Goldwater standard?

No matter how Tuesday's election went, it's safe to say that conservative voters were influenced by the "religious right," and liberal voters were driven to represent everything that conservatives are not. But what's ironic and tragic about the religious right's position in Republican politics is that it's so far away from the views of the founding father of modern conservatism, Barry Goldwater.\nGoldwater served as senator from Arizona from 1953 until 1987 in five terms (excepting 1965-68, when he was out of office) and rose to become the most influential senator in the past 50 years. His prominence began in 1964 when he ran for president. Despite losing to Lyndon B. Johnson, his beliefs became the foundation of the modern conservative movement. He ran on a hands-off governmental policy, rejecting many of the New Deal initiatives, civil rights laws and anything else that involved heavy government involvement. He wasn't a racist or against poor people; he just strongly felt that government worked best when it had little impact in American lives. Years later, despite initial opposition, he was happy to see that his views built the platform to help elect Ronald Reagan president. But, as he saw Reagan run off with political success, he became disturbed by the growing religious right.\nWhen Reagan was elected in 1980 and the religious conservatives became involved in politics, he strongly spoke out against it. He felt that religion had no place in government, that morality shouldn't be governed. History tells us that Republicans didn't pay too much attention to him, which is kind of sad because he was right for a number of reasons.\nFirst, you can't simply force your religious views on a secular nation. It just doesn't work for one religion to rule a country that embraces religious freedom for all. Second, it invades Americans' right to privacy. I know it's not a constitutional right, but our history suggests that we have a right to privacy -- yet religion, in structuring people's personal lives, wants to go exactly where this right says government shouldn't. Third, when allowing religion into politics, the country is forced to deal with nutcases like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and my new favorite religious conservative figure: Ted Haggard. True, he wasn't as famous a figure in the movement, but as president of the National Association of Evangelicals, he was very influential -- often supporting the Republican leadership and even having conference calls with the White House. Republicans create enough scandals on their own without embracing people who allegedly have affairs with male prostitutes and do meth while proclaiming supreme morality.\nMaybe Goldwater knew what he was talking about. Maybe he wasn't simply some old man complaining. It's sad that Republicans didn't listen to him. I mean it would be like Americans not listening to George Washington about the threat of political parties ... oops, damn. We didn't listen. Or like Americans forgetting that all men are created ... damn, we kind of forgot that, too. Oh well, perhaps we could pay attention just this once.