From the Archives: Crimes Against Nature Law Allows Virginia Police To Target Gays (2001)

This article, based upon survey research I did with Rasmussen Research for Virginians for Justice (later Equality Virginia), was originally published in the Free Lance-Star of Fredericksburg, Virginia, on February 9, 2001.  It preceded the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated the remaining anti-sodomy laws in the United States, including Virginia's "Crimes Against Nature" statute (Section 18.2-361 of the Virginia Code).

Crimes Against Nature Law Allows Virginia Police To Target Gays

Richard E. Sincere, Jr.

CHARLOTTESVILLE - When Republicans discuss the proper role of government, most agree that it should be low-cost, limited in scope, and nonintrusive in the lives of citizens.

Rank-and-file Republican voters, for the most part, stand by the words of the late U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater:

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden.

"I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

Do Virginia’s Republicans live up to this Goldwaterite ideal? Not always, but the impulse remains. Evidence for this is found in a recent poll from an unlikely source on an unlikely topic.

On Jan. 16 and 18, Rasmussen Research, an independent polling organization, conducted a statewide survey to determine knowledge and attitudes about Virginia’s Crimes Against Nature statute. This statute forbids certain intimate sexual activity, even in private and even for married couples. To be blunt, the law prohibits oral sex for any Virginian, whether they are gay or straight, married or single.

The law is enforced selectively. It is used to target gay men in public places who discuss having sex. It is used as a fallback when prosecutors cannot prove that a sexual assault has taken place, so the alleged perpetrator is accused and convicted of consensual sodomy instead.

And it is used as a pretext to deny child custody to gay or lesbian parents - for example, in the case of Richmonder Sharon Bottoms, which achieved nationwide infamy when the government forcibly took her son, Tyler, from her because she is a lesbian.

The Rasmussen Research poll found that, across the board, Virginians want the CAN law repealed. Large majorities in almost every conceivable category say they want to see the law eliminated, that they want their legislators to vote for repeal, and that legislators who support repeal will not be adversely affected at the ballot box.

This is true for Democrats, Republicans, and independents; it is true for men and women; it is true for whites and African-Americans.

In this random survey, Republicans showed clear consistency in their view that government should stay out of the private lives of citizens.

Virginia State Capitol in Richmond

Asked "Should it be against the law for an unmarried man and an unmarried woman to have sex in the state of Virginia?" 67.4 percent of Republicans answered "no," compared to 71.1 percent overall.

Asked "Should it be against the law for a married couple to have oral sex in the privacy of their own home?" 78.9 percent of Republicans answered "no" (81.7 percent overall).

Asked "Currently, according to Virginia law, it is illegal for consenting adults to have oral sex in the state of Virginia; a proposal has been made to eliminate the Virginia law; should the Virginia law be eliminated?" 61.4 percent of Republicans answered "yes" (65.2 percent overall).

Now, some members of the General Assembly say privately that they would support the repeal of the CAN law, but that they would have hell to pay on Election Day if they did. This is simply not true.

Survey participants were asked:

"Suppose your representative in the House of Delegates or the State Senate voted to eliminate the Virginia law. Would that make you more likely to vote for that person, less likely to vote for them, or would it have no impact on your vote?" Overall, 82.9 percent of Virginians said that they would either be more likely to vote for that representative, or it would have no impact on their vote; 83.5 percent of Republicans answered the same way, as did 77.5 percent of Democrats.

In other words, state legislators who vote to repeal the Crimes Against Nature law will have little or nothing to worry about in their re-election bids. The fear they cite is a red herring.

Republicans are part of a broad "leave us alone" coalition that wants the government to stop breathing down our necks. As speaker of the House of Delegates Vance Wilkins told The Washington Post, "It’s simply a matter of individual liberty versus not having the government be a nanny." We don’t trust the government to run our businesses, and we certainly don’t trust it to run our sex lives.

The spirit of Barry Goldwater lives on in Virginia.

RICHARD SINCERE serves on the national committee of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

From the Archives: Barry Goldwater's 1964 'extremism' speech still defines conservatism 50 years on

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on July 15, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Barry Goldwater's 1964 'extremism' speech still defines conservatism 50 years on

Fifty years ago this week, Barry Goldwater accepted the Republican party's nomination for president at the GOP convention in San Francisco. Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign is almost universally credited with launching both the modern conservative and the modern libertarian movements.

In an acceptance speech most famous for its much misunderstood but biggest applause line – “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” – Goldwater laid out a definition for political conservatism without once using the word “conservative.”

Something of a précis of his 1960 book, The Conscience of a Conservative, Goldwater's convention speech endeavored to explain conservatism – or what he called “Republicanism” on that occasion – to listeners who had not yet learned much about it.

In the same speech, Goldwater displayed a certain amount of prescience regarding the course of human history and offered advice to his fellow Republicans who, then as now, often found themselves among bickering factions.

In one, brief paragraph, the Arizona Senator summarized the conservative view of individual liberty and the proper role of government.

Private property and diversity
Conservatives, he said, “see, in private property and in economy based upon and fostering private property, the one way to make government a durable ally of the whole man, rather than his determined enemy. We see in the sanctity of private property the only durable foundation for constitutional government in a free society. And beyond that, we see, in cherished diversity of ways, diversity of thoughts, of motives and accomplishments. We do not seek to lead anyone's life for him - we seek only to secure his rights and to guarantee him opportunity to strive, with government performing only those needed and constitutionally sanctioned tasks which cannot otherwise be performed.”

Goldwater also drew a contrast explicitly to the communist, totalitarian vision and, implicitly, to big-government liberalism then in vogue.

“Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good,” Goldwater asserted, “are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.”

In a line that would be welcomed equally by the Tea Party and by the Occupy movement, Goldwater said that conservatives must “resist concentrations of power, private or public, which enforce such conformity and inflict such despotism. It is the cause of Republicanism to ensure that power remains in the hands of the people.”

