Goldwater's Reactionary Legacy: Bush and Rove
I was reading a number of essays by Gore Vidal over the Labor Day holiday. He is one of the greatest American novelists, critics and political observers of the last half of the twentieth century.
Most of the essays were written between 1958 and 1967, an era of immense social change in the U.S. One of his essays was about Barry Goldwater and The Future of Conservatism published in 1961. I recently read that a Goldwater relative (maybe a granddaughter) is doing a documentary about Goldwater.
It is supposed to feature people like Al Franken and other liberals talking about what a great political figure he was. It also reveals that Hillary was a "Goldwater Girl," who sold cookies for the campaign.
Before liberals get too excited or nostalgic over Goldwater, they should read Vidal's 1961 essay. One major fact to remember. Goldwater refused to renounce the support of the John Birch Society, a group so radically right it called President Eisenhower one of forty million communists in the United States in the 1950's.
Vidal's essay also shows us how the political language of America has changed. Goldwater always called himself a "conservative." However, Vidal, and everyone else at the time knew him for what he was, a "reactionary."
Vidal defined the difference between a true conservative and a reactionary in the following way: a true conservative wishes to maintain the status quo. Any change should be incremental and not greatly expand the American welfare state.
A reactionary like Goldwater is one who wishes to reverse an existing state of affairs and to return to a previous condition of society.
Vidal goes on to say: "In the case of Goldwater and his fellow reactionaries...the program of the reactionaries is largely negative. Get the government out of this and out of that. Don't give Federal aid to the schools; don't extend Social Security in any way; do nothing about the...unemployed; save as much money as possible by cutting out all human services so that the income tax can be gradually eliminated (reminds one of the Bush tax cuts, doesn't it?).
Vidal winds up the essay by writing presciently: "In free elections in reasonably serene times, the reactionary has no chance at the polls...In the event of some economic or military disaster, I suspect the reactionary elements in America will come together and try to take power."
Ever since Bush's election that has been the state of our political affairs. Reactionaries have retained power due to the 9/11 disaster and by instilling fear in the electorate. They have never let "reasonably serene times" exist. They use their their color-coded terrorism alerts to make sure voters stay on edge.
Hillary might have sold cookies as a "Goldwater Girl" in 1964, but she grew out of it. Bush and Rove never grew up politically. They are today's Goldwater reactionaries, not Eisenhower conservatives.
There are some differences in the modern day reactionary's agenda. Making corporations rich at taxpayer expense has been added to the reactionary list for instance. Halliburton comes to mind. The reactionaries of today lust for war in a way that is actually anti-Goldwater, who was more of an isolationist.
The fact that reactionaries are now called "conservatives" is one of the greatest political hoaxes ever pulled off by the radical right. Bush and Rove don't want to maintain the status quo. They want to eliminate (reverse) Social Security, lower taxes for the rich, and cut social services. That's a reactionary platform not a conservative platform.
If your Congressman supports their platform, he or she is a radical of the right, a reactionary, not a conservative.
Remember that Goldwater admirers think that the following was one of his finest moments of the 1964 campaign. In his nominaton acceptance speech he said: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And...moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." People today might not know what signal that sent, but back in 1964 it was clearly an anti-democratic appeal to the Birchers and other radical right elements.
Politicians like Bush and Rove took those words to heart. That's why they see no problem with warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, why they see no problem with doing away with separation of church and state. It is why they think their extremism in fighting terrorism is "no vice." They are the "Goldwater Boys" who, unlike Hillary, never grew up.
Most of the essays were written between 1958 and 1967, an era of immense social change in the U.S. One of his essays was about Barry Goldwater and The Future of Conservatism published in 1961. I recently read that a Goldwater relative (maybe a granddaughter) is doing a documentary about Goldwater.
It is supposed to feature people like Al Franken and other liberals talking about what a great political figure he was. It also reveals that Hillary was a "Goldwater Girl," who sold cookies for the campaign.
Before liberals get too excited or nostalgic over Goldwater, they should read Vidal's 1961 essay. One major fact to remember. Goldwater refused to renounce the support of the John Birch Society, a group so radically right it called President Eisenhower one of forty million communists in the United States in the 1950's.
Vidal's essay also shows us how the political language of America has changed. Goldwater always called himself a "conservative." However, Vidal, and everyone else at the time knew him for what he was, a "reactionary."
Vidal defined the difference between a true conservative and a reactionary in the following way: a true conservative wishes to maintain the status quo. Any change should be incremental and not greatly expand the American welfare state.
A reactionary like Goldwater is one who wishes to reverse an existing state of affairs and to return to a previous condition of society.
Vidal goes on to say: "In the case of Goldwater and his fellow reactionaries...the program of the reactionaries is largely negative. Get the government out of this and out of that. Don't give Federal aid to the schools; don't extend Social Security in any way; do nothing about the...unemployed; save as much money as possible by cutting out all human services so that the income tax can be gradually eliminated (reminds one of the Bush tax cuts, doesn't it?).
Vidal winds up the essay by writing presciently: "In free elections in reasonably serene times, the reactionary has no chance at the polls...In the event of some economic or military disaster, I suspect the reactionary elements in America will come together and try to take power."
Ever since Bush's election that has been the state of our political affairs. Reactionaries have retained power due to the 9/11 disaster and by instilling fear in the electorate. They have never let "reasonably serene times" exist. They use their their color-coded terrorism alerts to make sure voters stay on edge.
Hillary might have sold cookies as a "Goldwater Girl" in 1964, but she grew out of it. Bush and Rove never grew up politically. They are today's Goldwater reactionaries, not Eisenhower conservatives.
There are some differences in the modern day reactionary's agenda. Making corporations rich at taxpayer expense has been added to the reactionary list for instance. Halliburton comes to mind. The reactionaries of today lust for war in a way that is actually anti-Goldwater, who was more of an isolationist.
The fact that reactionaries are now called "conservatives" is one of the greatest political hoaxes ever pulled off by the radical right. Bush and Rove don't want to maintain the status quo. They want to eliminate (reverse) Social Security, lower taxes for the rich, and cut social services. That's a reactionary platform not a conservative platform.
If your Congressman supports their platform, he or she is a radical of the right, a reactionary, not a conservative.
Remember that Goldwater admirers think that the following was one of his finest moments of the 1964 campaign. In his nominaton acceptance speech he said: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And...moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." People today might not know what signal that sent, but back in 1964 it was clearly an anti-democratic appeal to the Birchers and other radical right elements.
Politicians like Bush and Rove took those words to heart. That's why they see no problem with warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, why they see no problem with doing away with separation of church and state. It is why they think their extremism in fighting terrorism is "no vice." They are the "Goldwater Boys" who, unlike Hillary, never grew up.
posted by Marshall Darts at
4:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home