Regardless of political persuasion, I found the speech very compelling. I know that a number of my conservative friends would most likely raise their hackles at this speech, which, I guess, is the reason I found it buried in a difficult to navigate archive. So here's the speech in it's entirety. Enjoy. :-)
To be a Conservative
Barry Goldwater to Congress, September 18, 1981
Mr. President, it is a wonderful feeling to be a conservative these days. When I ran for President 17 years ago I was told I was behind the times. Now everybody tells me I was ahead of my time. All I can say is that time certainly is an elusive companion.
Barry Goldwater to Congress, September 18, 1981
Mr. President, it is a wonderful feeling to be a conservative these days. When I ran for President 17 years ago I was told I was behind the times. Now everybody tells me I was ahead of my time. All I can say is that time certainly is an elusive companion.
But those reactions illustrate how
far the ideological pendulum has swung in recent years. The American people
have expressed their desire for a new course in our public policy in this
country—a conservative course.
President Reagan’s triumphs at the polls
and in Congress during the past year are, of course, great tributes to his
skill as a politician. But they also resulted, I believe, from the
long-developing shift of public opinion to traditional American values.
As far as I am concerned, that shift
had to come. Government had been intruding more and more into every aspect of
our lives. The people just would not stand for it anymore.
I have seen it coming for a long
time. Throughout my political career, since the day I took my seat in the U. S.
Senate, I have preached one basic theme: The bigger Government gets, the more
it threatens our freedom.
I am certain those who contributed
to the growth of Government had all the best intentions. As they started one
Federal program after another through the years, their motives always sounded
good and the intent of the programs always seemed admirable.
Almost 150 years ago a young
Frenchman came to this country and marveled at the success of the American
experiment in democracy. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote after visiting this
country that:
“The
advantage of democracy does not consist… in favoring the prosperity of all, but
simply in contributing to the well-being of the greatest number.”
And the foundation for our form of
government is not in the principle of prosperity for all but in freedom for
all. That is what has attracted all those who have migrated to this country.
That is what has made America the symbol of hope and prosperity for all the
world. Freedom: That is what true conservatism is all about.
Being a conservative in America
traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the
Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the
Constitution. We treasure the freedom that document protects.
We believe, as the Founding Fathers
did, that we “are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights: that
among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
And for 205 years this Nation, based
on those principles, has endured. Through foreign wars and civil wars, through
political scandals and economic disasters, through civil disorders and
Presidential assassinations, our flag has flown high. Through it all we have
survived every possible attack on our freedom.
But where the guns of war and the
breadlines of the depression failed, another force could succeed in dividing
our country. The specter of single issue religious groups is growing over our
land. In all honesty, I must admit that the birth of the so-called “new right”
is a direct reaction to years of increasing social activism by the liberal side
of the religious house. Within that development lies a very serious threat to
our liberty.
One of the great strengths of our
political system always has been our tendency to keep religious issues in the
background. By maintaining the separation of church and state , the United
States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world
with religious wars. Throughout our 200-plus years, public policy debate has
focused on political and economic issues, on which there can be compromise.
James Madison once wrote that “If
men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
Well, Madison certainly recognized
that humans are not angels. He realized that they tend to group together in
narrow interest groups, which he called factions. And he wrote extensively in
the federalist papers about how the Constitution should protect us from the
abuses of various factions.
Madison saw this as the great
paradox of our system: How do you control the factions without violating the
people’s basic freedoms?
Madison wrote:
“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.”
And in a well-constructed
representative government like ours, Madison said, one of our greatest
strengths is our ability to “break and control the violence of faction.”
What he said is that the aim of the
framers of the Constitution was to allow freedom of religion and freedom of
speech for everyone, not just those who follow one religious faction.
Madison said:
“A
zeal for different opinions concerning religion has occasionally divided
mankind… and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppose each other than
to cooperate for the common good.”
Can any of us refute the wisdom of
Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage of Iran, the
bloodshed in Northern Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet
question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?
Our political process involves a
constant give and take, a continuous series of trade-offs. From this system of
compromise, we get legislation that reflects input from many sectors of our
society and addresses many needs and interests.
Obviously, not everyone can be
pleased, but at least all sides are considered.
However, 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 cajole, they
complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
In the past couple years, I have seen many news items that
referred to the moral majority, pro-life and other religious groups as
"the new right," and the "new conservatism." Well, I have
spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the "old
conservatism." And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of
these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal
politics.
The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive
element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if
they gain sufficient strength.
As it is, they are diverting us away from the vital issues
that our Government needs to address. We are facing serious economic and
military dangers in this country today, and we need to make a concerted effort
to correct our problems in these areas.
But far too much of the time of Members of Congress and
officials in the executive branch is used up dealing with special interest
groups on issues like abortion, school busing, ERA, prayer in schools, and pornography.
While these are important moral issues, they are secondary right now to our
national security and economic survival.
I must make it clear that I do not condemn these groups for
what they believe. I happen to share many of the values emphasized by these
organizations.
I, too, believe that we Americans should return to our
traditional values concerning morality, family closeness, self-reliance, and a
day's work for a day's pay. These are the values our forebears clung to as they
built this Nation into the citadel of freedom it is today.
And, I, too, have been pleased with the swing of the pendulum
for in recent years to the conservative, moral end of the spectrum.
But I object to certain groups jumping on that pendulum and
then claiming that they caused it to swing in the first place.
And 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.
This unrelenting obsession with a particular goal destroys
the perspective of many decent people with whom I think I agree on most
issues. In the quest for moral righteousness they have become easy prey
to manipulation and misjudgment.
A prime example was the recent nomination of Sandra O'Connor
as a Supreme Court justice and the ensuing uproar over her stand on abortion.
The abortion issue has nothing to do with being conservative
or liberal. I happen to oppose abortion, but there are many fine conservatives
who would go along with regulated abortions. In fact, my own wife believes
that a woman should have the freedom of choice for herself whether she is
capable of continuing the pregnancy and then raising the child.
I disagree with her on that. Yet I respect her right to
disagree. If I expected her to agree with me on every issue we would be in a
lot of trouble.
And the same goes for prospective Supreme Court justices. No
single issue should ever decide the fitness of a Supreme Court justice. To
think otherwise is to go against the integrity of the Constitution.
There are many broad issues addressed each day by a jurist
that are much more revealing of how that person might perform on a High Court.
A judge’s attitude on a private property rights, State sovereignty, statutory
construction, and treatment of criminals tells me more about whether a person
is conservative than his or her stand on abortion.
Of course, the saddest part of the whole dispute was that
Judge O’Connor was attacked by these religious factions for a position she does
not hold. She opposes abortion and said so. I firmly believe that she
recognizes the authority of legislatures to regulate it.
She will make an excellent justice of the Supreme Court. She
will make President Reagan proud that he chose her as the best of all
candidates—men or women.
And the religious factions will go on imposing their will on
others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has
no place in public policy.
They must learn to make their views known without trying to
make their views the only alternative.
The great decisions of Government cannot be dictated by the
concerns of religious factions. This was true in the days of Madison, and
it is just as true today.
We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of
State separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we must
not stop now.
To retreat from that separation would violate the principles
of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic
republic.