I don't know whether Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is running for office as a recent article in New York Magazine suggests he is, but he's setting two philosophical straw-men against each other, and claiming that it's either one or the other:

"There is an ancient struggle between two separate philosophies, warring for control of the American soul. The first was set forth by John Winthrop in 1630, when he made the most important speech in American history, 'A Model of Christian Charity,' on the deck of the sloop Arbella, as the Puritans approached the New World. He said this land is being given to us by God not to satisfy carnal opportunities, or expand self-interest, but rather to create a shining city on a hill. This is the American ideal, working together, maintaining a spiritual mission, and creating communities for the future.

"The competing vision of America comes from the conquistador side of the national character and took hold with the gold rush of 1849. That's when people began to regard the land as the source of private wealth, a place where you can get rich quick--the sort of game where whomever dies with the biggest pile wins."

So naturally, I wonder why Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. would be trying to lay claim the mantle of Barry Goldwater in any way.

No, seriously. I recoiled in horror when I saw Glenn Reynolds's remark that the new edition of Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative contains "somewhat weirdly, an afterword by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr."

I know I get carried away at times, but I think "somewhat weirdly" may be putting it somewhat mildly. Considering Barry Goldwater's politics, I think it's downright bizarre. Although, I suppose, it could be some sort of inside Democratic political strategy. There seems to be a feeling on the left that because Barry Goldwater was a libertarianish sort of Republican and the GOP is in disarray, that there is some kind of power vacuum left open which can be magically grabbed by simply glomming on to the corpse of Barry Goldwater and hoping ordinary people won't know the difference.

Even so, a little political legerdemain by RKF Jr is in order:

"I wouldn't be a reliably liberal senator," says Kennedy. "My father was never a liberal. He was a devout Catholic with an open mind." He says Reagan and Bush have completely dekiltered terms like right and left to the point where he was happy to write a glowing introduction to the new edition of Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative, not exactly a Kennedy kind of gig. "Goldwater hated those corporate types, thought they were antithetical to individual rights," Kennedy said, claiming he's "more conservative, in the traditional sense" than George Bush and his Gitmo crew ever were.

Being a firm believer in the Reagan doctrine of "trust but verify," I had a gut feeling that Glenn was right and New York Magazine was wrong, but I just thought that I should check the cover. Sure enough, Glenn got it right:

I suppose it's possible that the introduction was demoted to an afterword after the New York Magazine article, but now I'm wondering just how "glowing" it is. It strikes me that it's the easiest thing in the world to put words in a dead man's mouth. (I say this as someone who has known an awful lot of dead people.) It's even easier when you're not putting words in their mouths directly, but claiming you know what they'd be saying if they were alive today.

So, while I haven't read Kennedy introduction, I expect it to be along the lines of John Dean's claim to be a Goldwater conservative.

OTOH, maybe it isn't, and maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

But I do think the left will be up against a rather large stumbling block.

Goldwater was inalterably, vehemently, opposed to socialism. (So much so that he was called "a dangerous lunatic," and "a result of rigid toilet training...")

Explaining away stuff like that will take some doing.

Even if you're a Kennedy.

Personally, I think the afterword might have been a bigger hit had it been written by a certain former "Goldwater girl." As she still owes him that bowl of chili she promised back when her husband was in the White House, writing the afterword wouldn't require her to claim any mantles, or even be glowing.

Her cookie recipe is all over the Internet, and a recipe for chili would carry no political cost. Considering that chili is both a Mexican and a Suthun style dish, she could even write accents into the recipe -- "multilingual" style! ("There's nothin' more Suthun than muy Suthun, and Hillary sez it best!")

Unfortunately, though, I'm not in charge of these things. And even if I were, Hillary might turn me down.