While running on the Florida State University campus I ran over a chalked advertisement for the Young Republicans. The ad began with a paraphrase of Goldwater’s famous quote: “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!”
After seeing this, I thought about it for the next six miles. Like most runners, I find that I think I think best when running. This blog post will provide an interesting test of that thought.
On the face of it, the claims made in the quote seem to be in error by definition. After all, extremism seems to entail going beyond what is actually needed to defend something and that justice, by its very nature, requires a balance between excess and deficiency.
To use an analogy, imagine a doctor who said “I would remind you that excessive medication in the defense of health is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of well being is no virtue!”
Obviously, excessive medication would be (by definition) too much and hence injurious rather than beneficial to health. As such, this claim would be in error. In the case of well being Aristotle seems to have established quite well that moderation (avoiding excess and deficiency) are the key to well being.
As such, while the claims might have a rhetorical o dramatic appeal they seem to be fundamentally in error.
It could, of course, be replied that I am begging the question against Goldwater by taking “extremism” as being on par with “excessive” and taking moderation to be the mean between excess and deficiency. It could be contended that Goldwater means something else by these terms. To be specific, the extremism he is referring to could be taken as what is seen as being extreme but is, in fact, just what is needed to defend liberty. In the case of moderation, he is not talking about the mean but rather by being a political moderate and willing to compromise and take a middle ground.
Interpreted in this way, what he would seem to be saying is something like “I would remind you that doing what it really takes to defend liberty, even though it might seem extreme to some, is no vice! And let me remind you also that taking the middle ground and compromising too much in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” This seems reasonable enough.
Interestingly, if the quote is taken literally, then he seems to be simply wrong. Extremism is going beyond what is needed and moderation (neither excess nor deficiency) is what is required by justice (otherwise it is not just). If the quote is taken less literally, then it merely amounts to a rhetorical way of saying something that is true but not particularly controversial or interesting.
As a final point, I have noticed that people often use this quote in an “argument by quote/slogan” in an attempt to justify what actually are extreme and immoderate policies and rhetoric. Of course, merely quoting someone hardly serves to prove a claim (although it can be taken as an argument from authority)-though some folks seem to think that this does so with finality.
On a stricter view, “extreme” is a superlative meaning “outermost” or “farthest” rather than “excessive” (see the OED’s etymology of “extreme” on this point). If one takes this view of the meaning of “extreme”, then the philosophical difficulty of the phrase disappears, and, in the most literal sense the quotation is not wrong at all.
“The noun [extremist] was apparently coined in the magazine The Eclectic Review during the Polk Administration, was noted in Joseph Worcester’s 1846 dictionary and was popularized in 1850 by Senator Daniel Webster in connection with views about slavery and its abolition: “The extremists of both parts of the country are violent.”
An earlier term, extremite, did not catch on: in 1546, Bishop Stephen Gardiner, criticizing a Protestant leader, noted, “Folowynge the newe scoole of extremites, he denied all degrees of grace.” Another form of the noun was used in an English proverb cited in 1639: “Extremity of right is wrong.”
But extremist triumphed, and as night follows day, the -ist led to the -ism. The Daily Telegraph of London wrote in 1865 of “these days of extravagance and extremeism,” trying it out with an e before the -ism.
In our time, when the label was tagged on Senator Barry Goldwater by supporters of moderate Republican Nelson Rockefeller, he blasted back at the 1964 G.O.P. convention with a contrapuntal line submitted by the speech writer Karl Hess: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” A roar went up from his partisans as he continued: “And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”
That only defense of the word in its history led to political disaster for its user. I was there in the Cow Palace of San Francisco, vainly pulling along a banner reading “Stay in the Mainstream,” and looked over at Richard Nixon’s box: in the pandemonium, Nixon was sitting on his hands, shaking his head; he knew that Goldwater lost all chance of winning with that refusal to move toward uniting the party. A few weeks later, Nixon pointed out to the G.O.P. standard-bearer that his applause line was being construed as an endorsement of extremism, and Goldwater responded he should have said that “wholehearted devotion to liberty is unassailable and that half-hearted devotion to justice is indefensible.” But it was too late to rewrite the speech.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/14/magazine/on-language-what-s-an-extremist.html
On Language;What’s an Extremist?
