Thursday, June 29, 1961
THE UNO NEWS
Page 3
BILL HOBBS
Under The Spreading Atrophy9
(Note: The headline on this
article, the sub-title of a book by
S. J. Perclman, has nothing to do
with the article itself. Eds.)
. With obvious relish and equally
obvious bias, TIME magazine,
long recognized as a master of the
editorial "news story," has de
voted five pages of its latest
issue to the glorification fo
Barry Goldwater.
Unfortunately, TIME'S char-
acterization of Goldwater as
"G.O.P. salesman supreme and
the political phenomenon of
1961" appears to be an accurate
ene.
There does seem to be a rash
of conservatism spreading in the
land. Like most rashes, it is
both irritating and confusing.
One of the chief irritants is
Barry Goldwater. His articula
tions of the conservative philoso
phy find new listeners constantly,
especially among college stu
dents. His conservatism is de
finitely beginning to itch.
CONSERVATIVE CONSCIENCE
CONFUSED?
If Goldwater's book on the
subject is any true guide, The
Conscience of a Conservative
must be suffering from a good
deal of confusion.
In the first two-thirds of his
volume, Goldwater expounds the
essentials of conservative domes
tic policy; in the final third he
expounds conservative foreign,
policy.
This final third is disastrous
to the whole book and to Gold
water's whole political philoso
phy, for the basic tenet of the
conservative foreign policy is in
diametric opposition to the basic
tenet of conservative domestic
policy.
The principle which permeates
Goldwater's views on the domes
tic problems which he treats is
that we must achieve "the maxi
mum amount of freedom for in
dividuals that is consistent with
the maintenence of social order."
After developing his "maxi
mum amount of freedom for in
dividuals" principle as the basis
for his conservative conscience,
Goldwater proceeds to examine
several domestic fields in the
light of this maxim.
The Senator's schorching glance
shifts from the "perils" of gov
ernmental power, to the degen
erate condition of state's rights,
civil rights, "Freedom for the
Farmer," and 'Freedom for
Labor," to the evils of high taxes
and government spending, the
welfare state, and government
encroachment on education.
Throughout his analysis of the
domestic situation Goldwater
maintains that the U. S. gov
ernment of the last thirty years
under Roosevelt, Truman, and
Eisenhower has continually eaten
away at individual freedom find
initiative in every area of public
and private life.
His words are lucid and to a
certain extent convincing. The
case, as Goldwater presents it,
does seem to lie against the
growing scope and power of the
federal government.
Nevertheless, one should re
member that it is very easy for
someone to rise up in 1961 and
speak out boldly for individual
freedom when he drives a Thun
derbird to work every day (as
does the Senator from Arizona).
It is not so easy for someone to
do likewise if he is living on a
social security check, living in a
house built through a government
loan, or attending a government
built school on a government
loan.
Hven Mr. Goldwater's money
is insured up to $10,000 by the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corpo
ration. Perhaps Americans of the past
thirty years could have and
should have solved their social
problems all by their lonesomes
without so much governmental
aid, BUT t h e y did not. They
were not obligated to re-elect
Roosevelt three times, BUT they
did. These facts remain immu
table in spite of all of Mr. Gold
water's words.
While the conservative spoke
man's words have the noble
ring Of good ol' time American
ism about them, "this ring is
somewhat hollow in the context
of the United States today.
FREEDOM IN THE GRAVE?
Both the principles and the
application of Goldwater's for
eign policy are disastrous in
themselves and disastrous to the
one attractive element in his
domestic policies: the emphasis
on individual freedom.
The cornerstone of our for
eign policy, says Goldwater in
the beginning of his chapter on
The Soviet Menace, should be
the view "that we would rather
die than lose our freedom." This,
like many Goldwater pronounce- .
ments, sounds fine and true at
first but is seem to be devoid of
truth upon further examination.
Dying to preserve one's free
dom is a logical contradiction.
What freedom will Mr. Gold
water, and the other Americans
whom his policies would get
killed, have when they are in
their graves? He may have pre
served his freedom from Commu
nist oppression, but it will do
him no good six feet under the
ground.
The principle oh which Gold-
J 4
4 I
fit-
s's'&':ffTmmrmiwwtiiOT
BARRY GOLDWATER
water bases his foreign policy
directly contradicts the principle
of his domestic policy. The one
advocates living in freedom, and
the other a dvocates dying and
excuses by saying it will preserve
freedom, an absurd excuse at
best.
