What if the book every conservative needs to read was published fifty years ago?

At only 100 pages, The Conscience of a Conservative has inspired conservatives for decades, yet there has been no revival of this book in the recent groundswell of conservative thought in the United States.

Written by Barry Goldwater in 1960, The Conscience of a Conservative built momentum for his unsuccessful 1964 presidential election. He may have lost that election, but the influence of his legacy continues to shape the conservative movement.

This classic political book should be required reading for anyone who attends a Tea Party. Goldwater’s slim manifesto still accurately explains our philosophy and political movement.

Far too many conservatives struggle to articulate why he or she identifies with the movement. It’s easy to express what we’re against: higher taxes, big government programs, the welfare state, and intrusion into our private lives. But what do we support? What does it mean to be a conservative?

Writing in a similar era when Republicans were also painted as the “party of no,” Goldwater opens his book by defining conservatism. He writes:

…the Conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.

He also explains the difference between conservatives and liberals:

The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man’s nature. The conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual need spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man’s nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man’s spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand—in the name of a concern for “human beings” –regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society. They are moreover, in a hurry. So that their characteristic approach is to harness the society’s political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel “progress.” In this approach, I believe they fight against Nature.

Goldwater outlines the three aspects of what a conservative believes. All three should be memorized and understood by anyone claiming the label of conservative.

1. Every person is a unique member of human species.

“The Conservative knows that to regard man as part of an undifferentiated mass is to consign him to ultimate slavery.”

2. The economic and spiritual are “inextricably intertwined.

“He cannot be economically free, or even economically efficient, if he is enslaved politically; conversely, man’s political freedom is illusory if he is dependent for his economic needs on the State.”

3. Each individual is responsible for his or her own material and spiritual development.

“The choices that govern his life are choices that he must make; they cannot be made by any other human being, or by a collectivity of human beings.”

The Conscience of a Conservative continues to cover the dangers of big government, states’ rights, civil rights, labor, education, taxes and spending, and education.

If busy conservatives only took the time to read the first chapter, “The Perils of Power,” “States’ Rights,” “Taxes and Spending,” and “The Welfare State,” the Tea Party movement would be much better off.

Again, if you’re searching for a book on the path that conservatives should take to restore our nation to the vision that the Founders intended, The Conscious of a Conservative is a smart place to start.

While Goldwater grew more libertarian and antagonistic towards social conservatives towards the end of his life, The Conscious of a Conservative is a fast read that articulately lays out the timeless case for conservative values.

Over the last fifty years, our goal still remains the same. The charge Goldwater wrote in 1960 still applies today:

Thus, for the American Conservative, there is no difficulty in identifying the day’s overriding political challenge: it is to preserve and extend freedom.

In a time when millions of Americans are seeking alternatives to the Big Government, Chicago-style tactics of the Obama Administration, conservatives should read Goldwater’s classic.

Cross-posted at Smart Girl Nation.

Via Feministing and Broadsheet, I watched this video that the Daily Caller put together. Not only did it feature several of my former co-workers, but it was also silly. The premise was dumb, yet the women interviewed tried to explain why they were there.

No where in the video did the women say that their reason for attending was “boys, boys, boys” as Tracy Clarke-Flory alludes. Actually, if you listen to the video, the majority of the women are attending for work. The college students articulate that they are attending to learn about the issues and support candidates.

Even in the twisted world of feminism, I thought learning about issues and supporting candidates was supported. Oh, silly me. I forgot that different rules apply to conservatives. We’re supposed to shut up and pretend we don’t exist.

Oh crazy feminists, get over yourselves and do the math. CPAC proactively reaches out to college students with steep discounts on ticket prices. Traditionally 50% or more of the attendees  are college students. Since more women are now matriculating than men…connect the dots. Also, attendance was up 20% overall this year with at least 10,000 people registering.

I realize that this this is difficult to swallow since it proves:

1. CPAC, the representation of all that is evil to the universe of liberals, is growing. 10,000 is a lot for any conference on any subject or political ideology.

2. Women are actually conservative, including college-aged women.

3. Conservative women aren’t ashamed of being attractive.

4. With more and more conservative organizations targeting women and inviting them to attend events like CPAC, it’s hardly surprising that they would show up.

