Goldwater was never the same after his landslide loss to LBJ in which Blacks shifted en masse from the Party of Lincoln over to the Party of FDR. His mind was affected, and he never really recovered.
Posted on 12/12/2004 2:19:17 PM PST by wagglebee
Phoenix — They continue to celebrate Barry Goldwater. An Institute, now 16 years old, gets in speakers, most of whom reflect on the achievements of their favorite son. Goldwater was an enormously accomplished man, indulgent of life’s amenities and challenged by its perversities. He attracted an extra-political following by cultivating pursuits not easily done by those more timorous than he. He inclined to do that which was risky, including national politics, and he emerged in the early 1960s as spokesman for the conservative wing of the Republican party. A question arose at the Goldwater Institute’s proceedings last week when the speaker dwelled, for a few moments, on the later Goldwater. The story is as follows:
A few years before his death in 1998, Goldwater started taking positions different from those of the conservative constituency at large. Conspicuous here was his defense of Supreme Court decisions involving abortion, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. Most followers of the senator were surprised, and abashed, especially at his defense of abortion. What emerged as a question, at the meeting in Phoenix, was whether his abortion position was owing to judicial ultramontanism, or to his general devotion to individual rights. It is not challenged that Goldwater defended abortion as though it were a closed issue, closed in the sense that the Supreme Court had ruled, in Roe v. Wade, that abortion was a constitutional right.
By one line of reasoning, a woman has the right to do what she chooses with her own body. That position can be taken, and was taken before Roe v. Wade came into town, by many who defended the right to abort. What the Supreme Court contributed was a constitutional validation. If abortion is a “right,” then perhaps the people who exercise that right are no more contumacious than people who write articles and take political positions. That would be a fundamentalist view of human rights, and there are those who believe that Senator Goldwater, when he affirmed the right to abort, was doing nothing more merely than affirming the exercise of human rights in general.
Other analysts believe that the senator was fooled by the respect he felt for the Supreme Court. Since the Court had ruled that abortion was okay, what more argument was there to dwell upon?
There is, of course, the difficulty that the Supreme Court is capable of judgments which, on reflection, observers are free to question, and even to oppose. The overriding question being, of course, whether in the exercise of a “right,” the right of someone else has been transgressed upon. In this case, obviously, the right of the unborn child. If the child has a right, surely it is to live. Therefore, to end his life is to go beyond the plausible limits of the mother’s right.
There were two responses to the Court in the Dred Scott decision. One of them can be characterized, roughly, as Lincoln’s. What he said, pure and simple, was that the Court had reasoned incorrectly. The slave was not “property” in the conventional sense. If so, then an owner who wished to transport that slave to another state or territory, where slavery was not institutionalized, could not do so without imperiling his title to the property.
Others defended the decision, sometimes for political reasons — states rights was a sundering national issue. Therefore great relief was wrought by the positive reasoning: If the Court said it’s okay, then it’s okay.
One visitor to Phoenix recalled that Senator McGovern, during his campaign for the presidency, was asked his views on busing. He replied, “The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the question.”
Which was true, but which did not answer the question: What were the senator’s views on busing?
On abortion, the views of some, pre-Roe and post-Roe, were that no judicial reasoning can validate the expression of freedom when it is invoked in order to obliterate another human life.
Was Senator Goldwater acting as a constitutional exegete? Or was he reasoning for himself that the right of the unborn child was irrelevant? The question was not answered, but Goldwater’s memory had provoked curiosity on the matter, and it is reassuring that how Goldwater thought on a great public question continues to concern thoughtful conservatives.
Goldwater was never the same after his landslide loss to LBJ in which Blacks shifted en masse from the Party of Lincoln over to the Party of FDR. His mind was affected, and he never really recovered.
IMHO, Goldwater's greatest contribution was in laying the foundation for Ronald Reagan. Reagan took Goldwater's principles and revitalized California and later the entire nation.
This logic is the road to ruin for a free people.
No, Goldwater never changed. Issues came to the fore that highlighted his differences with mainstreet conservatism, and then Reagan sold the party to the Religious Right for their votes.
The Republican Party of today has very little to do in either membership or positions with the party of 1960.