A vision of the future
And as if envisioning the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Empire a quarter-century later, Goldwater made remarkably accurate predictions in this paragraph:

“I believe that we must look beyond the defense of freedom today to its extension tomorrow. I believe that the communism which boasts it will bury us will, instead, give way to the forces of freedom. And I can see in the distant and yet recognizable future the outlines of a world worthy our dedication, our every risk, our every effort, our every sacrifice along the way. Yes, a world that will redeem the suffering of those who will be liberated from tyranny. I can see and I suggest that all thoughtful men must contemplate the flowering of an Atlantic civilization, the whole world of Europe unified and free, trading openly across its borders, communicating openly across the world.”

Toward the end of his speech, just before the famous line about “extremism,” Goldwater pointed out the factionalism in the Republican party was not new, but also was not necessarily bad.

Discord and hostility
The GOP, he said, is “a Party for free men, not for blind followers, and not for conformists.”

Then he quoted Abraham Lincoln in 1858 “because he probably could have said it during the last week or so: "[The Republican Party] was composed of strained, discordant, and even hostile elements.'”

As if he were anticipating the divide between the Tea Party and “establishment” branches of the conservative movement in the 21st century, Goldwater then admonished: “Let our Republicanism, so focused and so dedicated, not be made fuzzy and futile by unthinking and stupid labels.”

He explained that “the beauty of this Federal system of ours is in its reconciliation of diversity with unity. We must not see malice in honest differences of opinion, and no matter how great, so long as they are not inconsistent with the pledges we have given to each other in and through our Constitution. Our Republican cause is not to level out the world or make its people conform in computer regimented sameness. Our Republican cause is to free our people and light the way for liberty throughout the world.”

It was in that context – between “stupid labels” and the beauty of the American system – that Goldwater added:

“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.”

He concluded with the modest thought that conservatives have “a very human cause for very humane goals.”

Barry Goldwater's nomination acceptance speech of July 16, 1964, can be viewed in its entirety on the C-SPAN web site.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Present at the creation: YAF co-founder Carol Dawson remembers the 1960 Sharon Conference
Amity Shlaes discusses significance of Calvin Coolidge at Heritage Foundation
Veteran journalist Evan Thomas draws contrast between Obama and Eisenhower
JFK was 'cautious, conservative' says UVA political scientist Larry Sabato
Current politics has Nixons but no Eisenhowers, says biographer Jeffrey Frank

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/barry-goldwater-s-1964-extremism-speech-still-defines-conservatism-50-years-on

From the Archives: Va. Film Festival to feature politicians from Goldwater & LBJ to Nixon & Bush

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on October 7, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Va. Film Festival to feature politicians from Goldwater & LBJ to Nixon & Bush

Actors Jenna Elfman, Jasmine Guy, Hal Holbrook, Frank Langella, Richard Roundtree, and Patrick Wilson; novelists David Baldacci and Adriana Trigiani; directors Victor Levin, Barry Levinson, and Scott Teems; producers Katie Couric, Julie Lynn, and Paul Junger Witt; and political figures Andrew Card, Marlin Fitzwater, Barry Goldwater, Jr., and Skip Humphrey – these are among the filmmakers and celebrities who will appear at the 2014 Virginia Film Festival in Charlottesville to discuss their works and careers.

Festival director Jody Kielbasa announced this year's program at an October 7 press conference held at the historic Jefferson Theater. After the formal announcement, he spoke with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about documentaries and other films that will be screened during the weekend of November 6-9 at a variety of venues in downtown Charlottesville and on the grounds of the University of Virginia.

Holbrook/Twain
Among the documentaries, Kielbasa singled out “Holbrook/Twain: An American Odyssey, which I think is an incredible documentary.” Hal Holbrook, who has been performing as Mark Twain for 60 years, will offer a special performance of his award-winning one-man show, Mark Twain Tonight, and also offer comments about the documentary film.

Kielbasa also mentioned that “41 on 41 is coming in as part of the Berlin Wall series in association with the Miller Center.” That film, he said, looks at “41 different people who comment on our 41st president, George H.W. Bush. Obviously,” he added, “some of that discussion will wrap around the Berlin Wall, as well.”

The Berlin Wall series – marking the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the beginning of the collapse of the Soviet Empire – includes five films, a mix of fiction and non-fiction. The five are Dr. Strangelove, a 1964 Academy Award nominee directed by Stanley Kubrick; Red Army, a documentary about Soviet ice hockey players; Walesa: Man of Hope, Polish director Andrzej Wajda’s biopic about Nobel laureate Lech Wałęsa; German director Wim Wenders' fanciful Wings of Desire; as well as 41 on 41.

“For people out there who are not aware,” Kielbasa explained, “this year the University of Virginia was loaned four original panels of the Berlin Wall. They're encased in glass in front of the Alderman Library. I'm also responsible for a series of programs over an eight-day period leading up to the 25th anniversary” of the wall's destruction, “which actually happens on November 9, the last day of the Virginia Film Festival.”

Presidents and Elections
In conjunction with the UVA Center for Politics, the festival will present the premiere of Bombs Away: LBJ, Goldwater and the 1964 Campaign That Changed It All, followed by a panel discussion featuring former California Congressman Barry Goldwater, Jr., and former Minnesota Attorney General Skip Humphrey. The film, Kielbasa said, takes “a fascinating look at Goldwater and LBJ and that incredible election and everything that was going on leading up to 1964.”

The Miller Center for Public Affairs is sponsoring a screening of Frost/Nixon, Ron Howard's film of the award-winning play about the interviews of Richard Nixon conducted by British TV host David Frost. Afterward, Frank Langella, who played Nixon in the film, will talk about his experience with historian Ken Hughes.

Kielbasa, now in his sixth year as festival director, also pointed to two major films made in Virginia that will be shown at the festival.

