The Conscience of a Conservative

What does it mean to be truly free—not just economically or politically, but spiritually? Barry Goldwater’s The Conscience of a Conservative begins with this provocative question, reminding you that Conservatism isn’t merely about fiscal restraint or opposing big government—it’s about understanding the nature of man and preserving the conditions that allow each person’s spirit to flourish. Goldwater’s book isn’t a dry policy manual; it’s a passionate moral argument for freedom rooted in the individual’s responsibility, dignity, and moral choice.

Man as a Spiritual and Individual Being

Goldwater argues that the Conservative starts by recognizing man as a unique creature—spiritual as well as material—and therefore cannot be reduced to merely his economic circumstances. Unlike Liberals, whom he accuses of obsessing over material welfare, Conservatives believe that politics must elevate the soul, not just the paycheck. To him, government’s proper role is to protect the individual’s freedom to pursue his own growth rather than manage his life for him. This commitment to the individual sets the stage for his later arguments about limited government, States’ rights, and economic policy.

Freedom and Order

Freedom, Goldwater contends, is not freedom from all restraint; rather, it’s the opportunity to live responsibly under a system of order that prevents tyranny. He warns that governments naturally seek to expand their power. Thus, the central question for every policy debate should be: “Are we maximizing freedom?” He sees modern America slipping toward centralization where the federal government decides everything—from welfare to education—corroding the delicate balance between order and individual liberty. This warning, written in 1960, feels astonishingly prescient today when discussions of bureaucratic authority dominate debates about freedom.

The Failure of Conservative Demonstration

Goldwater opens with frustration. He believes the American people are essentially Conservative yet confounded by politicians who speak Conservative language but act like bureaucratic managers. He criticizes his own party’s tendency to dilute its principles with qualifiers—such as “Conservative with a heart”—which, he suggests, concede to Liberal narratives that Conservatism lacks compassion. To him, the heart of Conservatism is compassion rightly understood: the belief that real help comes through personal responsibility, not government charity. Conservatism’s challenge, therefore, is not to find new truths but to reapply timeless ones to modern problems. In this sense, The Conscience of a Conservative becomes a bridge between philosophy and practice.

A Rebellion Against Collectivism

Throughout the book, Goldwater identifies collectivism—the view that man is best served through centralized control—as the great enemy of freedom. Whether through welfare programs, federal education funding, or union monopolies, collectivism transforms self-reliant citizens into dependent subjects. He asserts that Liberals “play God with the human race” by elevating material welfare above spiritual liberty. Conservatives must resist not with emotion but with clear reasoning: man’s development must come from within, never by decree.

Under this moral framework, the book addresses concrete issues like taxation, States’ rights, and foreign policy, all seen through one lens—the defense of liberty from encroaching power. Goldwater’s goal isn’t to “streamline government” but to restore a Republic based on the Constitution’s restraints against absolutism. He insists that freedom is inseparable from self-reliance, responsibility, and decentralized authority.

Why This Matters Now

Goldwater’s argument has enduring relevance because it speaks to a recurring dilemma in modern democracies: can people remain free when they ask government to solve every problem? His answer is no. Freedom collapses when citizens hand over responsibility for their lives to the state. Thus, his call is both political and spiritual—a summons for every American to reclaim the moral conscience of a free person.

Core Message

Conservatism, to Goldwater, is not a nostalgic attachment to the past but an ethical framework for freedom. It rests on an understanding of human nature: that individuals are moral agents whose greatness—and their nation’s greatness—depends on protecting their liberty from the grasp of power. In his words, the task is not to promote welfare but to extend freedom; not to pass new laws but to repeal those that diminish it.

By the end of this sweeping introduction, Goldwater turns the question back to you: what kind of society do you want—the one that treats you as a capable, moral being responsible for your own destiny, or the one that relieves you of responsibility and freedom alike? This question defines not only the conscience of a Conservative but also the conscience of a citizen.

Goldwater’s chapter on power is both historical and alarmingly contemporary. He reminds you that the founding fathers wrote the Constitution primarily to limit government, not empower it. The danger, he warns, is that political leaders of both parties have replaced this principle with the idea that government should do whatever needs to be done—a philosophy that invites totalitarianism under democratic guise.

