The Making of the American Conservative Mind
By Kevin Holtsberry Posted in History — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It is hard to decide what to make of the recently released The Making of the American Conservative Mind: National Review and Its Times by Jeffrey Hart. Is it history, political philosophy, biography, memoir, polemic?
All of the above. Hart - a longtime senior editor at National Review and Professor Emeritus of English at Dartmouth – weaves all of these aspects into the work. The result is a fascinating, thought provoking, and yet in many ways aggravating book.
More below . . .
In order to better judge the book's merits it helps to separate the strands that run through it: the largely consensus history of the period; the particular history of National Review magazine; and the argument about what American conservatism is and should be.
Hart's views on the history of the late twentieth (and early twenty-first) century are unlikely to be controversial. He passionately presents President Eisenhower as a conservative – contrary to NR's view at the time - but for the most part his overview reflects the general re-evaluation of the Eisenhower Presidency, one that has elevated Ike's status a great deal
Interestingly, Hart's chapter on Bill Clinton – entitled "Was It Better Than It Looked?" – is a grudging appreciation. Hart acknowledges Clintons personal flaws, and that he could and should have done more about terrorism, but stresses Clinton's pushing the Democratic Party towards the center and his presiding over eight years of economic growth and prosperity.
The presidents that take the most heat from Hart, however, are both named Bush. The first President Bush is dismissed as a "nice guy bad president" type who was elected as a third term for Reagan but whose policies inexplicably reflected a rejection of Reagan's ideas. Bush 41 gets little or no credit for managing the end of the Cold War or building the coalition for the first Gulf War for example. Hart's disdain for Bush is palpable.
While his dislike of Papa Bush might be a tad stronger, Hart doesn't seem a fan of the current president either. Hart questions whether any of Bush 43’s successes can be termed conservative and fears that the President is pushing conservative politics in a populist, emotional, and crusading direction rather than the proper balanced and pragmatic one.
Some of the strongest sections in the book cover what might be called the founding fathers of modern American Conservatism. Hart sketches the biographies, influences, and thinking of the men who lead the resurgence of conservative thought in the twentieth century.
Starting with the two figures who had the biggest impact at National Review, William F. Buckley and James Burnham, and moving on to the important writers that began contributing to the magazine –Russell Kirk, Frank Meyer, Wilmore Kendall, Bill Rusher, etc. – Hart provides interesting and insightful portraits of the important thinkers and writers that were building the nascent movement. As both a historian and a participant Hart describes how these outsized personalities and intellects formed the "American conservative mind."
If Buckley is the personality that jump started it all, James Burnham is the force behind its stability and longevity. Burnham – the former Trotskyite, philosophy professor, and CIA analyst – is clearly the hero of Hart's story. For Hart the strategic guidance and pragmatic sensibility that Burnham provided was a crucial ingredient in NR’s growth from an upstart political magazine to the journal of record for a political movement.
In addition to providing informative chapters on Buckley, Burnham, Kendall, as well as the variety of young talent that ended up writing for NR, Hart has a fascinating chapter on Russell Kirk vs. Frank Meyer. For those who think the clash between traditionalists and libertarians is a new development this chapter will prove illuminating. Hart argues, however, that the heated disagreements had more to do with temperament and style than deep philosophical differences:
What each contributed to National review and to the making of the American conservative mind were necessary parts of that mind, which is not either/or, tradition or individualism, but both/and. Very few conservatives are all one or the other.
And here we come to the central problem with Hart’s work. Hart is constantly trying to squeeze a philosophical argument into his history. In telling the history of National Review he attempts to make the case for a particular type of political and philosophical conservatism – what he calls a "politically viable and thoughtful American conservatism" - but fails to provide the necessary structure or evidence for many of his claims.
His conclusion in particular is full of generalizations, over-simplifications, and accusations that are not informed by, nor backed up by, the bulk of the book. This tendency to sneak into his history arguments about what makes up “true conservatism” (or what this conservatism should look like in the political realm) mars an otherwise fascinating and entertaining story.
Hart characterizes his own perspective as "Burkean, yet interpreted for the American situation." He seems to have been heavily influenced by the writings of both James Burnham and Willmoore Kendall. (At one point he even offers William James's pragmatism as a guide to morality. This is certainly the first time I have heard James offered up as a guide for conservatives.) But what exactly this means in specifics is far from clear.
There are a couple of things that do stand out. For Hart the story is a battle between competing voices or perspectives. He contrasts emotion and rational thinking, realism and idealism, pragmatism and utopianism, elitism and populism. Hart always sides with realism over idealism, pragmatism over utopianism, and elitism over populism. This is the standard Hart uses to judge the trajectory of NR. This is not necessarily surprising. Few conservatives would deny the danger of an overly dogmatic, utopian worldview that denies reality in favor of mere wishes or dreams; or one that always gives into the desires of the masses.
