Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
10 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Essential History of Men Too Long Ignored, November 27, 2000
Throughout most of the Cold War, 'responsible conservatism' spoke with one voice. Typified by William F. Buckley and 'National Review' magazine, it advocated energetic opposition to Soviet expansionism -- an internationalist posture of military alliances, proxy conflicts, and 'war in the shadows.' Opposition to this policy came primarily, if not exclusively, from the Left.Or so it seemed. Now that the end of the Cold War has led to a 'conservative crack-up,' more voices on the Right are willing to risk being tarred 'isolationist' to stand up for a principled stand of non-interventionism, an approach Ronald Radosh quotes Nicholas von Hoffman as calling (speaking of the views of Sen. Robert A. Taft) 'a way to defend the country without destroying it, a way to be part of the world without running it.' In such a climate, the views of men like those described in this book are beginning to be rediscovered and re-appreciated. Radosh's subjects -- Charles A. Beard, John T. Flynn, Oswald Garrison Villard, Sen. Robert A. Taft, and Lawrence Dennis -- cover both a relatively broad span of time and a wide ideological spectrum. Despite the subtitle's description of these men as 'conservative critics of American globalism,' several of them found themselves associating (or associated) with conservatives as a result of their criticisms, as opposed to their criticisms arising from an innately conservative philosophy. Beard, for example, advocated in the 1930s a centralized, planned economy. Villard, who began as a devoted free-marketeer, later was an enthusiastic supporter of the New Deal. One of the interesting strands of this book is watching how these men's political philosophies change and evolve (or devolve) over time. Do these men have any relevance to us today? Absolutely. The so-called 'revisionist' viewpoint Beard and others brought to analysis of World Wars One and Two is now beginning to be applied to the Cold War too. More importantly, the internationalist thrust is still alive and well in American politics today -- the need for an articulate opposition is as great as ever. For example: In his 'Conclusions,' Radosh notes that voices on the Left had arisen to criticize American involvement in Viet Nam (my edition of this book was published in 1975), using many of the same arguments the 'conservatives' had used to oppose interventionism in previous decades. Former assistant secretary of defense Paul Warnke is quoted as arguing that the Constitution 'cannot be read to give the President "the right to carry on an air war in a civil conflict in a tiny country on the other side of the world."' And yet, a quarter-century later, when an American president decided to carry on an air war in a civil conflict in a tiny country on the other side of the world, the most articulate voices in opposition to it came from the Right -- from the intellectual heirs of the men in this book. That's what makes this important. Today, the 'Buckleyite' wing of conservatism remains dominant. But as the conservative bloc continues to crumble, a wider variety of ideas and approaches will arise, all legitimate heirs of the 'conservative' mantle. A key to speeding the process along will be to acquaint conservatives (and the American people generally) with some of their silenced heroes, the voices in the wilderness profiled in this important book.
|
|
|
9 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Conservatives for Peace, July 17, 2002
Nowadays, when most Americans think about people who are on the side of peace and against U.S interventionism, they tend to think about those on the Left. Of course, this isn't as true as it used to be, considering that many on the Left supported Desert Storm and the attack on Serbia. ...However, as Ronald Radosh (no man of the Right) points out, many on the Right were opposed to U.S. imperialism, globalism, and war going back to the Spanish American War. In fact, the traditional approach of the Right is a non-interventionist foreign policy (often misleadingly called "isolationism.") On the other hand, it was those on the Left - such thinkers as John Dewey ...who supported U.S. involvement in foreign wars and smeared non-interventionists. In this outstanding book, Dr. Radosh profiles five opponents of interventionism of the Right: Charles Beard, Oswald Villard, John Flynn, Robert Taft & Lawrence Dennis. These people didn't agree on everything, and one or two might not be accurately called members of the "Right." (Villard, for example, drifted from laissez-faire to support of Roosevelt's economic policy.) But they were against U.S. globalism. Radosh details their position with respect to entry into World War II and then their opposition (in whole or in part) to the Cold War. What happened in the 50s and the 60s is that the Old Right was preempted by William Buckley and others (some of whom were Socialists and former Marxists) and the Cold War become a moral imperative, even if it meant endless U.S. intervention in the affairs of other countries. (This sad fact is well told in Justin Raimondo's RECLAIMING THE AMERICAN RIGHT.) This is one of the most exciting books I've read in a while. It's fascinating to read about those on the Right who were against both the welfare AND the warfare state. They knew that interventionism abroad would mean big government at home. Now that the neo-conservatives are beating the drums of war against Iraq, Iran, and who knows wherever, it is time to reclaim a great heritage of conservatives for peace. Prof. Radosh's book is an excellent place to start.