So9
He was getting old, plain and simple. I have noticed that some older people (75+ crowd) start saying things and taking positions contrary to what they had always supported. Some become downright kooky as a prelude to dementia. Unfortunately, I am going through this with my Dad right now who is showing signs of Alzheimers. He was always a staunch Republican, but the last election he voted Democratic 'cause he thought Bush would eliminate his Social Security.
bump
People need to realize that the Supreme Court may have made abortion "Constitutional" with Roe v. Wade thirty years ago, but that doesn't make abortion moral or right. The Supreme Court made segregation and, by default, racism legal with Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896; however, 58 years later, the Court came to it's senses and reversed this with Brown v. Board of Education (the fact that Brown has been used to introduce a host of other unconstitutional programs is irrelevant). Hopefully, in the near future, the left will be confronted with the reality that abortion is not and never should have been the "law of the land."
"Reagan sold the party to the Religious Right for their votes"
Yep, that moron Reagan doing something so crass and un-Republican as to actually stand for something in addition to free markets and big defense budgets. How DARE he!
Goldwater was the same before and after his landslide loss to LBJ in which Blacks shifted en masse from the Party of Lincoln over to the Party of FDR. His mind was affected at birth, and he never really recovered.
Goldwater by stupid ignorant and needlessly provocative statements handed our entire government over to LBJ and the FAR LEFT.
The man most responsible for getting the far leftist social agenda of LBJ passed was Barry Goldwater.
Thank god for that. We don't need stinking liberals like Warren and Ford, or pro-abortionist Senators like Packwood or anti-war Senators like Javits.
The Republican party under Reagan changed for the better, and the Republic is better for it.
I also watched Goldwater's slide into 'PW' territory. I would agree that a combination of declining mental abilities and a 'boost' to the libido by a young woman combined to push him in to supporting the killing of babies. Just listent to Granny 'D' and the sudden on-rush of tolerance by aging types - somehow the 'tolerance' never includes embracing moral standards or personal responsibility.
Thank god for that. We don't need stinking liberals like Warren and Ford, or pro-abortionist Senators like Packwood or anti-war Senators like Javits.
It was Goldwater who broke the Mainstreet Liberal wing of the party under Rockefeller and Javits.
No one knows what kind of brain bubble changed Warren from a tough prosecutor and hanging judge to Supreme Court loon.
The Republican party under Reagan changed for the better, and the Republic is better for it.
In some ways, but I will stick to Goldwater's direction. A Federal Govt. that defends the coast (proactively), delivers the mail and otherwise leaves us all alone.
When I want religiosity, I go to church.
I don't want to hear it from the hired help in Washington.
SO9
"He was getting old, plain and simple."
I'm really glad you said this, because it is a fact of life--aging can slow down cognitive activity including the application of critical judgment and the desire to engage around contentious issues.
I recall a time when I was in graduate school; an elderly retired luminary of the field, known to our professor, happened to be in town, and graciously agreed to come speak with us for two classes.
A classic Freudian, he found himself being vigorously challenged by some enthusiastic grad students on some basic propositions. The next day he no-showed, and it turned out he just went home. He just didn't want to fight about it, so he didn't.
Maybe Goldwater just didn't want to fight about it anymore.
Today, liberals look back 100 years to the era of slavery and condemn what was then a legal though immoral practice. I wonder if people in the future will condemn this immoral time in American history when millions have died because a few judges unconstitutionally "tinkered" with our society.
That liberal view probably led him to other liberal views, as those holding that homosexuality was errant and wrong were the Conservatives. Disaffection with the Republican take on homosexuality probably tainted his opinion or judgement on many other Republican views.
don't be taken in by that ridiculous line-- Barry Goldwater was first and foremost ANTI-COMMUNIST and so was his constituency. Ronald Reagan was first and foremost ANTI-COMMUNIST and so was his constituency. Ergo, Goldwater's constituency + Reagan Democrats driven away by Democratic equivocation = Reagan's constituency.
"After marrying his second wife, Goldwater, and his family, took odd stands concerning campaigns in Arizona pitting pro-life candidates versus those who support abortion -- so odd that Goldwater would eventually betray his own party and support a Democrat over a Republican."
I think both of Goldwater's wives were pro-abortion. He did not seem conservative toward the end, most thought it was the influence of his wife. Perhaps there is something in the water. I might as well apologize on behalf of AZ for both he and McCain at this time. Sorry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.