It really is amusing to read through liberal blogs and newspapers and see what the left pulls out of CPAC. It’s like they attended a completely different conference than the one that I saw.

I think I make it pretty clear that I have zero respect for both Jessica Valenti and Meghan McCain here, but Jessica really out did herself with saying “just when you think CPAC can’t get any creepier.” Really? Just Really? This video freaked you out that much? With all the actual evil in the world done to women, those women at CPAC are the worst?

Angry Mouse writes in Feminism Fail:

No, not that kind of feminism. Not the theory of women’s equality or the history of suffrage or the First Wave or the Third Wave or 18 million tiny cracks in the glass ceiling.

I’m talking about Feminism^TM, as in the largest feminist advocacy organizations in the country raising millions of dollars to fight on behalf of women.

And I’m wondering if Feminism^TM is really such a good investment.

You got that right. After initial successes in getting media attention and making inroads at the workplace in the 70s, feminists realized that they had a good thing going. What’s better than being an activist for a movement? Being a paid activist for a movement. How do you sustain the movement? You create cushy academic programs to ensure that your belief system is passed onto younger generations. Despite all of their gains in certain sectors, like the media and academia, these women are always in a crisis! of some type. Why? Crises are extremely profitable:

And it’s always a crisis. Even under a Democratic president, with a Democratic supermajority in Congress, the nation’s biggest feminist organizations are in crisis mode, raising money but unable to deliver results. They’re just as effective as they were under Bush. Which is to say, Not. At. All.

Could it be that women are catching on that this philosophy is superficial and doesn’t work outside of a hippie commune? This week, the National Journal examined how the Susan B. Anthony List has tripled the amount of PAC money spent compared to NOW, that old stalwart of the feminist movement. However, when all pro-life PAC money is compared to anti-life PAC money, the anti-lifers outspent us. Just what did they do with all that money? Since a majority of Americans are now opposed to abortion, it doesn’t appear that the angry ladies have been very successful. Angry Mouse isn’t too happy about it:

In the last decade, we’ve seen more restrictions on women’s reproductive health, more government-funded sex (mis)education, and budget cuts everywhere — for after school and early education programs, for employment and training programs, for programs to fight domestic violence — all of which directly and disproportionately impact women.

And at every step backwards, the major feminist organizations have been powerless to stop it. Or just plain absent.

Both the Daily Kos piece and the National Journal article discuss how feminist groups were silent on the health care debate until the Stupak Amendment passed in the House. National Journal writes:

The Susan B. Anthony List has been educating its audience on health care reform since early spring, while NOW was getting ready to change its leadership. Yet NOW is well-situated to fire up public pressure because it has 450 regional chapters — some of which have their own paid staff.

And Angry Mouse:

In other words, Emily’s List didn’t bother to raise awareness of the threat to reproductive rights when it might have mattered. You know, before Congress voted on the Stupak Amendment.

Over the summer, while members of Congress were speaking with their constituents about what should and shouldn’t be included in the health care bill, where were the feminist organizations? They weren’t mobilizing the millions of women across the country who would have been only too glad to raise their voices in opposition. Guess it just wasn’t a good time.

No, they were busy sitting on their hands, apparently waiting for the eleventh hour, waiting for it to be a crisis.

Meanwhile, the nation watched wall-to-wall coverage of teabaggers screaming nonsense about socialist death panels. And that tiny fringe of teabaggers, with their signs and their slogans and their stunts, was so effective that they actually succeeded in killing the part of the bill they found objectionable. Score? Teabaggers: 1, Feminists: Big, fat zero.

We’re seeing an overwhelming malaise on the left, particularly among women. Feminists were successful when they had major donors and the media in their pockets. When the news was controlled by only a few, they could make it look like all women supported these efforts. However, now that alternative media and the Web have grown, and conservative female leaders have emerged, feminists can no longer keep up the charade.

Perhaps the biggest change this year is the freedom to be female and conservative. For most of my life, I felt like the lone voice in the wilderness. It’s as though the feminist shackles are removed, and women can be articulate, educated, professional and conservative. While I’m gleeful to see organizations that I’m ethically opposed to struggle, this ultimately gives women more choices. Women no longer have to doggedly follow one set ideology. They have the freedom to decide which side they publicly support. Ironically, the decline of Big Feminism means that the equality goals of feminism could actually be achieved.