The stray apostrophe on this sign doesn’t surprise me. No one likes a grammar snob, but I don’t like this sign. It comes from “Goldwater country,” now world famous for its inhospitality. The meaning of “white” is a moving target, isn’t it? With so many Italians arriving a hundred years ago, they weren’t “white” until they had been here a good while and learned to be. They somehow ceased being not “white,” as did the Irish in the late 19th century. So, although both groups are “white,” now, it wasn’t always so. In the great Southwest, evidently “white” includes people who are ethnically Jewish, like Barry Goldwater, but not people from Spain or Mexico, even Mexicans of, say, German parentage, I suppose. I always took Mexico to be a place, not an ethnicity or skin color. But maybe that’s just me. And I winder how many people from, say Barcelona or Madrid actually wander into this restaurant. Won’t they be surprised to be singled out for exclusion, especially as “non-white”?

Goldwater said: “The Mexican is industrious, kind and a very warm family man whose hogar (hearth) is his citadel, his castle and his life. A Mexican is particularly devoted to his country and will defend it against any slur or attack. Mexicans are loyal and true friends whose word becomes their bond. One doesn’t find all of these attributes reflected in any one face, but often a reflection of the dignity born of them comes through.” He had many Mexican friends, and many Native American friends, and his friends saw in him an old-fashioned kind of integrity they could recognize, even when they differed with his opinions. His word was his bond, too, and his hospitality was not extended for personal gain.

The Goldwater version of the Republican Party was supposed to shun racism and bigotry of all kinds, and it would not cozy up to religious fundamentalists. So he said. His party would actually cut government programs to prevent the encroaching menace of executive power. It would stay out of education because the Constitution does not authorize such intervention. (This is true. It really doesn’t.) And Goldwater’s Republican Party would pass laws in accordance with a strict interpretation of that document.

Barry’s pipe dream. He was repeating what James Madison said in Federalist 10 and 44. Each branch of government tries to expand its own power at the expense of the others. There is excellent evidence for this observation, and not just among governmental entities. Look at corporations, universities and schools, and pretty much any complex social structure. They are all imperious and suffer from “mission creep.” To prevent the problem, Goldwater wanted a “civil right” defined as a right already protected by law, as distinct from natural rights or human rights. But you had no civil right where the law hadn’t yet been passed. He was willing to defend whatever rights the legislature specified, so long as they were in keeping with the Constitution. Many Libertarians take this view, but Republicans and Democrats are both heavily disposed to exercise executive power broadly and to legislate without explicit reference to the Constitution. Thus, he didn’t vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as I mentioned two posts ago. But what about racism? Was Goldwater a racist?

Not many people know that Goldwater was a daring and accomplished pilot, one of the few to fly the U2 spy plane. He was inducted into the National Aviation Hall of Fame in 1982, three years after Neil Armstrong was (see my last post). Ironically, Lyndon Johnson signed the law creating that institution. Goldwater eventually retired as a major general from the Air Force Reserves. But when he became chief of staff of the Arizona Air National Guard, in 1947, one of his first acts was to desegregate the unit. He insisted on it. His crews came in all shades. That was the military, however, not a private business. You can’t make private citizens nonracist through government intervention, he believed, and the Constitution does not authorize legal interventions of that sort in any case.

The stated reason for Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act, then, had nothing to do with his views about desegregation. Where it came to the government itself, he insisted upon integration. He had some integrationist credentials in his past, after all. But he wouldn’t pass a law, federal, state or local, to make this benighted fool remove that sign from his window or change his business practices. Goldwater’s solution to that problem? Don’t eat there, or anywhere that bigotry reigns. He served everyone at his family’s department store. That is the solution, for “a free people,” as he understood that concept. Any government that can force this business owner to do things differently cannot be trusted to refrain from deeper incursions into the freedoms of its citizens.

I struggle with this. I admire the Civil Rights Movement, about as much as I admire anything. I don’t believe things would have changed without the law –or at least, not quickly enough. Things needed to change. But I wonder. If the US government had integrated every federal agency and, under the 14th Amendment, insisted upon and enforced the same policy with respect to all public employees –state, municipal, local– while leaving the private sector alone, how quickly might change have come? What if the government led by example? It’s a pretty big government, and still would be even if Goldwater had his way. I wish I could ask Goldwater, circa 1964, “will you insist upon full race equality in all government agencies?” Would that have been enough? And where would we be today if we had done it that way? Would this fool with the racist sign still have it up in the window?

I am aware that many of the negative effects of racial integration Malcolm X predicted have come true. Like anything human, desegregation involved trade-offs. And there has been creeping executive authority: Dick Cheney’s frightening advocacy of the “unitary executive” view of the Constitution, and so on. It seems we all want the government to act when it is doing what we think ought to be done, but then we cry foul when government uses the same kind of authority to do what we don’t favor. Each side argues that freedom is being taken away. Do we or don’t we agree on what freedom is?

I think we don’t. Just as there is an old fashioned and a new fangled version of integrity, there is an old version of freedom that says people are free when they are left alone, and a younger version that says unless all are free, no one truly is. These are individualists arguing with communitarians. Communitarian freedom favors using governmental power to secure a level playing field, while the individualists say that if you use governmental power in that way, pretty soon no one will be free.

There are good citizens on both sides, but the old fashioned kind of integrity is what makes them so –knowing who you are, where you come from, and making your word your bond. The new “integrity,” in our allegedly “post-racial society” means keeping your word because you fear being caught in a lie (on the internet, for example), while also trying to generalize your personal sympathies to include people who are unlike yourself (because you fear being called a racist) is pretty thin. Like everything that has fear as its seed, this kind of integrity puts down no deep roots in history or experience. It isn’t a perennial plant. You have to plant fear over and over. It grows mainly in the shade and isn’t indigenous to anyone’s backyard. It always comes from the neighbor’s yard. Goldwater may have lost an election because of the way integrity had become thin among people other than himself –his type was becoming hard to recognize in public life. It would get worse, as we know.

Goldwater grumpily put up with being feared, but he didn’t think anyone needed to be afraid of that sign in the window. He said the biggest mistake he ever made wasn’t his vote on the Civil Rights Act, or his acceptance speech, it was his decision not to buy this bar in Phoenix. We will pick up next time with that, in the final entry on Goldwater.