By William Safire, January 14, 1996
Safire later made the following correction about the ‘extremism in the defense of liberty’ line:
“I credited that to Karl Hess. This is disputed by Seth Leibshohn of Washington, who holds that ”the author of that speech was a then-professor of political science at the University of Ohio and now at Claremont, Henry Jaffa.”
As best I can reconstruct it, the inflammatory speech was largely written by Hess, with a quotation — of Marcus Tullius Cicero defying the conspiratorial Catiline — contributed by Professor Jaffa; Goldwater (or one of his acknowledged ghosts) wrote later that ”I had heard it earlier from the writer Taylor Caldwell.”
Cicero, criticized for his hasty execution of five of Catiline’s supporters, said, ”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.”
It may have worked oratorically for Cicero, but backfired when used by Goldwater.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/19/magazine/on-language-out-of-the-whole-cloth.html
On Language; Out of the Whole Cloth
William Safire July 19, 1998
“I would remind you that excessive medication in the defense of health is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of well being is no virtue!” Although the discussion has centered on the adjectives “excessive” and “moderation”, if one instead examines the topics of “medication” and “well-being” then how does one arrive at the conclusion:
medication = liberty, and well-being = justice? That makes no sense.
“I would remind you that excessive pursuit of well being in the defense of health is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in medication in the defense of health being is no virtue!” That makes more sense.
To paraphrase and simplify Goldwater’s statement without adjectives and double negatives:
“Liberty is virtue. Justice is vice.” That makes some sense, at least as a better starting point for discussion.
Personally Dennis, I think this is more fitting:
“Extremism is virtue, Moderation vice!”
I can see the Tea Party reloading to that one. Not a good starting point for discussion I grant you, but then that’s hardly what they want.
extremism good moderation bad. Ugh. Can I have my banana now?
I am not sure about the political background against which all this is embedded. For me it is no more then a slogan, a rough and ready, rabble rousing device. it cannot seriously be taken as an approved way of life. Were this the case we would approve of our enemies, who no doubt seeing their cause as just, used extreme methods, and laugh at those who sought to engage peacefully.
I am taking it here that extremism means anything goes provided one gets one’s way. This often entails great suffering on the part of the innocent. If so called Liberty emerges from this it is at enormous cost and, somehow must be tainted.
Re: Posted by dubious | January 24, 2011, 1:11 am
“Extremism is virtue, Moderation vice!”
The statement is grammatically incomplete. It contains no subjective or objective reference, and thus is open to any kind interpretation. From the point of view of philosophy, the only thing that can be discussed is what motivates people to consider such a statement. Is it ignorance? Is it fear? Is it sneakiness? I propose it is deliberate rabble rousing. I see no indication that it is a slogan of the Tea Party. The Goldwater quotation was associated with a Republican Convention.
“Liberty is virtue. Justice is vice” is a different phrase. It is not recognizable as Platonic, Aristotelian or Kantian. With the possible exception of J.S. Mill, it is not Utilitarian. But I like it.
Dennis
“Extremism is virtue, Moderation vice!” is indeed not, as far as I know, something you will presently find wrapped round a Tea Party member (or brick). As something the sneaky might use to rouse a fearful and ignorant rabble I think it might work quite well. I was not, of course, proposing it as a dictum by which we should live by.
Barry Goldwater was openly critical of what he saw the GOP becoming before he died – a party increasingly directed by religious bigots and what he himself termed ‘extremists’. He was for abortion, for gays in the military and whilst he was known as Mr Conservative in the 1960s, he would be denounced as a ‘liberal’ in the current climate. I rather doubt he would be a fan of the Tea Party.
“Liberty is virtue. Justice is vice” has, of course, nothing to do with Goldwater eithier. It sounds intriguing, but I don’t see how liberty can be deemed a virtue (as opposed to A Good Thing) – virtues, after all, seem to be things we ascribe to moral agents.
Re: Posted by Dubious | January 25, 2011, 11:44 am
“…a virtue (as opposed to A Good Thing)”
I am not sure what you mean by virtue is opposed to A Good Thing. Could you cite some reference? I agree liberty is not included in a list of Aristotelian virtues, but that was my point.
