Extremism in the defense of liberty
The other day I came upon a reference to a statement that, when first uttered, immediately became notorious: “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.”
This was, of course, part of Barry Goldwater’s speech accepting the Republican nomination for President in 1964. It was, I believe, Karl Hess (rather a hero of mine) who penned Goldwater’s speech, but the line itself has a rather distinguished pedigree. Its original version was uttered by Cicero: “I must remind you, Lords, Senators, that extreme patriotism in the defense of freedom is no crime, and let me respectfully remind you that pusillanimity in the pursuit of justice is no virtue in a Roman.”
Had the Roman statesman been given credit for the remark, it might not have been so quickly and widely vilified (Hess didn’t actually learn the source until much later). Still, those who weren’t around at the time may find it hard to figure out why it was so misunderstood.
This, however, is easily explained.
Back then, Goldwater’s conservatism was widely depicted in the media as a form of extremism (is this starting to sound familiar?). Anyway, upfront guy that he was, Goldwater decided to take the charge by the horns and turn it on its head. Didn’t work.
Some have said it caused him to lose the election, but I’m not so sure about that. After all, Goldwater also favored a more aggressive policy in Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson breezed to a landslide simply by arguing that he didn’t think American boys should be fighting a war Asian boys should be fighting. (You will doubtless recall that he later changed his mind.)
Anyway, it’s hard to think of Cicero as an extremist, and the truth of what he (and Goldwater) said is actually pretty obvious. Given that the opposite of one’s freedom is one’s enslavement, it’s hard to imagine why anyone would shrink from the most extreme measures in the defense of the former. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t.
But this wasn’t what I thought of when I came upon that reference to Goldwater’s ill-fated mot. What I thought of was another epigram of sorts uttered by another politician a few years earlier. Only this guy had won the Presidential election and his remark was part of his inaugural address: “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”
I not only remember watching Kennedy’s inaugural on TV with my mother; I can even recall what I said to her at the time: “Why would I ask either?” What I most want from my country (by which I presume is meant its government) is to be left alone. In return for which I am perfectly willing to let it alone as well.
For some reason, these two pronouncements have always been connected in my mind. When Goldwater was pilloried for his, I remembered how much Kennedy had been praised for his. Yet Kennedy’s is servile and Goldwater’s is exhilaratingly defiant. At first I wondered why people couldn’t see that, why they just didn’t take a moment to tease out the implications of both.
But of course, as Somerset Maugham put it so succinctly in The Summing Up: “Most people think little.” Having heard the one extolled and the other denounced, most people (or mostpeople, as E.E. Cummings liked to call them) probably just put both out of their minds and never gave much thought to either one again.
The funny thing is, I suspect that if Kennedy had said what Goldwater said, and Goldwater what Kennedy had, the reaction to the respective statements in the media would have been precisely the opposite of what it was: Extremism in the defense of liberty would have been portrayed as supremely virtuous, while asking what you could do for your country would have been dismissed as a sentiment unworthy of a free citizenry, if not as a downright plea for fascism.
We sure are lucky we have a free press.
Latest posts by Frank Wilson (Posts)
- An illusion of precision - September 9, 2015
- Watching the passing scene - October 28, 2013
- To see like a child - June 26, 2013
- Riffing and digressions - January 21, 2013
- Life is a parenthesis between one darkness and another - September 13, 2012
Print This Post
Given that defying authority was considered a virtue with Bush in power, and vilified under Obama, it seems nothing much has changed.
There is also the question of what defines extremism and freedom. Since man is a rationalizing creature (instead of rational), we’re capable of turning definitions upside down and backwards to justify anything we want to do.
I’m sure Timothy McVeigh thought he was fighting for freedom when he bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City. I believe he even excused the deaths of innocents from the day care center on the floor above his truck as “collateral damage.”
Of course, Goldwater wasn’t even close to advocating any kind of violence when he made his statement.
I remember hearing Goldwater’s “Extremism” quote when I was in high school and it sounded … odd.
15 years later after studying history in college I heard the “Extremism” quote again and I gasped. This was totalitarianism, a tearing down of laws, doing evil in the name of goodness. This was Liberalism in the philosophical sense that there is no right or wrong tactic – the End Justifies the Means. Goldwater was just as Marxist as the USSR.
And this is the same stuff the Bush administration was spouting and the same stuff Jack Bauer of “24” fame was propagandizing – America has become outright Marxist.
I like the jusxtaposition of these two quotes, and I appreciate the couter-popular take one the implications of both. I can’t, however, accept that if the two quotes had simply changed places with regard to the mouths that uttered them, they would have been interpreted much differently. Regardless of the implications of either statement, they present a very different tone simply due to the choice of words.
First, as to Goldwater’s statement: It’s fairly clear in context that Goldwater was not in any way advocating violence or behavior outside the standards of law or even common decency. The problem is with the connotative baggage associated with the word “extremism” itself. No one who believes he is advocating a good and prudent course of action would ever label himself an “extremist.” Furthermore, if one’s actions are clearly justified within one’s purpose, then those actions are reasonable and appropriate for the situation, and cannot be “extreme” by definition. Clearly, Goldwater was inentionally using powerful language to illustrate the point that he was adamant in pursuing what he thought was right and would not shrink in the face of being labeled an extremist.
As to the Kennedy quote: In contrast to Goldwater’s, he language itself is decidedly un-belicose. Rather than highlighting divisiveness, it is inclusive. It emphasises a more positive view of patriotism which is defined by service, not by conflict. I find it strange that you would use the word “servile,” which is extremely perjorative, compared to the widely-understood and venerated idea of service. Furthermore, the first part of the statement “ask not what your county can do for you,” would seem to be a call for self-reliance instead of advancement of the wellfare state–an idea that rings pretty true across the political spectrum, and particularly with conservatives– like Goldwater.
Another poster picked up on your narrative, noting that “defying authority was considered a virtue with Bush in power, and vilified under Obama.” I have to question this ongoing narrative–that somehow liberals get away with everything and conservatives get misquoted–again pointing to the actual words used.
I observed Bush to use a lot more language regarding ‘good and evil,’ ‘for us or against us,’ while Obama often tries to say ‘we’re all in this together,’ ‘let’s see where we can agree,’ etc. I’m not arguing policy here, or even saying one guy was better than the other. I’m merely pointing out that people do use different kinds of language, and that language choice is extremely important to message.
Back to service and extremism: As a veteran, who was willing to do potentially extreme things in service of my country, I never once equated my sense of duty with the lowly idea of servitude. I could extrapolate from your argument that an individual who signs up to serve his country is “servile” and even unpatriotic–quite a paradox.