Big Stone Gap
“Our world premiere, the opening night film,” he said, is “Big Stone Gap, which was filmed entirely on location in Big Stone Gap, Virginia, and is about that community.” That screening will include a panel discussion with writer/director Adriana Trigiani as well as several of the stars of the film.

The other high-profile made-in-Virginia film, he added, “is Wish You Well, based on the novel by David Baldacci.” Baldacci will be on hand to discuss the film, which is a coming-of-age story set in 1940s Virginia.

Kielbasa is also excited that director Barry Levinson will be at the Festival to discuss his latest film, The Humbling (starring Al Pacino) as well as his 1989 film, The Natural (starring Robert Redford).

“I know that film gets played a lot,” he explained, “but to able to listen to Barry Levinson talk about the making of that film should be extraordinary and, quite frankly, people consider it one of the best sports movies ever made.”

The 27th annual Virginia Film Festival will also screen a number of likely Oscar contenders, including The Imitation Game, Foxcatcher, Wild, and Mr. Turner.

“These are incredibly high-profile films,” Kielbasa said, “and in most cases we'll be screening them anywhere from two weeks to two months in advance of their general release.”

SUGGESTED LINKS

Porn king Larry Flynt defends free speech in Charlottesville
Library of Congress collects pornographic films, violent video games
Filmmaker Stanley Nelson on ‘Freedom Riders,’ the news media, and civil rights
Virginia Film Festival to include documentaries on Kennedy, Nixon, Santorum
Jody Kielbasa previews political movies in 2012's Virginia Film Festival

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/va-film-festival-to-feature-politicians-from-goldwater-lbj-to-nixon-bush

From the Archives: Monique Luiz, 'Daisy Girl' from controversial 1964 campaign ad, speaks at UVA

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on October 15, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Monique Luiz, 'Daisy Girl' from controversial 1964 campaign ad, speaks at UVA

On September 7, 1964, Lyndon Johnson's presidential campaign bought time during NBC's “Monday Night at the Movies” for a 60-second ad that showed a little girl plucking the petals off a flower, followed by a nuclear mushroom cloud and an excerpt from one of Johnson's speeches.

Long known as the “Daisy Girl” ad (although the flower was a dandelion, not a daisy), the spot – for which NBC charged $24,000 – was produced by the Madison Avenue firm of Doyle Dane Bernbach (DDB), which had not previously done political ad-making. It was tremendously controversial and, along with other DDB ads that aired in 1964, changed the style and substance of campaign advertising.

The little girl in the ad was 3-year-old Monique Corzilius, who had earlier appeared in print ads but had not acted on film. (She later went on to perform in commercials for products like Kool Pops and SpaghettiOs.)

Now known as Monique Luiz, the “Daisy Girl” participated in a panel discussion hosted by the University of Virginia Center for Politics on October 15, along with Robert Mann, author of Daisy Petals and Mushroom Clouds: LBJ, Barry Goldwater, and the Ad That Changed American Politics, and veteran journalist Sid Davis, who was a White House correspondent in the early 1960s, covered the 1964 campaign, and was present at President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963.

Red hair stands out
After the panel, Luiz answered a few questions posed by the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about her role as the “Daisy Girl” and the reactions to it.

For more than four decades, Luiz did not acknowledge that she was the girl in the ad. In 2009, however, she discovered that another woman was claiming to be her and was trying to capitalize on the TV spot's notoriety. Luiz came forward with documentation that she was the authentic “Daisy Girl” and subsequently was interviewed by Mann for his book, which is how she came to appear at UVA this week.

When she auditioned for the part, neither she nor her parents knew that DDB was making a political ad. She stood out among the many little girls who tried out because of her red hair, and also because her father was persistent.

“I think it was my father who sold them” on the idea “that I could do it,” she recalled. “He pretty much said, 'I can't guarantee anything but she'll try.'”

Listening closely to her in the commercial, one can hear exasperation in little Monique's voice. That was, in part, because the final cut was taken from the 27th take in a long day of filming.

Surprise
Even after filming, Monique's parents did not know how the footage would be used. They found out by seeing the ad on TV.

Their reaction, as she remembered it, was: “'Oh my gosh, it's Monique! She's in a political ad!'”

After the ad appeared on TV for the first time, and it was repeated on news shows in the days that followed, there was a negative reaction, coming from the general public, causing her grandmother, in particular, to become “very concerned about it.”

As she was growing up, Luiz chose not to reveal her association with the ad, and she ended her modeling career at age 7 or 8, preferring to focus on school and normal girlhood.

“I knew about [the controversy] and I just avoided it. I remember my grandmother saying, 'Don't say you're the Daisy Girl! Don't say you're in that ad!' So I grew up not wanting to talk about it.”

For all the publicity that surrounded the “Daisy Girl” ad, Monique Corzilius was paid just one hundred dollars for appearing in it – which seemed pretty substantial in 1964.

As Luiz recalls now, with a smile, “I remember my parents saying, 'Wow! You made a lot of money.'”

The “Daisy Girl” ad is available in several forms on YouTube. Here is a link to one of them.

SUGGESTED LINKS

UVA Center for Politics commemorates 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debates
Larry Sabato discusses Cuccinelli, McAuliffe, Sarvis in 2013 election
Lee Harvey Oswald colleague recalls aftermath of Kennedy assassination
Witness to 1963 Kennedy assassination speaks at Virginia Film Festival
JFK was 'cautious, conservative' says UVA political scientist Larry Sabato

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/monique-luiz-daisy-girl-from-controversial-1964-campaign-ad-speaks-at-uva

From the Archives: Barry Goldwater 'absolutely' was a libertarian, his son explains

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on December 30, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Barry Goldwater 'absolutely' was a libertarian, his son explains

Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona) “absolutely was a libertarian,” explained his son in an interview this year, adding that as a libertarian he believed “in less government and [that] government should not be intruding into our personal lives.” These views were "consistent" with conservative values, he added.