The more specific aspects of
Goldwater's foreign policy also
lead to a restriction of freedom
and a contradiction of his dom
estic policies.
Goldwater's chier objective Tn
foreign affairs is to win the war
against Communism, not to win
teace. "Our strategy must be
primarily offensive in nature,"
he writes. He would "withdraw
diplomatic recognition from all
Communist governments includ
ing that of the Soviet Union. . .
We must ourselves be prepar
ed to undertake military opera
tions against vulnerable Commu
nist regimes to move a
highly mobile task force equipped
with appropriate nuclear wea
pons to the scene of the revolt,"
says Goldwater. In short, the
United States should be mobiliz
ed into a state of war much more
intense than its present cold war
state, according to Goldwater.
THE STATE OF WAR
When a country is in a state of
war, governmental power natural
ly and necessarily increases. The
Country must be unified under a
centralized control if the war is to
be won. This has been demon
strated time and gain. For in
stance, Irish and Prothro's The
Politics of American Democracy
(the text used in the basic politi
cal science course of this Univer
sity) states, "The Constitution
grants the national government
almost absolute authority in time
of war;" and, "In World War I
the national government assumed
unprecedented powers over the
economy of the country. Congress
authorized the President to regu
late the importation, manufac
ture, storage, mining, or distri
bution of essential materials; to
'Mate Berlin A Free City! Free Of Amcrica,Free Of
Britain, FrceOf France, Free Qi Democracy..."
e . . .mmm -v -v ri m,.' m i -m
'YC N-X7y ' it
:C -a r .. -y-. t . v.,. V- $ B ( .
. v. tv '-' Vr.. -J W -J
;v , f; Uy- Jf I
fc, ' - - - v i I .r , , - 1..
, f - : j 3
, 'v V. -s.. -- .. . f - ' v : '
: 'f- : h '.r . . . ? ,'.
requisition fooiJs, reeds, and
fuels; to take over and operate
factories . . ." The same situation
developed in World War II.
A similar situation would also
develop if we were to follow Gold
water's foreign policy. Quite ob
viously all of the governmental
powers necessary in World Wars
I and II would not be necessary
in a state of war such as Gold
water advocates. We would not
actually be engaged in a war as
such for a comparatively short
period of time. Rather, we would
be in a perpetual state of half
war, more intense than the pres
ent cold war, but not as intense
as World War II. We would be in
the state of war now occupied by
Russia.
But the national government
would still need vastly increased
powers to maintain the state of
war which Goldwater advocates.
The President's powers as commander-in-chief
of the military
would be invoked whenever we
undertook "military operations
against vulnerable Communist
regimes." And, as Goldwater
says, such a state of war would
necesitate striving to "achieve
and maintain military superior
Ky." How will we do this with
out increased government spend
ing and increased taxation or in
creased national debt to enable
this spending?
The state of war in which Gold
water would put us would of ne
cessity involve increased govern
ment power and decreased in
dividual freedom.
And yet Mr. Goldwater objects
to increased government spend
ing, objects to our system of tax
ation, objects violently to increas
ed governmental power. How does
he explain this contradiction?
Does he think that the govern
ment's power and spending would
decrease once the war was won?
Probably they would, but as he
says, we must "wage a war of
attrition against them the Com- -munists)."
Wars of attrition by
their nature take long periods of
time. This one would take even
longer, considering its world-wide
scope and the present power d
the Soviets.
And where is the guarante
that governmental power would
decrease once the crisis had pass
ed? The New Deal programs
which receive so much venom
from Goldwater were enacted to
meet the specific crisis of the
depression. They were not sik
spended once that crisis had pass
ed. Many of them are still with
us.
SCRATCH CONSERVATISM
Thus the perils of government
al power which Goldwater so via
lently objects to in the domestic
section of his book would be in
creased for a long, indefinite per
iod of time by the policies he ad
vocates in the foreign section of
his book.
This does not speak very well
for Mr. Goldwater's views; fur
thermore, it does not speak very
well for the views of those whd
support Goldwater.
The rash of conservatism is
spreading; it is beginning to itch.
We suggest it is time for Amerk
ca to scratch.
Next Week
Because of the length cf editorial
page materials this week, we will
not be able to run several letters
to the editor. Next week a long
letters to the eJ:ror column will be
run. Students are encouraged to
write letters and columns of ary
length and bring them up to tre
News office, second floor GrrJ-am
Memorial.