P.J. O’Rourke has written a great book on Adam Smith. In doing so, he has exposed the juxtaposition between the Adam Smith liberal and the current day liberal.

As I read your posts, I find that you are an Adam Smith liberal vis a vis capitalism. However, you seem to shun any identity with current conservatism. That is your call. But in reality, modern liberalism argues for massive state control and market intervention. Since libertarianism is limited to a basic corps of nut cases, that is no place for political refuge.

It must be very lonely being an Adam Smith Capitalist with no political force to cleave to.

When I meet a capitalist who claims not to be conservative, I suspect I am dealing with someone who is basically a fan of what has traditionally been called a “mixed economy.”

How interesting. As a non-conservative capitalist, I am hardly interested in preserving – or *conserving* – the current order, which is the mixed economy; rather, I want to end it. When I meet a capitalist who claims to be a consistent and thorough-going conservative, I know (from logic and from experience) that I am dealing with a fan of the mixed economy.

being an ardent capitalist does not make one a conservative

Indeed, which is why I have stressed for years, on this blog and to anyone else who will listen, that I am no conservative (and thus merely a tolerated guest here). Calling me a conservative would be unfair. It would warp the meaning of the word. Likewise, claiming that *NONE* of Bush, Romney, McCain or Huckabee may be called a conservative warps the meaning of words.

The difference between capitalists who do not espouse the political conservative principles and conservative capitalists is the permissiveness the mere capitalists will grant the government to usurp markets

You have it reversed. Alleged capitalists such as Bush, Romney (a bit less), McCain and Huckabee (the most) who espouse political conservative principles do not truly believe in tiny government, or in other words, will grant the government a great deal of latitude to usurp markets, whether it be in the name of law and order, social cohesion, Christian compassion, or whatever conservative principle is their favorite. Laissez-faire purists, such as myself, will not grant that to government.

In the Republican Party, major candidates such as McCain, Huckabee and Bush 43 gain major success as “conservatives”, yet they support policies and rhetoric that are largely anti-capitalist.

ILC, I do not believe that a political conservative in the US can support policies that are “anti-capitalist.”

McCain, Huckabee, Bush 43, Romney, all claimed to be conservatives. Not one of them is a conservative. They may be religious conservatives or hold a few social conservative views, but they do not adhere to the whole package of conservative core principles.

At the same time, being an ardent capitalist does not make one a conservative.

Governments do have to interfere with the free market. The difference between capitalists who do not espouse the political conservative principles and conservative capitalists is the permissiveness the mere capitalists will grant the government to usurp markets in order to nourish the government or to directly control a market.

When I meet a capitalist who claims not to be conservative, I suspect I am dealing with someone who is basically a fan of what has traditionally been called a “mixed economy.”

Conservatism, as a political movement or tendency, has not consistently supported capitalism.

Did I offer some evidence in favor of that assertion? Yes. Could I offer a lot more, if I wanted? Yes. Catholic conservatives, for example, go around stating such IDEAS as ‘Money is the root of all evil” which is the height of anti-capitalism. Meanwhile, did you offer any evidence against my assertion? No, just a general assertion of your own that conservatism “is a set of ideas”… which surely is beyond all dispute here. Poor try.

Conservatism, as a political movement or tendency, has not consistently supported capitalism. In the Republican Party, major candidates such as McCain, Huckabee and Bush 43 gain major success as “conservatives”, yet they support policies and rhetoric that are largely anti-capitalist.

Your mistake is that neither conservatism nor the conservative movement are defined by individual candidates, it is a set of ideas to which different people subscribe in differing degrees.

“…. I’d take a wild guess that —……. (Goldwater) might have gone camping in the desert rather than make a choice in the 2004 election…”

Wow, oh, wow!!!! Goldwater would have permitted the likes of John Kerry to take the Presidency? Wow! It would appear, if this wild assertion can be made with a straight face, that Goldwater was as nuts as the Democrats claimed he was.