But what mars much of the analysis is Hart's inability to acknowledge that there might be other approaches to politics than a center-right coalition that tugs the elite in a conservative direction.
In Hart's mind it is always better to vote for the winner and retain influence than cast a protest vote. It is always better to lean center-right than stray into "dogmatism" or "doctrinaire" positions. Any decision that doesn't reflect Hart’s view of "actuality" is utopianism. His positions are "flexible and strategic" while others are "ideological and intransigent." These loaded terms aren’t always used consistently or fairly. This, combined with a number of dubious assertions, makes the work sound off key in spots.
Hart also skews the picture in his favor on occasion. For example, the populist and socially conservative aspects of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater are ignored because they don't fit the model. Whereas, George W. Bush is portrayed as a populist “moral authoritarian” whose views are divisive and not really conservative at all.
To this anti-populist theme, Hart adds a distrust of Protestants and evangelicals. Although his preference for "High" church might be a continuation of his elitism. For example, he outlines the "failure" of Protestants:
[T]he Catholic Church has been successful in guarding its long-perfected metaphysics, or doctrine about God, while Protestant churches have failed through what Dryden called a "downhill Reformation." Individuals cannot do the work that has taken centuries to complete
Hart also criticizes the Great Awakenings as having a baleful impact on American thought. He portrays these events as merely the rise and fall of emotion – another Hart bugaboo - and asserts that a third Awakening helped propel George W. Bush to the presidency. Hart muses that perhaps NR should host a symposium entitled "Is Evangelicalism Conservative?"
Hart is clearly uncomfortable with evangelical's entrance into the political arena. He asserts that President Bush has "brought religion into the foreground of American public policy in a nearly unprecedented way." And goes on to assert that:
Whatever might be said against the excesses of liberal secularism, the accepted convention in America has been that religious beliefs are a private matter. President Bush challenged this convention, but he did not seem to recognize the full implications of his approach to questions of religion and public life."
I don't have the time or space here to debate this assertion, but it is an over-simplification at best and certainly a dubious accusation to make without evidence.
This brings us to the conclusion. Late last year the http://www.opinionjournal.com/ac/?id=110007730 ">Wall Street Journal ran a modified version of Hart's conclusion and the article stirred up a great deal of discussion online – particularly his views on abortion (here is a good place to start). I won't debate Hart's conclusions here, but what should be noted is that the final chapter is almost completely disconnected from the rest of the book
It reads like the outline for an argument not an argument itself; as if Hart ran out of steam and just decided to list out the issues he wanted to comment on. He introduces terms and subjects that are barely touched on in the text and his positions on issues are sometimes at odds with what he said early in the text. Hart calls this an attempted synthesis but it is really a hodge-podge of haphazard thoughts and rants.
Hart offers a paragraph each on terms like Hard Utopianism, Soft Utopianism, The Nation, National Defense, Constitutional Government, and Free Market economics while launching multiple page rants about how conservatives should give up their opposition to abortion, celebrate beauty in the arts, and better their record on conservation, among other things. These come across as critiques of conservatism you might find in the New York Times not from a former National Review Senior Editor.
It appears to me that Hart is not entirely comfortable with the magazine National Review has become. He notes that it has become a more Washington focused current events oriented journal and worries about the lack of philosophical discussion.
It is also clear that Hart prefers an East Coast elite aesthetic to a more Southern and Western populist perspective. The changing demographics of the Republican Party and their impact on conservatives cut against the grain of Hart's preferred style.
All of the above criticism, however, should not be read as a dismissal of the book. One can argue with his history and disagree with his conclusions, but anyone with an interest in the history of conservatism - or American politics for that matter - will want to read Hart's contribution. It is a fascinating and important part of the history of this country.
« "We're All Gonna Die!!!!!!!!!!!" — Comments (44) | The Other 25th Anniversary — Comments (23) »
The Making of the American Conservative Mind 14 Comments (0 topical, 14 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
(1) It appears Mr. Hart has never read any comprehensive collections of the Founders' writings or speeches. Otherwise, he couldn't say with a straight face that "the accepted convention in America has been that religious beliefs are a private matter". The freedom of choice in religion (or not) is private, but the actual discussion of it in public? Not even CLOSE to taboo, in the days of the Founders. Their speeches and writings abound with references to God, religion, morality, in ways that would cause a scandal if uttered by W today.