Former Congressman Barry Goldwater, Jr., participated in a panel discussion about the his father's presidential campaign in November at the Virginia Film Festival. The discussion followed a screening of Bombs Away: LBJ, Goldwater, and the 1964 Campaign that Changed It All, a new documentary from the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

Moderated by political scientist Larry Sabato, the panel also featured former Minnesota attorney general Skip Humphrey, son of Lyndon Johnson's 1964 running mate, Hubert H. Humphrey.

After the presentation, which marked the 50th anniversary of the Goldwater-Johnson contest, the younger Barry Goldwater spoke with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about his father's presidential campaign and how it launched both the modern conservative and libertarian movements that came of age in the 1970s and '80s.

“He was in there with his paddle in the water,” Goldwater said, “working hard to change the Republican Party from the East Coast liberal establishment to more of a conservative-libertarian philosophy that Americans were looking for.”

Gay rights and abortion
Goldwater, who represented California in Congress from 1969 to 1983, explained that his father remained an icon of the Republican Party despite differing from social conservatives on contentious issues.

In the senior Goldwater's view (and his son's, too), “whether you're gay or a lesbian is a personal thing. It's no business of the government. And abortion, a woman who is carrying this baby – that's her decision, not the government's,” said Barry, Jr. “He was pretty consistent with his libertarian and conservative views when it came to such things as social issues.”

Like his father before him, Goldwater, Jr., attended high school at the Staunton Military Academy, just about 30 miles from Charlottesville. He has pleasant memories of his time there in the late 1950s, though his Arizona upbringing did not prepare him for Virginia winters.

“I remember how cold it got here, and the leaves turning in the fall,” he said. “I remember the warmth of the people of Staunton. I remember the Episcopal Church that I went to every Sunday for four years. It's a beautiful part of the country.”

He also recalled the late Karl Hess (1923-94), an aide to Senator Goldwater who later in life was an activist in the Libertarian Party of Virginia. (Hess sometimes gets credit for the famous line, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice … moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”)

“I remember Karl Hess as one of my father's key speechwriters,” Goldwater said. “He became a good friend of the family. He was somewhat eccentric, colorful, entertaining to be around.”

'Tea Party behaved'
Goldwater also offered some thoughts about the current state of the Republican Party, which just days before this interview had won control of the U.S. Senate and expanded its majority in the House of Representatives.

“The Republican Party is alive and well. I think we came together quite well in 2014,” he said.

“Even the Tea Party folks behaved themselves and, I think, their success was due to the fact that they pretty much stuck to their core values of less government, less taxes, less regulation, more personal freedom and responsibility, and a strong defense.”

Those, he added, “have always been the Republican Party's core values – my father's and Ronald Reagan's.”

Asked whether the new Republican-controlled Congress can deliver on its promises, Goldwater displayed a wry grin and said, “Probably not but we'll sure give them a chance.”

The complete Virginia Film Festival panel discussion featuring Goldwater, Humphrey, and Sabato can be seen on YouTube. It was recorded November 8, 2014, on the grounds of the University of Virginia.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Author David Lampo brings gay-rights message to conservative Republicans
Porn king Larry Flynt defends free speech in Charlottesville
Amity Shlaes discusses significance of Calvin Coolidge at Heritage Foundation
Attacks on free speech provoke author Jonathan Rauch to defend 'liberal science'
GOProud’s Jimmy LaSalvia talks about CPAC and gay conservatives

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/barry-goldwater-absolutely-was-a-libertarian-his-son-explains

Recent Articles on Examiner.com: Bernie Sanders, Rick Santorum, & chickens

It has been quite some time since I provided a round-up of my recent interviews and articles on Examiner.com.  So why not now?

Here, in reverse chronological order, are the pieces I have written since October 2014, with brief excerpts from each:

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders stumps for support in Charlottesville (May 13, 2015)

White House hopeful Bernie Sanders spoke to an enthusiastic audience in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Monday, May 11, laying out his policy vision and contrasting it directly with that of the Republican Congress and indirectly to that of his opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Sanders delivered his remarks to an overflow crowd at Trinity Episcopal Church, whose sanctuary has chairs for just 100 people. Another 175 or so squeezed into a basement room and the narthex....

In what is likely to become his standard stump speech, self-defined Socialist Sanders addressed a range of issues that were only related to the budget in the sense that they are items the government spends money on, such as free college tuition for students in public institutions and a multi-trillion dollar program to improve transportation infrastructure. He decried the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case and proposed public financing for federal election campaigns.

That article about Senator Sanders' visit to Charlottesville also included this video:

Poultry industry is trade-talk pawn of South African government, says analyst (May 5, 2015)

After a presentation about South Africa's economy at the Cato Institute in Washington on May 4, the CEO of the South African Institute of Race Relations, Frans Cronje, suggested that this “playing chicken (literally)” represents a significant and troubling trend within South Africa's policy making circles.

In an interview with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner, Cronje -- author of A Time Traveller's Guide to Our Next Ten Years (2014) -- explained that “South Africa is recording a trade deficit with every major region and country in the world except the United States and non-energy Africa, and that's only because of the generosity of AGOA.”

In the AGOA negotiations, he said, what we saw “was the chicken producers being used as a pawn by South Africa's Department of Trade and Industry.”

Think-tank head Jason Grumet reacts to Obama's mandatory voting idea (March 19, 2015)

Grumet described his 2014 book, City of Rivals: Restoring the Glorious Mess of American Democracy, and, in a post-panel interview with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner, he reacted to the president's idea of making voting mandatory, under the threat of punishment, for American citizens.

“There's a constitutional issue,” he said.

Compulsory voting, he explained, is “more of an aspiration than a practical solution. Like everything, there are pros and cons.”

Grumet conceded that “it would be terrific to have greater participation in a participatory democracy” but he pointed to problems in the country identified by President Obama as a potential model.

In Australia, he said, experience has shown that “the downside is a lot of people are essentially forced to vote who have no desire to participate in the process, no information about the process, and so there's a question about whether you dilute the quality of the voter pool.”

