveaways at the ballot box.  By 1960, it was clear that such guardians held sway in the United States. Both Republicans and Democrats had transformed the federal government into a bloated leviathan with an annual budget of $100 billion – $874 billion in today’s value – up from just $30.5 billion three decades earlier. Around one third of all earnings were taken by the federal government in the form of taxes. Meanwhile, farmers were being told what crops they could grow; parents, what their kids could learn in school; and businesses, how much they should pay employees.  These demagogic officials won the votes of Americans by promising them security in return for greater power. As we’ll see in the next blink, one of their first targets was states’ rights. The erosion of states’ rights also erodes liberty. Public utilities, banks, agriculture, education, and welfare – these are just some of the issues that the Constitution delegates to states rather than the federal government. States’ rights are at the heart of the constitutional framework designed by the Founding Fathers, who believed it was better that political questions be settled locally rather than federally. This framework survived into the twentieth century, but it no longer holds today.  The key message here is: The erosion of states’ rights also erodes liberty.  The Constitution draws a clear line between federal and state jurisdiction, but this line has been blurred by the power-hungry federal government. Take grants-in-aid, or so-called “matching funds.” These encourage state spending in areas like healthcare, education, welfare, and conservation. The way they work is simple: when states decide to fund a specific project, the federal government also pitches in. The ratio between state and federal investment is determined by Congress, but it is often 50-50.  We can make two points about these “stimulative” grants. First off, the folks at the receiving end of these projects never get a say in how this money is spent – that’s decided in Washington.  Secondly, states are subjected to a mix of blackmail and bribery. The federal government effectively tells states to get with the program, “or else.” Local politicians usually accept this deal because it would be political suicide to turn down a share of the funds that they helped raise in the first place. If a state does refuse, the federal government steps in and implements its policies anyway.  This is a gross violation of the Constitution. As the Tenth Amendment confirms, states have a right both to act and not act, and this can only be decided by the people of a given state. So if, for example, Texans are unhappy with Texas’s disability insurance program, they can elect new officials to implement different policies. Whom they decide to elect, however, has nothing to do with Washington.  The Founding Fathers didn’t hit upon this idea by chance. As they saw it, political problems are best dealt with locally. Who knows better than New Yorkers whether New York needs a new freeway or airport? And who but Nebraskans can say whether Nebraska has an adequate nursing program? When the federal government decides these issues, it isn’t just overstepping its constitutional role – it’s also depriving the inhabitants of these states the right to define their own interests. When properly defined, there is no conflict between states’ rights and civil rights. There is a common misconception that the assault on states’ rights is often justified in the name of civil rights. To uphold the rights of African Americans, for example, this argument asserts that it’s necessary for the federal government to interfere in the way states are run on a day-to-day basis. This is misleading. In reality, states’ rights and civil rights are fully compatible.  The key message here is: When properly defined, there is no conflict between states’ rights and civil rights.  According to the Constitution, the rights of states have one hard limit: if they encroach upon individual rights protected by federal law, state power no longer applies. Conversely, if an individual right infringes upon the legitimate powers of states, this right is nullified.  States’ rights are easy to define. As the Tenth Amendment puts it, a state may do anything that has not been delegated to the federal government or banned by the Constitution. Civil rights are also pretty straightforward; they are rights protected by valid laws. If an abstract right to do something is not incorporated into law, it’s unenforceable and thus lacks the status of a civil right. The rider here is that the legal definition of such rights must be compatible with the Constitution.  When Americans talk about civil rights, they are usually talking about the rights of African Americans – especially in the southern states that previously segregated black and white citizens. Some of these rights are clearly protected by valid laws and can therefore be classified as civil rights.  The right to vote, for example, is covered by the Fifteenth Amendment, which states that no one may be denied the franchise on the basis of their skin color. The Fourteenth Amendment, meanwhile, ensures the right of all US citizens to make and enforce contracts, as well as inherit, purchase, lease, and sell property. What the Constitution does not cover is federal intervention in states to, for example, guarantee racially mixed schools. Desegregating education may be both just and wise, but neither black nor white children have a “civil right” to attend mixed-race schools. The Supreme Court recognized this, even as it gave the federal government the power to desegregate schools by force in 1954.  As the chief justice in that decision put it, the court could not turn the clock back to 1868 when the first Civil Rights Act was passed. Instead, it had to consider public education “in light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the nation.” In effect, the court was saying that its ideas, not the Constitution, had the last word. Trade unions pervert their own cause when they attempt to represent workers who don’t want representation. As America turned from an agricultural nation into an industrial one, businesses expanded and became more and more powerful. By the late nineteenth century, bosses had the upper hand and workers were forced to accept whatever wages they were offered. Attempting to increase their bargaining power, these workers banded together to create a common negotiating agent: the trade union.  But unions didn’t just solve the age-old quarrel of wages – they created a new problem of their own.  The key message here is: Trade unions pervert their own cause when they attempt to represent workers who don’t want representation.  The natural function of a trade union is: to speak on behalf of employees who desire collective representation when bargaining with employers over the terms of employment. When unions restrict themselves to this task, they become a legitimate means of achieving economic justice. This is because they’re an expression of man’s inalienable right to freely associate with others in realizing shared goals.  As soon as membership becomes mandatory rather than a free choice, Unions become an illegitimate medium. In order to illustrate this better, let’s take the example of Bob. For the last 20 years, he’s worked as a technician in a factory in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. One day, the United Electrical Workers – or UEW – union becomes the recognized bargaining agent at his plant. While Bob thinks unions are a good idea, he doesn’t agree with UEW’s communist leadership. Here’s the thing, though: if he wants to keep his job, he has to join the UEW and pay his dues because the owner has agreed to this union’s demand to represent all workers at the plant.  