(2) Mr. Hart also appears completely ignorant of the history and doctrine of (the entire class) of protestant faiths. He praises Catholic adherence to long-standing doctrine (ignoring the outright rebellion against those doctrines by a significant minority of seminarians, parishioners, bishops, and priests), criticises a supposed Protestant "downhill reformation", yet ALSO slams evangelicals. This is intellectually incoherent. Certainly mainline protestant denominations have liberalized their doctrines in many ways (i.e. abandoned many long standing doctrines), but their membership is falling. Membership in evangelical denominations -- which emphasize a return to biblically-based doctrine, that dreaded "fundamentalism" -- is exploding. Yet Mr. Hart decries THAT, as well.
In short, Mr. Hart has no freaking clue what he's talking about in this area, unless his position is: Catholic = good conservative, anything else = bad. If that is his position, then I'd sure like Mr. Hart to explain the, er, less-than-conservative voting patterns of catholics over the last 40 years (although that is beginning to change).
- Papa. I think GHWB will end up in the lower third of Presidents on a historical basis. It was the "vision thing". I do believe that he could have been the best Secretary of State ever, just that as POTUS he was way over his head.
- W. We'll see. Personally, I think he's phenomenal on foreign (phoreign?) policy, is the right man in the right place for the GWOT. I would like for him to be a little more aggressive in that area (Iran and N Korea), but I can't imagine any contemporary politician doing better.
With respect to domestic policy, he's a disaster. He's not met a government program he didn't like and didn't think needed more money. I don't know if domestic spending will ever be controllable after this.
He has exerted next to no leadership with regard to the Congressional R's. We still don't have permanent tax cuts or a drilling platform in ANWR. He's let John McCain get away with everything he was interested in getting away with. And he has, until recently, steadfastly refused to stand up to the Congressional D's. I find his domestic performance very depressing.
3. Billery. The reason Bill had a domestically (as in US, not under his roof with family) successful Presidency is the R Class of 94. Bill's signature feats were really the Contract with America. If Newt hadn't overreached and shut the govt down, and then let Bill take credit for being the moderate who got it going again, the story might read differently. Oh well. His work beyond our borders was less than satisfactory. To say the least.
I think Bill with end up being rated higher than GHWB, but way below RR and slightly below W. Way below W if he decides to get his domestic agenda under control.
if in fact he only approves of the Roman Catholic Church as valid form of "conservative" Christianity. But I think his point may go deeper than that, an he only uses Catholicism as an example since it is, after, the plurality religion of the this country (there are more Catholics than any other denomination).
The deepest split in Christianity is not between Protestants and Catholics or between liberals and conservatives. Rather it is between the tradition-based churches and the individualist churches. On the former side you have those churches which espouse some sort of real and tangible connection, in both doctrine and structure, to the Christian past: obviously the Catholics, but also the Orthodox and the Reformation-born Protestants (the Lutherans, Anglicans/Methodists and the various Reformed churches). These churches are communal in doctrine and practice, and are ruled by some sort of ecclesial governing institution. Individual members are expected to conform to them, at least in matters of major importance. They also tend to emphasize reason and structured worship. Politically they may be either liberal or conservative since the Christian tradition has elements of both ideologies, which of course were ultimately birthed from its influence on secular culture. On the other side the individualistic churches that start out with the premise of "me and Jesus" (or maybe "Me and the Bible") and are simply meeting places for individuals who happen to agree on enough doctrinal and practical matters that they can get along--the church itself has no real authority at all. Additionally these churches tend to be based on emotion or at least the experience of religiosity. Like the traditionalist they too may be either liberal or conservative, though generally this is simply a matter of individual preference rather than a reasoned stance. Here you will find the Evangelicals and the Pentacostals, "new" churches like the LDS and the JWs, and various liberals like the Quakers and the Unitarians.
Hart's point that conservatism does best when it grounded in a tradition-based approach rather than in the vagaries of passion ought not be controversial even if the reported way he has stated it sounds a little like religious bigotry.
There is a legitimate discussion and debate to be had about the hyper-individualism of some churches and America's tendency to reinvent everything, etc. Just as there is a legitimate debate about populism and conservatism.
Tradition and a respect for the wisdom handed down to us is a integral part of conservatism. But this doesn't mean that you can't be a evangelical and be conservative or that people not steeped in the liturgical traditions can't have a intellectual tradition of their own.
Your categories are flawed. You classify "Lutherans, Anglicans/Methodists and the various Reformed" as tradition-based, which may be either liberal or conservative. By and large, these denominations' official platforms, promulgated by their "ecclesial governing institution" are uniformly doctrinally liberal (as distinct from politically liberal -- although that is often applicable, too). Its only in their worship styles that they are "conservative". (There are obvious exceptions, but I'm talking generalities).