Former Senator Rick Santorum says homosexuals deserve protection (March 8, 2015)

First, Santorum, who is well known for his socially conservative positions with regard to gay rights, was asked whether it is appropriate for the U.S. Department of State to defend the rights of homosexuals in foreign countries where their lives might be threatened by anti-gay governments.

“We have to defend human rights everywhere,” Santorum replied. “If someone's life is threatened because of race, sexual orientation, or other [reasons], I think we have an obligation to stand up and defend that human right. I don't have a problem at all, if people's lives are in jeopardy, then we have an obligation to protect all people and their freedoms.”

That article also included this video of a press gaggle with Rick Santorum at CPAC:

Lamar Alexander honored for his work promoting civics, history education (March 5, 2015)

Alexander recalled that the subject of his maiden speech on the floor of the United States Senate “was the importance of teaching U.S. history in our schools so our children could grow up knowing what it means to be an American.” He noted that the lowest test scores for high school seniors “are not in math or science. They're in United States history.”

He conceded that “there's not much the federal government ought to try to do about that in local schools” because that kind of involvement at the local level is “not a very good Republican, federalist idea.”

He explained that he was inspired to sponsor congressional and presidential academies for school teachers, one from each state, to learn more about American history and how to teach it better.

Conservative icon Stan Evans dies at 80; remembered as 'present at the creation' (March 3, 2015)

Noting that Evans had been “present at the creation” of the conservative movement, he replied to a question about whether the movement today is more disputatious than in the past, or if it is in an unprecedented crisis.

“Other times were infinitely worse,” he said, “because we didn't have the resources or the positions of strength we have now,” noting the low point of the movement may have been the 1964 presidential and congressional elections, when Barry Goldwater lost to Lyndon Johnson in a landslide and the Democrats won their largest majority in Congress since the 1930s.

In contrast to those years in the wilderness, Evans explained, 50 year later “we have a Speaker of the House, a Republican majority in the House. There are 30 Republican governors. We have 24 states that have one-party rule, governor and the legislature of the same party, all Republican,” compared to just 12 states controlled by Democrats.

“The list goes on,” he continued, but cautioned that “we're not using the position of strength we have. We're not fighting hard enough.”

African ambassador calls for 'peace, love, and understanding' in D.C. speech (February 22, 2015)

Referring to Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker's 2012 book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, Ambassador Moussa-Adamo noted that “we live in the most peaceful era of human history. Not only are there fewer wars now than there were even in the recent, 20th-century past, but there are fewer violent crimes such as assault and murder.”

He added that this is true not only in the industrialized, Western democracies like Europe and North America, but also in so-called developing countries of Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

Nonetheless, he said, statistics that say violence is reduced to record low levels is small comfort to the victim of terrorism or sexual assault.

Virginia General Assembly passes bipartisan bills to legalize industrial hemp (February 12, 2015)

“The United States is the largest consumer of hemp products in the world,” says Virginia libertarian activist Nicholas Cote, “but it is the only industrialized country that prohibits farmers from growing hemp.”

Despite this, Cote is optimistic that change is on the horizon. Last week, both chambers of the Virginia General Assembly approved bills to allow the licensed cultivation of industrial hemp, following the lead of legislatures in Kentucky and North Dakota. The bill in the House of Delegates (HB 1277), sponsored by Del. Joseph Yost (R-Blacksburg), passed on a vote of 98-0. The Senate bill (SB 955)sponsored by state Senator Roz Dance (D-Petersburg), passed on a vote of 32-5.

In a recent interview, Cote -- who heads up the advocacy group, Right Way Forward Virginia -- told the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner that the bipartisan nature of the support for these bills is heartening, but he is disappointed that Virginia's congressional delegation has not stepped up to the plate.

Index of Economic Freedom shows global progress for 2015, while USA loses ground (February 2, 2015)

Florance noted that people are surprised to find out that the United States is not in the “free” category, and does not even have one of the ten most free economies in the world.

“The United States is actually twelfth,” she said, “in the mostly free category and it falls behind countries such as Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Chile, Canada, and even a very small African country, Mauritius.”

That last country, she explained, is “an island but still part of sub-Saharan Africa and it is actually ranked tenth – so a very tiny economy is actually ranked more free than the United States.”

In the past two decades, according to the annual Index of Economic Freedom, the world as a whole has become increasingly free. The United States is something of an exception in that it has become less free.

Top 10 most-read Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner stories of 2014 (December 31, 2014)

Interviews with the three U.S. Senate candidates – Republican Ed Gillespie, Libertarian Robert Sarvis, and Democrat Mark Warner, who narrowly won re-election in November – were among the top ten, as well as an assessment of David Brat's surprise victory over House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the Republican primary. Early in the year, conservative activist Grover Norquist correctly predicted that the GOP would gain control of the Senate.

Gay marriage, Governor Bob McDonnell's indictment on federal corruption charges, podcaster Adam Koresh's views on NSA spying, and the self-defense products sold by entrepreneur Paul Jones rounded out the top ten most-read stories by the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner.

Barry Goldwater 'absolutely' was a libertarian, his son explains (December 30, 2014)

Goldwater, who represented California in Congress from 1969 to 1983, explained that his father remained an icon of the Republican Party despite differing from social conservatives on contentious issues.

In the senior Goldwater's view (and his son's, too), “whether you're gay or a lesbian is a personal thing. It's no business of the government. And abortion, a woman who is carrying this baby – that's her decision, not the government's,” said Barry, Jr. “He was pretty consistent with his libertarian and conservative views when it came to such things as social issues.”

Cato Institute panel discusses obscure but pivotal gay civil rights case (November 24, 2014)

Although these events took place decades ago, Rauch said, “this is not ancient history. The principle is alive today.” Linsky noted that the current work of the Mattachine Society of Washington is a “testament to history itself,” because it is “giving voice to individuals who couldn't stand up for themselves.”

