Monday, June 26th 2006
Goldwater on HBO!
You might have read about Barry Goldwater’s nephew making a fool of himself in his run to become Arizona’s next governor. Normally I wouldn’t care. I’d just add it to my very long list of why I’m ashamed to be a Republican and move on. But when it comes to Barry Goldwater, high on my very short list of why I’m proud to be a Republican, I make it a point to care.
A quick introduction to Goldwater’s worldview and where it stands in relation to today’s party:
Goldwater’s vision of the Republican Party was simple and yet still cutting edge today: “The Republican Party should stand for freedom and only freedom,” Goldwater advised. “Don’t raise hell about the gays, the Blacks and the Mexicans. Free people have a right to do as they damn well please.”
Goldwater’s libertarian instincts would make him considered liberal by current Republican Party powerbrokers. This, in turn, raises questions about the role and influence of libertarians in the party that so many previously considered their natural home.
I think most people who are interested in politics choose a favorite politician in the early stages of one’s political development. One tries to find out all about his political “father” or “mother,” which in turn influences one’s own beliefs. Most people go for the big guys, like the Founding Fathers, Lincoln, Reagan or Roosevelt (either one). I, however, went with Goldwater. I think that helps explain why my political beliefs are the way they are.
So after reading that embarassing story about Goldwater’s nephew, I decided to see if there was anything new concerning the big guy himself. Apparently, we Goldwater fans are in for a treat this Fall. HBO will be running a new documentary in mid-September: Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater.
The film’s producer, Goldwater’s granddaughter, gave an interview to KPCC that gives a little more detail.
I can’t wait to see it. My biggest hope is that it will remind Republicans how far we have fallen. That won’t happen, but at least we’ll have a good movie.
I think many folks, when they look at Goldwater, conclude they have to choose between being idealistic losers (and thus being unable to put that indeology into place) or political winners (and thus not have an ideology to put into place).
Comment by Beetle — 6/27/2006 @ 2:59 am
Can’t wait for the new documentary. I wouldn’t necessarily call social conservativism evidence of the GOP’s having “fallen”. If you look back at Goldwater’s earliest speeches, you will see much of the same rhetoric (”flith” and “smut” et cetera) currently used by conservatives today. He changed, not the movement.
Comment by Tommy Owens — 6/27/2006 @ 10:12 am
Alec Baldwin as Barry Goldwater. Ben Affleck as Spiro Agnew. Will Ferrell as Kissinger. Great cast.
Comment by NOT John W. — 6/27/2006 @ 10:53 am
The issue of whether Goldwater changed or the conservative movement changed is supposed to be covered in the movie. Apparently, libertarians and small government conservatives (such as George Will in the film) argue that Goldwater didn’t change. Conversely, liberals are more likely to argue that he did change as he grew older. I think their tactic is to try and claim one of the most respected politicians away from conservatives. Something along the lines of: “Oh, he was really a liberal, so you should be a liberal too if you like him.”
Comment by patr — 6/27/2006 @ 5:47 pm
Building upon that thought, I think it’s interesting that so many sides are trying to claim him. This happens with the most respected politicians. Like how some Republicans think JFK would have been one today, or how some Democrats say Lincoln wouldn’t be a Republican today. On the other hand, the most disliked politicians are disowned: Nixon and Bush are really liberals, Clinton is really a conservative, etc.
Comment by patr — 6/27/2006 @ 5:55 pm
On the issue of abortion I will respond with only with this quote.
“According to former Arizona Right to Life executive director Jay Nenninger, Barry Goldwater once supported the right to life. In 1992, Nenninger produced a statement apparently signed by Goldwater in 1980, in which the former senator supported a human life amendment. Goldwater also “frequently voted against abortion” in the ’70s.” (Arizona Republic 8/7/92).”
(http://phoenix.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/barry.html)
Comment by Tommy Owens — 6/27/2006 @ 11:10 pm
Is it just me, or is writing it as “right to life” as if it’s just normal English seem to say something somewhat different than the truth? “Once supported the right to life” sounds like a guy who used to believe people had the right to be alive, but nowadays tends to think people being killed isn’t too big a deal in terms of rights.
Comment by Beetle — 6/28/2006 @ 12:00 am
Sorry to spoil your fun, but Goldwater 3.0 did not say anything to make a fool of himself. A mexican news service is always a good source regardless; it’s right up there with the Mozambique Daily Herald.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/28/D8IH0FE80.html
This takes the cake: “The letter also acknowledged that the freelance reporter never interviewed Goldwater or any of his staff for the story.”
Comment by HB — 6/28/2006 @ 6:36 am
ABCNews fell into the trap like good lefty sheeple.
Good post HB,
The EFE project is right behind the The Jayson Blair Project
Comment by Anonymous — 6/28/2006 @ 12:33 pm
You’re right HB. Goldwater the Lesser hasn’t yet reached Tancredo-level craziness yet (at least not publically).
I still don’t agree with forcing illegals to do hard labor. That seems like a punishment more suited for robbers and violent criminals. Some people consider illegal immigration to be a crime less than murder, though only by a hair, so I understand why such a punishment would be appealing. But when we look at the actual harm caused by illegals (excluding the side effects of big government socialism and the protectionist mindset), I think jaywalkers would be further ahead in the line to the camps.
Comment by patr — 6/28/2006 @ 2:31 pm