Thus, I dispute that "conservatism does best when it grounded in a tradition-based [religious] approach", if tradition-based is limited to the categories above.
On the other hand, most evangelicals (including explicit "Evangelical" churches, as well as Pentecostals) are proudly conservative in their doctrine, while being a mixed bag politically. Strangely, tho, you leave out two MAJOR denominational groups: Baptists (Southern, free, or whathaveyou), and AME (and other majority-ethnic protestant denominations). Both of these groups are, in your terms, individualistic -- even though the Southern Baptist churches are technically free of control by their Convention, it still exercises a great deal of (doctrinally conservative) influence over those local churches. So, in both of these groups, doctrine is also "conservative". However, in the latter case ethnicity is a greater determinant of political leaning, while the former case -- Baptists -- tend to vote heavily Republican. And the B's are the largest protestant denomination in the US. (Which, I suppose, makes them the #2 plurality behind Catholics of all stripes). So you've got highly conservative voters in an "individualistic" denomination -- and it's the largest group of Protestants extant. I'd rethink my thesis, if I were you. <g>
Thus, I further dispute supposition above -- especially as (1) most "fundamentalists" would be classified by you as non-traditional, even though they view themselves as returning to the early-church traditions (even speaking-in-tongues Pentecostals, the most "individualistic", "emotion-based" branch, is explictly named after Pentecost for Pete's sake -- pun intended.) Worse, (2) the Catholic block, while the largest religious plurality, is not nearly as "tradition-based" as you imagine -- many of America's catholics are "cafeteria-style": "I don't like THAT doctrine (contraception) nor THIS doctrine (papal authority: just ask Andrew Sullivan), but I do like THIS one (salvation as a free gift)" ... couple that with the seminarian, priestly, and diocesan rebellions against "traditional" catholic doctrine over the last 30 years, and you have an American catholic church that, in its minutiea, is not really traditional [but that may be changing in recent years]. (Which, contra my thesis, may explain catholic non-conservative voting patterns over the same 30 years, and recent shifts in those voting patterns -- coincident with a return to traditional Catholicism?).
Basically, I think that doctrinally conservative churches tend to have politically conservative voters, and doctrinally liberal churches tend to have politically liberal voters -- and this is regardless of worship style (high church or not) or reliance on "tradition". There are obvious exceptions: you can't get more doctrinally conservative than the Quakers, but their voting pattern is, well, hard to classify -- the Quakers are extremely tradition-based, but are not particularly fertile ground for political conservatism.
I agree with you that some of NR's contributors are too eager to accept Catholicism as the root of religious conservatism. In part, Buckley's conservatism stems from his belief in God and faith in the Catholic church, which has rubbed off on the contributors of the magazine.
Most social conservatives are not Catholic. In fact, I'd wager there are more liberal Catholics than conservative Catholics, especially on social issues.
Hart's rejection of non-Catholic Christianity (Protestants, Evangelicals, Latter-day Saints, etc.) seems a bit elitist. Perhaps, it is the failings of Catholicism itself that consign him to sneer at Bush's faith.
I think people are too hard on Bush 1. Bush's subtle "new classical" approach to the recesion he inherited was the right move in retrospect. I've read economic assessments and I agree that Bush's handling of the recession had a direct impact on helping the markets correct themselves. His broken promise on taxes was the right move and also had a hand turning the corner. Like Nxon's case, I think history will not be as kind to Bush 1 as it should.
RR, will always have mixed reviews. Lots of highs and lows and everything in between. While "supply side" looks good on paper, it's not clear whether it was the right remedy. M. Freedman's monetary policy, though slow in yielding results had a lot to do with correcting the horrid economic times of the 70's. Reagan's undisputed positive was in boosting American morale.
Bush 2's verdict is still out. I think it won't be good. The Iraq war and GWOT will play out over a longer time when things become more clear. But unless the economy turns around and grows its way out of deficits, any economic dark times in the near future will be attached to Bush.
Clinton will be in the upper third...not sure where. He was truly a great politician....and a better conservative in terms of domestic policy than Bush 2. I'm surprised more fiscal conservatives don't miss his economic policies.
While Catholics, and I am one, tend to be more lax on social issues, I'm not so sure if it's inherent in the faith. I think it's more a demographic issue. Most Catholics are in the Northeast and Great Lakes (Chicago!) region and also on the West Coast. These parts of the country are also more liberal regardless of party.
The Baptists, on the other hand are confined to the South, which is more socially conservative.
So, I think demographics are the key here.
