The conscience of a Conservative — Story, Setting & Ideas

A Politician’s Diagnosis of the Liberal-Conservative Divide

The foreword establishes a recurring pattern: Goldwater contrasts what “is now generally understood and proclaimed” by the public with what Congress actually does. He lists four such contradictions—on welfare, spending, decentralization, and Communism—each time noting that Congress deliberates over the degree of the wrong policy rather than the principle. This rhetorical device, repeated in the excerpts, gives the book a diagnostic tone. Goldwater claims to have “crossed the length and breadth of this great land hundreds of times” and spoken with tens of thousands of people, positioning himself as a conduit for popular frustration. The reader should note how often Goldwater returns to this gap between public understanding and governmental action; it is the engine of his argument.

The Welfare State as a Threat to Character

In the middle excerpts, Goldwater focuses on welfarism, which he distinguishes from state ownership. He argues that while Americans would oppose nationalizing steel, they tolerate welfare programs whose long-term effect on freedom is less visible. His central claim is that welfarism “transforms the individual from a dignified, industrious, self-reliant spiritual being into a dependent animal creature without his knowing it.” The language is stark and moralistic. Goldwater also addresses the emotional appeal of humanitarian rhetoric, noting the difficulty for conservatives to oppose such programs without appearing callous. He poses a series of rhetorical questions from a liberal perspective—“Have you no sense of social obligation?”—and answers with a simple “no,” but insists that a fuller explanation is necessary. This section reveals Goldwater’s concern with the psychological and moral effects of policy, not just its economic consequences.

The Moral Calculus of Charity and Coercion

Goldwater extends his critique by examining the moral status of both donors and recipients of government welfare. He argues that voting to confiscate one citizen’s earnings for another carries no moral virtue, even if the voter approves of the program. The act is diluted, he says, because it compels participation from those who may disagree. He asks why such a man does not instead contribute to private charity. For the recipient, Goldwater warns of a mortgage to the federal government: “the power to grant or withhold from him the necessities of life as the government sees fit.” The language of bondage and dependency recurs, as when he warns that dependence on government can turn into “bondage” and it becomes “too late to unlock the jail.” These passages show Goldwater’s effort to reframe welfare as a moral and spiritual issue, not merely a fiscal one.

Rhetorical Structure and the Reader’s Role

Throughout the excerpts, Goldwater employs a consistent structure: he states a conservative principle, acknowledges the liberal counterargument, and then offers a rebuttal that shifts the ground from economics to morality or freedom. The reader is positioned as someone who already agrees with the principles but needs help articulating them. Goldwater writes, “I feel certain that Conservatism is through unless Conservatives can demonstrate and communicate the difference between being concerned with these problems and believing that the federal government is the proper agent for their solution.” This is a call to action for the reader, not just an argument. The book’s short chapters and direct prose suggest it was designed for persuasion and distribution. The excerpts available do not cover the entire argument, but the pattern is clear: Goldwater is building a case for a principled conservatism that rejects both state ownership and the welfare state, while offering a moral vocabulary for doing so.

Goldwater’s book is best read as a political argument that uses repetition and contrast to drive home a few key ideas. The excerpts show a writer who is less interested in policy details than in framing the choice between freedom and dependency. Readers should pay attention to how Goldwater defines terms like “welfarism” and “conservatism” on his own terms, and how he anticipates and answers liberal objections. The book’s brevity and rhetorical structure make it a document of persuasion rather than a comprehensive policy platform.

Holding Goldwater’s compact manifesto, I remembered my father’s shelf, the same yellowed pages of American ideals, and other essays, social and political — Reading Companion, and how we never finished either book, just sat with their weight. That older volume felt like this one—a quiet insistence that principles outlast arguments, leaving a warmth I still carry. American ideals, and other essays, social and political — Reading Companion stirred that same thought last winter.