Noting the progress over the past several decades – including legal gay marriage in the majority of states, the end to the gay military ban, and other legal achievements – Rauch said that ONE Inc. v. Olesen is “the most important civil rights case we've ever had” as gay people and it put gay men and lesbians “on the path to freedom,” because it provided the legal foundation to talk about ideas and to “transmit those ideas at a great personal risk.”

After a series of questions and answers with the audience, moderator Walter Olson noted the importance of the discussion, which has broader applications than simply gay Americans. It demonstrated, he said, how “freedom of expression” assists the liberation of “historically marginalized groups” and their individual members and that, ultimately, suppression of speech and the press harms those groups by depriving them of their capacity to argue for their own dignity and civil rights.

Gov. Terry McAuliffe touts Virginia film industry at Charlottesville movie fest (November 6, 2014)

Big Stone Gap was filmed entirely in its namesake Virginia mountain town and stars Jenna Elfman, Jasmine Guy, Ashley Judd, and Patrick Wilson. All four actors and Trigiani spoke at a press conference at the Paramount Theater prior to the film's screening, and Governor McAuliffe made a surprise appearance as it ended.

McAuliffe took that opportunity to boast about Virginia's film industry and the economic benefits it generates.

“We are so excited about our film industry,” he said, pointing to figures from 2012 that indicate there was “about $380 million of economic activity here in the Commonwealth,” creating 3,000 jobs.

Virginia Senate hopeful Robert Sarvis talks about U.S. policy toward Africa (November 1, 2014)

The role of African countries as transit ports in the international illicit drug trade is something that also concerns Sarvis, and he has a solution for it.

“Our drug war has undermined the rule of law and civil society in Latin America,” he noted. “That's also happening in Africa. It's also undermined our efforts in Afghanistan over the past decade.”

Whether in Africa or elsewhere, he explained, “the problem is our war on drugs and anything that we can do to move away from our prohibitionist mentality is going to undermine the violent gangs and organized criminal enterprises that we created” through current drug policy dating back several decades.

Sarvis said that legalizing marijuana in just two states, Colorado and Washington, has already had an adverse effect on drug cartels operating in Mexico.

“We can have beneficial effects around the world by changing our policy at home on drugs,” he asserted.

Monique Luiz, 'Daisy Girl' from controversial 1964 campaign ad, speaks at UVA (October 15, 2014)

For more than four decades, Luiz did not acknowledge that she was the girl in the ad. In 2009, however, she discovered that another woman was claiming to be her and was trying to capitalize on the TV spot's notoriety. Luiz came forward with documentation that she was the authentic “Daisy Girl” and subsequently was interviewed by Mann for his book, which is how she came to appear at UVA this week.

When she auditioned for the part, neither she nor her parents knew that DDB was making a political ad. She stood out among the many little girls who tried out because of her red hair, and also because her father was persistent.

“I think it was my father who sold them” on the idea “that I could do it,” she recalled. “He pretty much said, 'I can't guarantee anything but she'll try.'”

Economist Adam Smith looks at the 'Bootleggers & Baptists' phenomenon (October 14, 2014)

Smith explained that the term “bootleggers and Baptists” originated during alcohol Prohibition in the 1920s, when “you had bootleggers and Baptists with aligned interests” even if they did not realize it.

Baptists, he explained, proclaimed “Down with legalized distribution of alcohol!” because they saw drinking as morally detrimental. Bootleggers, too, proclaimed “Down with legalized distribution of alcohol!” because Prohibition raised the price of illegal liquor and fed more profits to the bootleggers.

“It was a boon to the bootleggers,” Smith explained, “and the Baptists were kind of oblivious to that situation.”

A full, reverse-chronological listing of Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner articles can be found here.

50 Years Later, Barry Goldwater's GOP Convention Speech Still Resonates

“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice” was the biggest applause line of Barry Goldwater's speech accepting his party's nomination as a presidential candidate.

It is probably also the most misunderstood, ripped-out-of-context line in a speech that stands, even today, as a succinct definition of conservatism.

Surprisingly, in 3,186 words, Goldwater never used any form of the word “conservative” in this famous speech. This stood in contrast to four years earlier, when he scolded supporters who threatened the cohesion of the Republican Party by saying, “Let's grow up, conservatives.”

Fifty years ago today, on July 16, 1964, grown-up conservative Barry Goldwater spoke to the GOP convention in San Francisco.*

Most readers of this blog are too young to remember Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign, yet it is almost universally credited with launching both the modern conservative and the modern libertarian movements. The principal founders of the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation worked on Goldwater's campaign. The founding members of the Libertarian Party were Goldwater campaign volunteers, and Virginia's current Republican National Committeeman, Morton Blackwell, was the youngest Goldwater delegate at the 1964 convention.

The campaign set the stage for a transformation of the Republican party and Ronald Reagan's election in 1980. As George F. Will has put it, Goldwater won the 1964 election but it took 16 years to count the votes.

Something of a précis of his 1960 book, The Conscience of a Conservative, Goldwater's convention speech endeavored to explain conservatism – or what he called “Republicanism” on that occasion, eschewing specific references to the C-word – to listeners who had not yet learned much about it and who unfairly feared it.

In the same speech, Goldwater displayed a certain amount of prescience regarding the course of human history and offered advice to his fellow Republicans who, then as now, often found themselves among bickering factions.

In one, brief paragraph about halfway through the speech, the Arizona Senator summarized the conservative view of individual liberty and the proper role of government.

We see, in private property and in economy based upon and fostering private property, the one way to make government a durable ally of the whole man, rather than his determined enemy. We see in the sanctity of private property the only durable foundation for constitutional government in a free society. And beyond that, we see, in cherished diversity of ways, diversity of thoughts, of motives and accomplishments. We do not seek to lead anyone's life for him - we seek only to secure his rights and to guarantee him opportunity to strive, with government performing only those needed and constitutionally sanctioned tasks which cannot otherwise be performed.