I think Bush will be a notch below Reagan in stature, with long-term successes realized by future Presidents (namely Iraqi democracy) that are retroactively attributed to him ala Reagan and the Cold War. Deficits are unfortunate, though a degree of such spending would have happened regardless of who inhabited the Oval Office after 9/11. Nonetheless the success of forcibly removing tyrannical, malignant regimes is likely to be his lasting legacy. That said, a significant failure between now and '08 or poor decisionmaking by his successor could jeopardize that. Thus history will likely record him as an important president, with flaw but with significant and lasting successes to trump them.
it kind of hard not to see the roots of conservatism in the Roman Catholic tradition, at least in the West. It is from the Catholic thinkers of the Middle Ages that much of what undergrids our civilization (the things conservatives want to conserve) springs.
Also, in more recent history, the Roman Catholic Church was in the forefront of the pro-Life cause right from the beginning. Some evangelical churches (and notably the Baptists) waffled for a few years on the issue in the immediate aftermath of Roe vs Wade.
certainly agree with your post. In recent years I have noticed a healthy trend among the Evanglical churches (at least some of them) to start questioining themselves on some of these issues. Christianity Today has a respect for tradition, as do the Evangelicals who write for First Things, and works like The Scandal Of The Evanglical Mind show that evangelical thinkers are aware that their roots may be dangerously shallow if they do not connect fully with the whoel of the Christian past.
Re: By and large, these denominations' official platforms, promulgated by their "ecclesial governing institution" are uniformly doctrinally liberal
In what sense are they doctrinally liberal? I'm aware that you can find some deplorble trends and individuals (like the awful Bishop Spong), and certainly you can find political liberalism, but I'm not aware that they have officially ditched the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection etc. They have not become Unitarians.
Re: Its only in their worship styles that they are "conservative".
We Orthodox have a saying (in Latin, oddly): Lex orandi, lex credendi-- very loosely translated praying right is believing right. Don't dismiss worship as a trviality. It is the center of our relationship with God.
Re: On the other hand, most evangelicals (including explicit "Evangelical" churches, as well as Pentecostals) are proudly conservative in their doctrine
I beg to differ. If you compare what is taught in many evangelical churches with the Great Councils or the works of the great Reformers, they come off very poorly. They get the most important thing right (Jesus Christ, son of God Savior) but much else is incoherent or sensationalist. I'm not trying to pick a fight but that's the way I see it. As as for Pentacostals, many of them go so far as to deny the Trinity. I don't call that conservative doctrine.
Re: Strangely, tho, you leave out two MAJOR denominational groups: Baptists (Southern, free, or whathaveyou), and AME (and other majority-ethnic protestant denominations).
I was thinking of Baptists under the "Evangelical" heading, altough I know that they would bristle at that classification. I admit I donl't know much about African American churches apart from their outward reputation for political activism and emotionalistic services.
Re: Worse, (2) the Catholic block, while the largest religious plurality, is not nearly as "tradition-based" as you imagine -- many of America's catholics are "cafeteria-style"
I was talking about the Church itself, not the failings of individual worshippers. start judging Christianity by the sins of its adherents and you'll end a pagan real fast.
Re: Basically, I think that doctrinally conservative churches tend to have politically conservative voters, and doctrinally liberal churches tend to have politically liberal voters -- and this is regardless of worship style (high church or not) or reliance on "tradition".
I don't think you can have a viable conservatism without a reliance on tradition (and that is where I definitely agree with Hart). The two are initimately linked. Otherwise you end up with the sort of emotion-led, issue-du-jour-activist mess that is the modern Left. That tradition should not be identified with a single church, but it needs to be something more than whatever the latest poll shows about things.
Having subscribed to NR for a long time, I find it insightful and delightful, as in NR Online.
BUT!...
They're kind of like having a beloved pet that continually leaves a mess in the living room.
NR's current religious persona drives me crazy. Super-Catholicism, all the time. Mr. Hart is not the only one there that has had a problem in recognizing that the US is a Protestant-majority nation, and that its institutions are simply unthinkable apart from that tradition, which the Catholic immigrants had to learn. (Albeit many are better at it now than the WASPS!)
Many of the writers on The Corner high-five themselves over their Catholicism and the dogmatic purity thereof. A month ago their on-line advertising was dominated by books by the Pope and a bio of Mother Angelica. If one was surfing in from Middle America to NRO for the first time, it would all look very peculiar.
When their writing touches on religion and value issues linked to religion, there is the risk of comments that run from the rote recitation of the Vatican line to the culturally obtuse to the cusp of bigotry. I don't think they realize how mean they can sound. Kind of like liberals. Ugh!
Sorry for the rant, but if not here, where?