I can see difficulty in ascribing liberty as a virtue, especially if one considers Bertrand Russell’s opinion “Virtue is the vice of philosophy.” However, if you simply consider liberty as not being good, then we may agree to differ.
A virtue is an admirable quality ascibed to the character of a moral agent – what else is to be said?
Well, if we read charitably (I seem to recall some philosopher of language talking about interpretation and charity) it seems to be saying “liberty and justice are unalloyed goods, and therefore there is something questionable about saying about the pursuit of liberty or justice ‘let’s not have *too* much liberty or justice.’” A non-time-wasting critique would begin with questioning whether it is really true that liberty and justice are unalloyed goods. So begin it, somebody. Hello? Hello? Is this thing on?
R.Kevin,
I apologise for any time you may have wasted reading my posts. ‘Are liberty and justice unalloyed goods?’ is indeed a far better question than any I have raised.
‘Liberty’ I think I could, at least, define (the freedom to do what you want up to the point of harming others, Mill Junior etc etc). Justice? When pressed, no, I’m at a loss. “Getting what you deserve”? But what does ‘deserve’ mean? I’ve never seen or conceived of anything I now feel warranted in applying the term ‘justice’ to. ‘Unjust!’, ‘unfair!’ I hear cried all the time, when’s there’s a burden somebody doesn’t want to bear, or a good somebody feels deprived of. “Justice!” I hear demanded when somebody wants an eye for theirs. But truly, I don’t know what any of it means. I say this as an admission of intellectual and spiritual poverty. There is something I’m just not grasping, at least I like to think so. I’d like to feel warranted in saying there is injustice in the world, truly I would. It sounds so intuitively ‘right’ to say so, there is so much that truly horrifies. But still, to me, its all just ‘boo!’, ‘hurrah!’. Which is not to pretend I don’t dress up my own ‘boo hurrahs’ in talk of ‘justice’ or ‘morality’. It is just that, on reflection, I think all I can be doing is expressing my disgust. It’s a thought that deeply saddens me.
Again, I seem to have filled a much needed gap. Apologies. Just a cry in the dark. Good luck with your enquiry.
Re: Posted by R. Kevin Hill | January 25, 2011, 2:50 pm
“Liberty and justice are unalloyed goods…”
Liberty and justice are opposites in terms. Liberty is freedom. Justice is repression. Liberty is an observable phenomenon. Justice is a human contrivance.
Liberty is pure, justice alloyed? Maybe. However, pure and alloyed are two adjectives used by some philosophers to compare natural phenomena with ethical considerations. Such comparisons are vague and open to interpretation. Is a useful conclusion possible from such a comparison? In my opinion, no.
Re:- Dennis Sceviour Jan 26th.
I cannot remember coming across the terms alloyed and unalloyed in philosophy before, but perhaps my reading has not been extensive enough. ‘Conflated’ is however, very common.
I am not sure how justice can be repressive. Do you mean all so called just acts, lead to repression? Surely it is possible to think of some which are liberating. A person unjustly imprisoned may be liberated in the light of further consideration or evidence. We would then say Justice had been done and liberation effected.
Re:- Don Bird, Jan 26th.
Don, I was thinking of Kant’s definition for pure (unalloyed) and the opposite, mixed (alloyed). However, you are probably correct. Google Scholar gives no exact usage of “alloy” in philosophy. The point still stands that the use of metaphors does not offer much insight into understanding the relationship between science and ethics. Some of the questions on repression have been addressed before in the comments on Mike LaBossiere’s article “Balance of Law”, May 30, 2010.
Would we then say Justice had been done and liberation effected? I would say justice has been repealed and liberation effected.