How Power Corrupts

Drawing on Lord Acton’s famous dictum, “Power tends to corrupt,” Goldwater argues that state power naturally expands unless explicitly checked. He traces the historical slide from limited constitutional duties toward unlimited federal intervention—from regulating commerce to controlling agriculture, education, and welfare. This expansion of the federal apparatus, he says, transforms government from servant into master.

The Constitution’s Restraints

Goldwater explains the Constitution as a system of practical boundaries—delegated powers to the federal level, reserved powers to the States, checks and balances among branches, and tedious amendment procedures to resist rash change. These mechanisms exist not to frustrate progress but to preserve freedom. He contrasts this with modern policymakers who treat constitutional limits as “general assumptions” rather than prohibitive law.

The Modern Leviathan

Goldwater paints a vivid picture of Big Government as a “Leviathan” consuming freedom through bureaucracy and taxation. The federal government, he writes, has become the nation’s largest landlord, employer, insurer, and spender. Americans now sacrifice nearly a third of their earnings—effectively working one-third of each month for the State. This economic measure reveals moral decline: when citizens stop guarding liberty, politicians grow addicted to power.

Goldwater’s Prescription

Freedom will return, he argues, only when citizens elect leaders who promise to divest power, not accumulate it. He imagines candidates declaring: “I do not promote welfare; I extend freedom. I aim not to pass laws, but to repeal them.” This reversal—from expansion to reduction—is the true act of patriotism.

What makes this argument resonate today is its moral tone. For Goldwater, resisting power isn’t procedural; it’s spiritual discipline. To keep a Republic—as Benjamin Franklin warned—we must prefer freedom over comfort and restrain power even when it promises to do good. Otherwise, benevolent intentions become the camouflage of tyranny.

Goldwater’s defense of States’ rights is both constitutional and practical. He insists that decentralization safeguards individual freedom because local problems should be solved by those closest to them. Federal intervention, even in benevolent forms like grants-in-aid, undermines autonomy by turning states into administrative branches of Washington.

The Problem of Federal Grants

Federal “matching funds” programs, which appear cooperative, operate as bribery and blackmail. States must conform to federal guidelines or lose revenue collected from their own citizens. Legislators rarely refuse such aid, fearing political backlash. In practice, these arrangements allow Washington to dictate how states spend money on welfare, education, or health.

Political and Moral Consequences

Goldwater argues that the Tenth Amendment isn’t symbolic—it’s the backbone of limited government. He rejects modern interpretations that treat it as a “general presumption.” The proper relationship, he insists, is that states owe duties to their people, not to the federal government. When power centralizes, liberty shrinks. He calls for state officials to reclaim authority by refusing unconstitutional aid—even if it means less money—because freedom is worth more than federal funding.

Practical Benefits of Local Control

Goldwater’s examples are plain: Nebraskans know their nursing needs better than bureaucrats in D.C.; Arizonans know their schools; New Yorkers know their slums. True freedom is self-government at the most local level. Goldwater believes restoring explicit States’ autonomy would revive both liberty and efficiency.

Key Lesson

Federal aid is never truly free—it transfers power from citizens to bureaucrats. Goldwater invites you to view every grant, every subsidy, as a test of freedom: Will you trade independence for convenience?

In sum, States’ rights in Goldwater’s vision are not nostalgia—they are instruments of liberty. They ensure that democracy remains participatory and personal, rather than remote and bureaucratic.

Goldwater’s discussion of labor unions stands as one of his most detailed applications of Conservative principles to real-world politics. He acknowledges unions’ legitimate role but warns that their accumulated power now endangers both individual freedom and the market economy.

Voluntary Association as a Natural Right

The right to associate freely, Goldwater insists, includes the right not to associate. Compulsory unionism violates this principle. Under “union shop” agreements, workers must join unions to keep their jobs, surrendering personal conscience to collective enforcement. He champions right-to-work laws as the true form of civil rights because they protect freedom of choice.

Political Exploitation of Workers

Goldwater exposes how unions divert members’ dues into partisan political campaigns without consent, effectively disenfranchising them. He argues that individuals—not corporations or unions—should finance politics. His solution: bar unions from using funds for political purposes, restoring political power to individuals.