Goldwater also drew a contrast explicitly to the communist, totalitarian vision and, implicitly, to big-government liberalism then in vogue, and recognized the tensions inherent in simultaneous pursuits of liberty and equality.

Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.

In a line that could be welcomed equally today by the Tea Party and by the Occupy movement, Goldwater said that conservatives must “resist concentrations of power, private or public, which enforce such conformity and inflict such despotism. It is the cause of Republicanism to ensure that power remains in the hands of the people.”

And, as if envisioning the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Empire a quarter-century later, Goldwater made remarkably accurate predictions in this paragraph:

I believe that we must look beyond the defense of freedom today to its extension tomorrow. I believe that the communism which boasts it will bury us will, instead, give way to the forces of freedom. And I can see in the distant and yet recognizable future the outlines of a world worthy our dedication, our every risk, our every effort, our every sacrifice along the way. Yes, a world that will redeem the suffering of those who will be liberated from tyranny. I can see and I suggest that all thoughtful men must contemplate the flowering of an Atlantic civilization, the whole world of Europe unified and free, trading openly across its borders, communicating openly across the world.

Toward the end of his speech, just before the famous line about “extremism,” Goldwater pointed out the factionalism in the Republican party was not necessarily new, but also was not necessarily bad.

The GOP, he said, is “a Party for free men, not for blind followers, and not for conformists.”

Then he quoted Abraham Lincoln in 1858 “because he probably could have said it during the last week or so: "[The Republican Party] was composed of strained, discordant, and even hostile elements.'”

As if warning the Tea Party and “establishment” branches of the conservative movement of the 21st century, or the social conservative and the libertarian factions, Goldwater admonished: “Let our Republicanism, so focused and so dedicated, not be made fuzzy and futile by unthinking and stupid labels.”

Explaining that the Republican Party should require no litmus tests, Goldwater explained:

the beauty of this Federal system of ours is in its reconciliation of diversity with unity. We must not see malice in honest differences of opinion, and no matter how great, so long as they are not inconsistent with the pledges we have given to each other in and through our Constitution. Our Republican cause is not to level out the world or make its people conform in computer regimented sameness. Our Republican cause is to free our people and light the way for liberty throughout the world.

It was in that context – between “stupid labels” and the beauty of the American system – that Goldwater added:

“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" -- the second part being so often forgotten while the first part so often misinterpreted.

He concluded with the modest thought that conservatives have “a very human cause for very humane goals.”

Perhaps suggesting that he knew victory in November was unlikely, Goldwater went on to note that his 1964 campaign was a first step in a long journey.

This Party, its good people, and its unquestionable devotion to freedom, will not fulfill the purposes of this campaign which we launch here now until our cause has won the day, inspired the world, and shown the way to a tomorrow worthy of all our yesteryears.

Barry Goldwater's nomination acceptance speech of July 16, 1964, can be viewed in its entirety on the C-SPAN web site, where you can see people smoking openly on the convention floor.



*Twenty years later, when the Democrats chose the same city for their nominating convention, then-UN Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick repeatedly dripped with contempt the phrase “San Francisco Democrats” in her own GOP convention speech.

(Cross-posted, in slightly different form, from Bearing Drift. A shorter version of this essay also appears on Examiner.com.)

Rick Santorum's Views on Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan

Speaking at a press conference during the Virginia Tea Party Patriots Convention in Richmond on October 9, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum claimed that Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan “are certainly two of the shoulders that we stand upon as the Republican Party.”

Goldwater and Reagan, he said, “would be preeminent figures in the party” today.

Santorum’s claim was in response to a question I posed: “Would there be a role in the Republican party today for Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan?”

The question was relevant because Santorum has, in the past, rejected the libertarian values that Goldwater and Reagan stood for.

In a famous 1975 interview with Reason magazine, Reagan had identified libertarianism as the “very heart and soul of conservatism.”

Santorum, on the other hand, told Steve Inskeep of National Public Radio in 2005 that “one of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right,” arguing that some conservatives “have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world.”

Reviewing Santorum’s book, It Takes a Family, Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institution concluded that “As Goldwater [in The Conscience of a Conservative] repudiated Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, so Santorum repudiates Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.”

That’s why it’s doubly strange that, in his Richmond press conference, Santorum both embraced Goldwater as a “preeminent figure” and then denied the historical truth of Goldwater’s libertarianism.

(A "Washington read" of the It Takes a Family's index reveals that while Home Depot merits at least four mentions in the book, Goldwater is never mentioned at all, and Reagan is mentioned just twice -- as many times as twins Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen.)

In response to a follow-up question, as to whether Barry Goldwater’s libertarian viewpoints would [bear] a leadership role today, Santorum said, “Barry Goldwater evolved into a libertarian. I don’t think you would say that Barry Goldwater in 1964 was a libertarian. I think a lot of his libertarianist [sic] views developed over time and actually later in his life.”

That view is wrong, film critic Scott Galupo pointed out in a 2006 Washington Times review of a documentary of Goldwater’s life:

If you had one of those think tanky graphs that expand on the simplistic left-right spectrum, Mr. Goldwater's libertarian politics were remarkably consistent.

Not unlike his more successful legatee, President Ronald Reagan, he held fast to a few principles -- essentially, that the federal government should stay out of people's personal lives, but still be strong enough to kick the commies in the groin.

Later in his career, he took the same laissez-faire view on abortion and homosexual rights (issues, [George] Will notes, that didn't figure on the national agenda in the 1960s) that he took on economic entrepreneurship.

Despite his previous criticism of Goldwater (and, by extension, “Goldwater Republicans”) as out-of-step with the conservative movement and the modern-day Republican Party, Santorum told the Tea Party press conference that “I think the Goldwater conservatism of limited government [and] personal responsibility, is certainly still the core of the Republican party and I think the Reagan expansion of that into a broader-based coalition was something that has been important evolution.”