To be charitable to R Kevin Hill, no of course, you won’t find ‘alloy’ as an entry in a philosophy dictionary, it is not a technical term in that field as Dr Hill is presumably well aware. Presumably by ‘unalloyed’ he means something like ‘unadulterated’ in the non-technical sense of ‘unqualified’. The question then is somehting like this: ‘Are Justice and Libery good(s) without qualification?” Dennis, you seem to take Justice to be bad without qualification (an ‘unalloyed’ evil) which may prompt the question of whether you take ‘injustice’ to be an unqualified good but I don’t think thats a bullet you need to bite. You also seem to take Liberty to be an unqualified qood, a less unusual position, but you also equate ‘liberty’ with ‘freedom’ whilst most of those who strongly argue for Liberty do not usually argue that freedom is an unqualified good (the freedom of x to murder y infringes somewhat on the liberty of y). There is commonly thought to be a tension between justice (as a good thing) and liberty (as a good thing) and I suspect it was that tension R.Kevin is inviting us to explore. Dennis’ position, by defintion, will allow no tension of that nature. But the tension remains between freedom and liberty and between apparently conflicting liberties e.g. the liberty of those who wish to protest at the funeral of a serviceman and the liberty of those who wish to conduct a peaceful memorial service.
Re: Posted by Dubious | January 27, 2011, 8:41 am
I find too many semantic confusions in your posting, but I do appreciate the challenges. I have already agreed that “alloy” is not used in philosophical description. If I did use “alloy”, I would take Justice as alloyed in the Kantian sense that it is impure. Murder is not a freedom. For example, if x murdered y because it was the law (eg. death penalty), then the law is still repressive. Do you specifically mean “the liberty of those who wish to protest” against liberty, or “the liberty of those who wish to protest” against servicemen, or “the liberty of those who wish to protest” against a peaceful memorial service?
Dennis,
I apologise for any semantic confusion you may have encountered.
Let us ditch further mention of ‘alloys’.
Your position as I understood it, was that ‘Justice’ is an unqualified evil. That is to say that Justice is never a good or morally necessary thing. Am I mistaken in that interpretation?
Your assertion that ‘murder is not a freedom’ perplexes me. My point was that if unlimited freedom is allowed, then the freedom to harm infringes upon the freedom of the harmed. We tend to think of freedom as a qualified good, a good thing that must be restricted to allow for the liberty that may well be an unqualified good.
Regarding the funeral, the scenario I was trying to suggest to you is one in which there seems to be conflicting rights. Let me try again.
In the US religious groups like the Westboro Baptist Church have staged anti-gay protests at military funerals. You may feel people have the right to protest and that even in this case the freedom to protest must be ensured.
You might also feel that a group should be free to conduct a religious service unmolested by picketing bigots, that the liberty of the memorial attendees is being infringed upon by the former group.
In this case it seems there are two claims to liberty that can not both be satisfied.
Posted by dubious | January 27, 2011, 12:07 pm
“Am I mistaken in that interpretation?” You are mistaken.
Thank you for your clarification. So Justice (“repression”) is not always bad.
Dennis,
Having reflected on the wisdom of your posts, I shall retire from the field, humbled yet inspired.
It is amazing how the clear intent of a statement can be micro-analyzed without considering whether there is merit in what is being said. What ever happened to “First, seek to understand”? The clear intent of Goldwater’s statement is the simple question, how much of liberty are we willing to give up in the process of accommodating and placating those who would take it from us? Goldwater said not one micrometer, which doesn’t seem like an unreasonable position. But, if you disagree with his position, then you must answer the question of how much would you be willing to concede?
I also sometimes have worthwhile thoughts when running. Unfortunately I cannot jot them down at these occasions, so many of my best thoughts will be lost forever.
“Extreme” doesn’t mean “excessive.” It means something more like “far beyond the average.”
Are we debating “Ethics” or “Grammar”? Only the “Elite” Liberals would sit around debating the meaning of “extremism” and “moderation” while an enemy of Freedom comes up an kicks their arse between their shoulder blades. Veterans and Real citizen patriots know exactly what Sen Goldwater meant.
Thanks for the ad homimem.
Extremism in the defense of Liberty. Yes, I remember watching that Convention on Black and white T.V. I voted for Goldwater and we lost the election. “WHY”? Because most of this country is moderate. Goldwater at that time was suppose to have said also as in reference to Vietnam war, “We could drop a small Atomic Bomb on Vietnam and that would end the war”. The democrates on T.V. were showing an exploding Atomic bomb in reference to the Republican Party. There’s no such a thing as a small Atomic Bomb, their all to big. The Republican Party still hasn’t learned a thing after loseing that election. Newt Gingrich is about as far right as you can get and yet there he is at the top of the Republican nomination List. If he gets the nomination we will lose again. Moderate Republicans and Independents won’t vote for him.