Replies

I just read this in In Defense of Freedom and Related Essays, which is a collection of Frank S. Meyer's best essays, and includes his famous book "In Defense of Freedom," which was originally printed in 1962 by Regnery. The collection was edited by William C. Dennis, and is printed by the Liberty Fund. I received my copy more than three years ago during a trip to the headquarters of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, which is only several miles from my house. The book is part of ISI's Library of Conservative Classics . I finally got around to reading it recently (it's hard to read your own books when you're in college). I think the ideas outlined in Meyer's book are the closest I've ever seen (in print) to my own ideology.

Meyer is a "forgotten founding father" of the modern conservative movement. He was a senior editor of the National Review from 1957 until his death in 1972. I think Meyer's important contribution to the formation of the conservative movement, both intellectual and political, is often overlooked and/or forgotten. Thankfully, a recent biography titled "Principles and Heresies: Frank S. Meyer and the Shaping of the American Conservative Movement by Kevin J. Smant (printed by ISI Books) tries to right this wrong. The biography came out less than a month ago in May 2002, and was recently reviewed by Ramesh Ponnuru in the National Review. For a short bio. on Meyer, visit the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty

SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

This article is interesting, and not without merit. If we can get away from the name-calling (fascist, traitor) we might reach some sort of understanding.

``Recently, however, there have been ominous signs that the danger of a disbalance just as alien to conservatism is arising not from traditionalist quarters, but from an untrammeled libertarianism, which tends as directly to anarchy and nihilism as unchecked traditionalism tends to authoritarianism.''

This sentences makes me want to look for more writing by Mr. Meyer. Pyro, you made part of this sentence boldface, while it is important in its entirety.

This is something I've said frequently here on FR: Liberty and responsibility go hand in hand. Liberty without responsibility leads to mayhem, and responsibility without liberty leads to slavery.

For example, the left-wing approach to drug prohibtion revolves around isolating people from their bad acts with such suggestions like giving people free needles, or free health care and drug counseling. The left cannot see that these undermine personal responsibility. On the other hand, the authoritarian approach to drug-prohibition involves punishing everyone for the bad acts of others. The authoritarian does not acknowledge that some people can handle addiction better than others, and want to jail all users to get the ones would cause trouble.

If we have a balanced approach to drug prohibition, we would in no way subsidize people's bad habits on the one hand, but when someone commits a crime we should lock the door and throw away the key.

Frank S. Meyer is well remembered by the thinning ranks of what we once called (with capital letters) Young Conservatives, including me. He and Elsie Meyer often entertained the young lions at his mountaintop home in Woodstock, New York. If we respected Frank, we adored Elsie, a dear person and wonderful hostess.

Every wall of the house, and even an addition to the house, was lined with books. This reflected both the Meyers' great minds and Frank's work as book editor of National Review. The discussions were intense and instructive. I was going to say "enLIGHTening," but Frank was so much a night person, he hardly ever saw daylight! The talks lasted all night, over too many glasses of Dewar's.

Their two young sons, John and Gene, frequently joined the grown-up talk, or whupped their elders at chess (Gene today is an international Grand Master, John a Master). Gene is still active as founder and gray eminence of the Federalist Society. He looks just like his dad :-)

It's difficult to make any sense of this because it doesn't clearly define the distinction between government and society. It gets halfway there with the statement "libertarian conservatives champion freedom as the end of the political order's politics", but is far less clear in addressing the other half (that social norms must be left exclusively to social tools such as selective association, criticism, etc. and may not become entangled with the state).

Thank you for posting this, Pyro. It complements well an article I posted yesterday in which I appealed to Republicans to understand what they would vote FOR if they cast a so-called protest vote for a Libertarian Party candidate. It generated some lively discussion. I supposed I should not be surprised at how many people misunderstand — and adamantly refuse to consider — the true position of the group of founders who wanted a limited federal government. What they wanted was for the states to retain their sovereignty. They wanted strong state governments and a weak federal government. What the above article calls "libertine libertarianism" is as foreign to what they had in mind as Jupiter is to Earth.

Meyer bump. His vision that real-world libertarianism could work hand-in-hand with staunch conservatism and be productive together was a great and valiant effort made with admirable sincerity. His detractors, as I remember, were the ones who came up with the 'fusionist' term, implying that it was a compromise or melting down of the two great strands of conservatism.