Conservatism, as a political movement or tendency, has not consistently supported capitalism. In the Republican Party, major candidates such as McCain, Huckabee and Bush 43 gain major success as “conservatives”, yet they support policies and rhetoric that are largely anti-capitalist.

But, to the extent that conservatism has supported capitalism, then you can say conservatism has helped end slavery, child labor, and the suppression of women. Meanwhile, the Democrats, the anti-capitalists, have consistently been America’s party of backward-looking racism: first the Democrats supported slavery, then the Democrats gave us Jim Crow, and today, by way of making up for those plagues, the Democrats want to give us the plague of racial quotas.

As for markie: yeah…

Way to go bushie. Your legacy as worst president ever is secured.

conservative ways brought us child labor, the suppression of women and non-whites.

Ah, yes, the BIG THREE core prinicples of modern conservatism. Isn’t it just a crying shame that slavery ever got dropped from the list?

I am beginning to think that markie has trouble with his synaptic connections in the frontal lobe. Perhaps second hand inhalants magnified by localized global warming has caused some type of injury.

Child labor was brought about by life. It has existed in every pre-industrial society in the world throughout history, because life is hard and families in the undeveloped world need every penny they can scratch together. Conservative ways, that is free-market ways brought the innovation and wealth necessary to end child labor. Nor did conservatism bring about suppression of women or non-whites. The “supression” of women was also brought about by life and the necessity in undeveloped nations and pre-industrial times, for someone to stay home and take care of the children. Work was more often than not manual labor. Sex roles developed because of the natural abilities of the sexes. Again, it was free-market principles, and wealth creation that negated the necessity of the traditional gender roles. And it was God-fearing, pious, religious Christians and Constitutional originalists who brought about the end to both, not secular and atheist collectivists. Indeed, much of the leftist (communist) world still employs child labor. Such ignorant claptrap.

“I will offer a choice, not an echo.”

This next one is interesting, because it could cut a couple of different ways:

“I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle.”

Goldwater clearly was willing for America to fight abroad in the defense of freedom. Even in places like Vietnam. But among his qualms, were a strong belief that America must do the job right, and fight-to-win. I could see Goldwater ripping on the bungling we’ve had in Iraq after Tommy Franks left and before David Petraeus came back – while still strongly supporting American victory. Kinda like McCain has done.

No one can speak for the dead, but…

Indeed, Trace. So why are you trying to do it? Tell you what – Let’s let the dead speak for himself:

“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!”

Somehow I doubt Goldwater would be part of the mushy political center, on anything. How about this:

“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.”

A perfect description of the terrorists, right? You know Trace… those bad guys our troops are successfully fighting in Iraq? Then there was Goldwater’s _Why Not Victory?_ speech, whose train of thought began along these lines:

“Once upon a time our traditional goal in war and can anyone doubt that we are at war? – was victory…”

So Trace, your claiming that Goldwater “would not have supported the war in Iraq”, is wishful thinking at best. You say, “No one can speak for the dead, BUT… ” In other words, “BUT I, Trace, can.” That’s pretty outrageous, Trace.

Goldwater was no William F. Buckley and certainly lacked the experience of polished oratory that Ronald Reagan developed over the many years speaking on the road under his GE contract.

Goldwater was far more conservative than Nelson Rockefeller, who he beat out for the nomination. He also swamped Dr. Walter Judd. I had extensive interviews with Dr. Judd and William Scranton over several years regarding the Goldwater candidacy and his brand of conservatism.

My two interviews with Goldwater were full of colorful language and Trumanesque salvos at those who did not please him. I certainly did not know him well enough to have any comfort whatsoever predicting what he would do or say next.

I give Goldwater great credit for boldly going where no Republican nominee dared enter since the 1920′s. He was our first post-war conservative candidate and was the vanguard for the Reagan candidacy.

Modern conservatism is defined by Buckley and Reagan. Goldwater did not leave much of a conservative legacy. We conservatives honor him, but we hardly turn to his scant writings or even rarer oratory for guidance.

As I said before, if the Rockefeller Republicans want to shape him as their own, he will be whatever they make of him. Goldwater is only a landmark to modern conservatives.