The best way to prevent Bob’s situation is to implement right-to-work laws. These forbid contracts that make union membership a condition of employment and transform freedom of association into a legally enforceable, or civil, right.  When such laws are proposed, unions usually argue that it’s unjust for some workers to reap the rewards of unions’ bargaining power without contributing to their upkeep. This may be true, but it doesn’t mean that unions have a right to compel workers to pay their dues. Think of it this way: the activities of the Red Cross benefit everyone, directly or indirectly, but no one thinks donating to the charity ought to be compulsory! Right-to-work laws might give cover to freeloaders, but these will likely always be a minority. After all, if a union serves the interests of its members, most workers will support it just as millions of Americans support worthy charities. Governments do not have an unlimited claim on our individual earnings. Big government has changed the way American voters think about key issues. For instance, these days, taxation is regarded as a matter of public financing, with the most important question being, “How much money does the government need?” This obscures a more fundamental issue: freedom. Excessive taxation doesn’t just bloat the federal government – it also undermines individual liberty.  The key message here is: Governments do not have an unlimited claim on our individual earnings. Natural law states that we have an inalienable right to the possession and use of our property. This doesn’t just refer to possessions like houses and cars, however. In modern society, income is the most common form of property. And if choosing what to do with one’s property is a key part of what it means to be free, it follows that taxation is a form of unfreedom.  Say a family man called John earns $45,000 a year and works 22 days a month on average. In total, taxation claims 32 percent of his income – $14,400. This means that one third of his monthly labor goes toward paying taxes. Put differently, for every three days that John works, one is dedicated to providing for the government, which confiscates his property and gives it to others.  But if we can agree that this isn’t fair or reasonable, we must still answer the question of how much tax is indeed fair and reasonable. Remember, we’ve already said that the functions of limited government are conducive to freedom. In other words, if we benefit from police officers and courts, we should pay our fair share toward their maintenance. This is the first criterion of a just tax policy: the government should only take as much as it needs to pay for the legitimate functions of government.  “Progressive” taxation – the policy of taking, say, 90 percent from the man who earns $800,000 and 20 percent from the man who earns $80,000 – clearly goes beyond this. Rather than maintaining law and order, this is a form of social engineering that redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor and punishes success. The claim that this kind of “graduated” tax is necessary for revenue purposes is also bogus. In 1960, the total revenue collected from income taxes beyond the 20 percent level came to just $43 billion – less than the government spent on agriculture alone!  The fairest way of raising taxes, then, is to ask each citizen to pay an equal percentage of their income and no more. The welfare state is a new form of collectivism, and it’s a menace to freedom. For many years, the most dangerous threat to American freedom came from Marxists who wanted to socialize the means of production. In practice, this would have meant a state-owned and operated economy based on the Soviet model. After the Second World War, as Marxism lost its appeal in an increasingly affluent society, a new danger emerged: welfarism. The key message here is: The welfare state is a new form of collectivism, and it’s a menace to freedom.  Marxists believed that a proletarian revolution would bring them to power. When millions of workers lost their jobs and fell into poverty in the 1930s, it looked like they might be right. What they hadn’t anticipated, though, was how quickly the United States and other Western countries would recover from the Great Depression.  Thirty years later, these societies were richer than ever before. High living standards, full employment, and unprecedented wealth undermined workers’ interest in revolutionary politics. Marxism was a busted flush. But it wasn’t the end of the road for collectivism – the ideology that seeks to subordinate the individual to the state.  The new collectivists realized that you don’t have to violently expropriate the rich; you can simply confiscate their property through taxation. They also understood that when the state provides for people, individuals lose their ability to provide for themselves – which makes this type of collectivism compatible with democracy. So, in return for freebies offered by demagogic politicians, voters give governments the power to grant, or withhold, the necessities of life.  Conservatives who oppose welfarism are often accused of being heartless. How, their opponents demand, can they not be moved by the plight of the poor, the sick, and the frail? But this misses the point. For conservatives, the “cure” offered by welfarism is worse than the disease itself.  This is because welfarism eliminates people’s feeling of responsibility for their own well-being, families, and communities. Once this has been lost, the individual is transformed from a free citizen into an unfree subject.  Welfarism also corrupts the “humanitarian” impulse that persuades sensible people to support such policies in the first place. A man who willingly votes for a party that will tax his income to provide, say, medical care for the poor may think that he is being virtuous, when he’s really just interfering with the freedom of others. His vote, after all, is also a vote for them to have their property confiscated. He would be much better off donating his money to charity and allowing others to make their own choices. Final summary The key message in these blinks: Conservatism is a political philosophy that looks at the “whole man.” Put differently, conservatives believe that individuals are only free when they enjoy both economic and political freedoms. In twentieth century America, however, this idea was undermined as both Republicans and Democrats expanded the size of the federal state. As they did this, they trampled on Constitutional principles like states’ rights and confiscated the property of hard-working citizens through over-burdensome taxation. Trade unions, meanwhile, corrupted freedom in the workplace, and the welfare state turned free citizens into dependent subjects.  Got feedback? We’d love to hear what you think about our content! Just drop an email to remember@blinkist.com with the title of this book as the subject line and share your thoughts! What to read next: The Conservative Mind, by Russell Kirk Barry Goldwater’s conservative manifesto was oriented toward the future – it was a roadmap for a movement seeking political power. Conservatism, in other words, knew where it was going. But where had it come from?  That’s the question the political theorist Russell Kirk answers in The Conservative Mind. First published in 1953, Kirk’s study defines the ethical basis of conservatism and traces its development from eighteenth-century English philosophers, like Edmund Burke, into the twentieth century.  So, if you’d like to take a closer look at the history of conservative ideas, check out our blinks to The Conservative Mind, by Russel Kirk.