Yet as the Cato Institute’s David Boaz told me after he watched the video of Santorum’s most recent remarks, "Santorum in Richmond speaks of freedom, individual rights, and the dignity of the human person. But he has demonstrated in the past that he doesn't really mean the freedom to live your own life as you choose. He has denounced 'this whole idea of personal autonomy ... this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do.' That's the American idea of freedom, but it's not Rick Santorum's idea.”

Citing two quotations from Barry Goldwater – “Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development” and “The conservative’s first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom?” – Boaz concluded:

“It's true, as Santorum says, that Goldwater's libertarianism on issues like gay rights and the separation of church and state became more pronounced as he grew older and wiser. Too bad most politicians only get older."

Given that Santorum has declared his interest in pursuing a bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, he needs to take some time to reconcile his contradictory views and ask himself, are Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan’s shoulders those of giants upon which Republicans stand, or are their old-fashion views about individual autonomy, personal responsibility, and human freedom at odds with the 21st century’s Republican Party?

One hopes he will choose to stand on the shoulders of giants and that he himself has "evolved."

* * * * *

Santorum's complete remarks can be seen in this video:

Other articles I have written based on interviews and events at the Virginia Tea Party Patriots Convention include these, which can all be found at Examiner.com:

Rick Santorum assesses the Tea Party movement and ‘the moral challenge we face’
GOP candidate Chuck Smith says ‘our country is heading in the wrong direction’
Libertarian James Quigley takes on Rep. Bobby Scott in Virginia’s 3rd District

Radio host Herman Cain thinks ‘the Tea Party movement is awesome’
WSJ’s John Fund: Tea Party movement is ‘essence of American individualism’
Va. Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling: ‘pro-free market policies are pro-business policies'

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 
See my articles on Examiner.com!

Ronald Reagan: 1911-2004

Today, June 5, is the first anniversary of the death of President Ronald Reagan.

His passing came on the eve of the sixtieth anniversary of the D-Day invasion and the twentieth anniversary of his own Pointe du Hoc speech commemorating that event.

Whenever I am asked for the best place to find a summary of Ronald Reagan's political philosophy, I point them to "A Time for Choosing," a speech he delivered on behalf of presidential candidate Barry Goldwater on October 27, 1964. So important was this speech to Reagan and the conservative movement that it became known simply as "The Speech."

"The Speech" can be found in many places on the web, including through the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and the Modern History Sourcebook. I prefer the version found at the American Rhetoric web site, because it includes the text as well as both audio and video versions of The Speech. The text is also available in several books, including Time for Choosing: The Speeches of Ronald Reagan 1961-1982 and an audio recording is included on Speaking My Mind: Selected Speeches With Personal Reflections.

It is remarkable how "The Speech" has remained timely for more than 40 years. There are, of course, references to contemporary events and personalities and issues in it, some that require annotation to understand. Still, aside from those few instances, The Speech could be delivered today with few changes.

Consider, for instance, this passage, in light of the current debate over Social Security reform:

Now -- we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due -- that the cupboard isn't bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth?

How prescient! Imagine how much better off we would be, as individuals, as families, as a society, if Social Security had been transformed in the 1960s rather than 50 years later. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater knew then what had to be done. Reagan, of course, also knew what obstacles he and smart people like him faced. In "A Time for Choosing" he delivered these well-known lines:

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments' programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.

The Goldwater campaign mobilized and inspired a generation of political activists. Despite Goldwater's defeat at the polls in November 1964, his partisans went on to launch both the modern conservative and modern libertarian movements. (For in-depth chronicles of these branches of the Goldwater legacy, I recommend The Other Side of the Sixties by John Andrew and Bringing the Market Back in: The Political Revitalization of Market Liberalism by John L. Kelley.)

Reagan himself recognized the inexorable linkage between the libertarian and conservative philosophies (and their respective political manifestations). In an interview with Reason magazine in July 1975, Reagan said:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

* * *

I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves. I have illustrated this many times by saying that I would recognize the right of government to say that someone who rode a motorcycle had to protect the public from himself by making certain provisions about his equipment and the motorcycle–the same as we do with an automobile. I disagree completely when government says that because of the number of head injuries from accidents with motorcycles that he should be forced to wear a helmet. I happen to think he’s stupid if he rides a motorcycle without a helmet, but that’s one of our sacred rights–to be stupid.

But to show you how these grey areas can creep in, the other day I was saying this to a man who happens to be a neurosurgeon, and who has treated many cases of this particular kind of injury and accident, and he disagreed with me on this issue. He disagreed with me on the basis of the individuals who become public charges as a result of permanent damage–he has pointed to an area where it does go over into not just hurting the individuals directly involved but now imposes on others also. I only use this extreme example to show that when we come down to government and what it should or should not do for the good of the people and for protecting us from each other, you do come into some grey areas and I think here there will be disagreements between conservatives and libertarians.

So, I think the government has legitimate functions. But I also think our greatest threat today comes from government’s involvement in things that are not government’s proper province. And in those things government has a magnificent record of failure.

Reagan's greatest accomplishment as a statesman -- setting aside, for the moment, his role in the defeat of Communism and the end of the Cold War -- was the way in which he changed the terms of debate. He entered the presidency at a time in which liberal thinking (in the American sense of left-wing statist liberalism) was received wisdom and conservatives were known as "the stupid party." Twenty-five years later, the liberals are bereft of ideas. The best they can do is perform a holding action as they are besieged by dynamic, progressive ideas from the right (both libertarians and conservatives). They defend the status quo the way William Jennings Bryan defended fundamentalist ideas of Creation against Clarence Darrow's modern science in the Scopes trial. Troglodytes may have stirring rhetoric, but in the end, it proves to be intellectually hollow.

Ronald Reagan proved to us that the troglodytes need not be victorious.

The legacy of Ronald Reagan is one that will define 21st century politics. His vision lives on despite the fact that his current successor in the White House pays little more than lip service to that vision. The ideas of Ronald Reagan will survive the Bush administration and will flourish.