Death Spiral

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

These words helped kill Barry Goldwater's political career and legacy. He claims the speech was handed to him and that he hadn't seen it previously (reason # 1 to always cite your sources). Both statements in the above quote are sound when taking for granted that a law-abiding citizen's rights may not be sacrificed for any cause, and extremism pertains to speech, protest, and due process as the primary means of acquiring justice.

Unfortunately, his "peace through strength" approach to the Cold War gave some the impression that even a nuclear attack was a valid form of extremism so long as liberty and justice were the cause. This perverse and incorrect interpretation was deftly perpetuated by Linden Johnson's famous attack ad demonstrating the apparent recklessness of his opponent. The ad shows a girl picking daisy pedals followed by a hydrogen bomb explosion and mushroom cloud as if a Goldwater presidency = mutually assured destruction and the immediate slaughter of innocent children.

So, here is a revision of Goldwater's quote that I think more closely illustrates the intended meaning...

I would remind you that extremism in defense of one's own life, liberty, and property is no vice, so long as it does not infringe on another's capacity to defend theirs. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue, so long as you are equipped with irrefutable evidence.

Johnson's 1964 commercial is known as the first real "attack ad" and I think it illustrates a turning point in our thinking as a nation.

From the perspective of a free and civilized population, Goldwater's meaning could not be misinterpreted. A sensible person accepts that the word "defense" is just that, and there is never justification for war until one is actually attacked - a rule long accepted by Western civilization since St. Augustine's Just War Doctrine. We can always hope that the best weapon/military is occupied by the society least likely to use it. Such conditions make war unlikely. At the time, one could expect that our free and open society was less likely to attack than an unrepresented, corrupt oligarchy behind an iron curtain. The necessity to acquire the most powerful military was never greater.

If we consider the possibility our government is capable of initiating nuclear war, Goldwater's words must be interpreted differently. They appear to be the words of a possibly dangerous, unrestrained ideologue who would sacrifice whole populations for the defense of some abstract ideology. This interpretation is so preposterous that no modern, civilized republic could be constituted by a population that would take it seriously.

Enter the power of doubt and fear.

Despite decades of evidence to the contrary, given the stakes, a reasonable person might consider the possibility that Goldwater is an ideologue after enough media persuasion. More disturbingly, being branded an advocate of total war, the timeless merits of individual liberty espoused by Goldwater (even if naively) become tarnished by the public's misinterpretation. In a flash, the very ideas that have built the framework of our society are rejected in favor of fear, doubt, and the propaganda of a clever populist.

In 1964, a population deferred to its own media-manufactured public perception rather than its principles and individual thought. The observant noticed a new door to power was opened to anyone capable of defaming all others for their own benefit. The possibility had been proven, yet again, that one can use fear and perception to occupy a population.

In fact, the corrosive environment which requires all of us to look at politicians with skepticism is itself a recursive, self-fulfilling prophesy. If we are all willing to interpret our leader's words as if they are all capable of single-handedly destroying our country, virtually any intelligent, truthful statement can be twisted into the opposite meaning. Our would-be leaders know this and respond by speaking in vague, undefined, meaningless phrases. Are we really a population of individuals who insist on the candidate most capable of "not screwing up?"

The ridiculous downward death spiral is evident to this day. We see a blatantly impossible manufactured race between Hillary (fervent Goldwater supporter turned left-leaning Democrat) and the populist, disturbingly charismatic, Barack. One recent example...Rush Limbaugh, in an effort to advance the weakest opponent for McCain, endorses Hillary and the Republicans flock to the voting booths for her. This is McCain, the ill-tempered guy who opposed the Bush tax cuts, and who's patriotism will never be questioned, even when impaled dissenters are slowly creeping down their bloody poles on Capital lawn. This ability to create one's own news is like a printing press for everyone collecting from mass-media and no one seems to notice or care.

At the same time our country is engaged in a preemptive, undeclared war. We can still always hope that the best weapon/military is occupied by the society least likely to use it. Soon, we may not be that country. After the many other things we've lost over the last 54 years, now that we've lost the ability to vote for any candidate that represents us, what the hell are we fighting for anyway? The right to continue to give half (yes, half) of our income to the corporations in bed with government?

In reality, being a "conservative" in the day of Goldwater was itself an ideology that rejected all ideologies that had proven themselves dangerous, unjust, oppressive, counterproductive, evil, etc. Preemptive war was and is, of course, one of those ideologies, and the very thing Goldwater was trying to protect us from. The principles he championed eventually did allow us to acquire peace after they were acted upon by Reagan.

Still, to this day, Goldwater is viewed as an "ultra-conservative" and synonymous with aggressive war, an outright fallacy.

It seems like war does not begin when someone attacks us, but when fear and doubt press us to first vote in contradiction with our conscience, for the lesser of two abhorrent ideologues capable of rejecting (or simply forgetting) the lessons of history.

Finally, when justification equals public approval, we step into the polls only to vote against Satan himself while the philosopher kings scream from their cages in vain, pressed forward through the flames of persistent ridicule by some inconceivable force dismissed as insanity. Yes, this is a mad, mad world.