Economic Disruption

He compares union monopolies to corporate monopolies. Just as antitrust laws prevent businesses from fixing prices, similar laws should curb unions’ industry-wide wage setting. When a few union leaders dictate national conditions, competition dies, inflation grows, and consumers lose. A healthy economy depends on free bargaining between individual employers and local unions, not national coercion.

Moral Undercurrent

The issue for Goldwater isn’t anti-labor—it’s pro-freedom. When unions become compulsory or political machines, they mimic government power and reduce personal autonomy. True labor justice, he says, requires liberating workers from coercion by either private monopolies or public bureaucracy.

In the end, Goldwater’s vision restores dignity to work by restoring choice. He views freedom of labor not as an economic technicality but as a moral imperative—a reflection of the sanctity of the individual.

To Goldwater, the Welfare State is collectivism with a smile—a softer road to servitude. He argues that modern politicians have learned that Socialism can be achieved through welfarism as effectively as through state ownership. Promising “free” benefits seems compassionate, but each program subtly replaces self-reliance with government dependence.

Dependency as a Form of Slavery

Goldwater warns that when citizens turn to government for cradle-to-grave assistance, they trade freedom for comfort. The recipient becomes the ward of the state, and the taxpayer becomes the coerced donor. Both lose moral agency—the receiver his dignity, the giver his free will. True charity, he insists, must remain voluntary or it corrupts both sides.

Moral and Spiritual Erosion

The danger lies not in generosity but in its method. Public welfare, unlike private charity, teaches entitlement instead of gratitude. It replaces community compassion with bureaucratic distribution. The Welfare State thus undermines character—the very foundation of liberty. Goldwater views this psychological transformation as the greatest harm: men cease to feel responsible for their own welfare.

Alternative to Welfarism

He urges Americans to revive private charity through churches, local organizations, and families—systems that nurture responsibility rather than dependency. If public support is absolutely necessary, he prefers state or municipal administration to prevent concentration of national power. Freedom, he argues, thrives only where responsibility remains personal and local.

Goldwater’s Warning

“Welfarism’s beneficiaries become its victims.” This line summarizes his entire message. The Welfare State, he warns, doesn’t heal poverty—it institutionalizes dependency and erodes the conscience that freedom requires.

Ultimately, Goldwater elevates the debate: rejecting the Welfare State isn’t cruelty—it’s the defense of human dignity. A free society must help the needy without becoming enslaved to its own compassion.

Goldwater concludes with foreign policy—a call to moral and political courage in the Cold War. He maintains that America risks losing its freedom not only through domestic collectivism but also through fear of confronting Communist aggression. The choice, he argues, is between risking war for freedom or submitting peacefully to slavery.

The Nature of the Enemy

Communism, to Goldwater, isn’t just another ideology—it’s a global conspiracy bent on domination. Its leaders understand the conflict as total war, where victory means universal control. The tragedy is that American leaders, obsessed with “peace,” have forgotten that peace without freedom is defeat.

The Failure of Defensive Strategy

He argues that treaties, negotiations, and United Nations resolutions cannot save freedom because they mistake caution for strength. Diplomatic “talks” merely concede legitimacy to tyranny. Goldwater notes that each East–West conference has surrendered some non-Communist ground, because defense without offense cannot win. To survive, America must aim not to coexist but to prevail.

An Offensive Doctrine of Freedom

Goldwater’s solution is bold: reassert moral clarity and strategic superiority. America must declare Communist regimes illegitimate, support underground resistance behind the Iron Curtain, and maintain overwhelming military strength—including developing tactical nuclear weapons for limited wars. Freedom, he says, demands courage and initiative, not appeasement.

Moral Summation

Goldwater’s final exhortation: “We would rather die than lose our freedom.” His foreign policy, like his domestic program, is an application of conscience—a refusal to compromise fundamental truths for temporary safety. The same conscience that rejects the welfare state at home must reject moral surrender abroad.

In his vision, victory over Communism is not mere geopolitical triumph but the preservation of human liberty. To cherish life more than freedom, he concludes, is already to be spiritually conquered.