|
|
|
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Old Right Critics of American Globalism., July 4, 2005
_Prophets on the Right: Profiles of Conservative Critics of American Globalism_ by left wing scholar Ronald Radosh, first published in 1975, is a book which takes a look at some of the forgotten and all too often maligned Old Right critics of American interventionism. Radosh, who originally began his career as a sort of libertarian socialist and later moved to the right, wrote this book under the guidance of such Old Right libertarians as Murray Rothbard. The thinkers whose profiles appear in this book offered criticism of American interventionism, beginning with the American intervention in the First and Second World Wars and culminating in the Cold War, as well as of the creeping influence of the state that interventionism brought. These thinkers include the Progressive historian Charles A. Beard, the editor-journalist of the liberal _Nation_ Oswald Garrison Villard, the noted titular head of the Republican party ("Mr. Republican") Senator Robert A. Taft, the economist and writer John T. Flynn, and the self proclaimed intellectual "fascist" Lawrence Dennis. Against the smears of "isolationist" these critics challenged the interventionist foreign policies of such politicians as Woodrow Wilson, F. D. R., and Harry Truman. They called into question America's role in foreign wars which did not concern its direct national interest. And, they often did so at great personal loss.
Charles A. Beard began as a Progressive historian whose writings on the Constitution of the United States challenged accepted belief. He came to challenge the foreign policy of Wilson and Roosevelt advocating neutrality. With the entry of the United States into the Second World War, Beard became a revisionist, attempting to show how F. D. R. had provoked the attack upon Pearl Harbor to cause the United States to enter the war. He was treated harshly by his contemporaries and by later historians for his "isolationist" stance.
Oswald Garrison Villard was an editor and journalist for the _Nation_ who originally advocated anti-imperialism, pacifism, and the liberal doctrine of laissez-faire economics. He was related to abolitionists and he too would come to favor civil rights for blacks as well as women's suffrage. Later, Villard was to come to change his laissez-faire economic positions somewhat, but for his opposition to F. D. R. and to America's entry into World War II he was removed as a writer for the _Nation_. Villard later came to join the America First committee which advocated an anti-interventionist policy. He also later was to become a critic of the Cold War with Russia and opposed the anti-communist hysteria which led to investigation of Hollywood screenwriters.
Robert A. Taft came from an old political family and had the reputation for being a dogmatic "isolationist". He led the Republican opposition to F. D. R.'s interventionist policies in the Second World War. Taft was vehemently anti-communist and noted that "the victory of communism in the world outside of America would be far more dangerous to the United States from an ideological standpoint than the victory of fascism". Taft came to challenge the Nuremberg tribunal as well as supporting Joseph McCarthy's anti-communist crusade. However, Taft also came to oppose the Cold War believing that Chinese communism was more militaristic than Soviet communism.
John T. Flynn began as a liberal or radical in economic matters, seeking to find an answer to the curse of bigness in industry. However, Flynn moved to the right advocating a non-interventionist policy in the Second World War. He also came to campaign actively on behalf of the America First Committee. Flynn along with Charles A. Lindbergh were frequently smeared as "anti-semites" or "fascists" because of the presence of certain rather unsavory elements within the committee. Later Flynn came to embrace McCarthyism and anti-communism though he remained opposed to the Cold War arguing the Soviet military did not pose the threat it was believed to. This led him into conflict with William F. Buckley when he submitted an article to the _National Review_.
Lawrence Dennis remains a problematic figure for many given his open avowal of fascism as a form of socialism. Dennis began as a capitalist interventionist who later came to see the problems with capitalism and war and developed his own belief in a coming American fascism. The use of the word fascism by Dennis led him into difficulties, particularly with many communists who saw him as a fomenter of anti-semitism and racism despite the fact that his books included none of this. Dennis argued that in trying to overcome fascism and entering the Second World War, the United States would go fascist itself, leading to his opposition to entry into war and F. D. R.'s policies. Later Dennis came to abandon some of his early socialist beliefs advocating a form of laissez-faire but remaining opposed to bigness as well as foreign intervention. He remained firmly opposed to the Cold War as well as an opponent of McCarthy, probably because he himself had been tried for sedition during the Second World War.
This book reveals some of the neglected thinkers of the American Old Right who opposed foreign intervention, the new world order, and global war. While today the Right has been largely taken over by neoconservatives who advocate interventionism, these thinkers represent an older Right which resolutely opposed the senseless entry of the United States into wars which did not concern its direct national interest.
|
|
|
|
by Justin Raimondo
by Thomas E. Woods Jr.
by Bill Kauffman
See all 11 books citing this book
