Essay Instructions: Analyze the following for the causes and effects of the conservative intellectual movement: defining a significant question, formulating a hypothesis, gathering and assessing evidence, reviewing critically the work of others on this subject, evaluating alternative methods of inquiry, critically reviewing one''s own arguments, and relating one''s findings and conclusions to a larger political context of issues.
*Note - all the mentioned sources must be mentioned and footnoted, a table of contents must be included, an abstract clear introduction and conclusion. (allow only 4 - 6 pages total for the abstract, table of contents, intro and conclusion)
In analyzing the causes and effects of the Conservative Intellectual movement, Ellen Schneider''s Cadres for Conservatism, and George H. Nash''s The Conservative Intellectual Movement Since 1945, and J. Ronald Oakley''s God''s COuntry: AMerica in the Fifties, provide excellent detailed information of the time period.
CAUSES (roughly 6 - 8 pages)
Three schools of thought, as well as the mentioned individuals and their works, must be mentioned in defining the causes of the movement - libertarian - F.A. Hayek''s The Road to Serfdom, Albert J. Nock''s Memoirs of a Superfulous Man,anti-communist - James Burnahm and his works, and traditionlists - Russell Kirk in The Conservative Mind and Richard Weaver in IDeas Have Consequences (Hayek and Nock should stick out as the most influential). In addition, analyze their role in adding a sense of legitimacy, conservative heritage, and defining conservatism in the US. Moreover, in analzying the causes, bring in post war sentiment, the economy, etc.
EFFECTS roughly (11 - 13 pages)
Three individuals - Marvin Leebamn, William F. Buckley, and William Rusher - along with their works must be included in analyzing the effects of the three schools of thought of the causes of the conservative intellectual movement. These works include The National Review - primarily the earlier editions, John Judis biography on WIlliam F. Buckley - Patron Saint of the Conservatives, William Buckley''s GOd and Man at Yale. Lastly, you will need to analyze the role, and signficance of Leebman, Buckley, and Rusher - particularly his interview on globetrotter.berkeley.edu/conversations/ Rusher/rusher-con0.html, as well as those involved in the causes of the movement in modern day conservative politics (its origins, leaders, ideals, etc).
roughly 2 - 3 pages
PRESENT DAY EFFECTS of the conservative intellectual movement of the 1930''s and 1940''s?
Further, here is a very rough draft of my work thus far:
Abstract:
This paper examines not only the causes and effects of the conservative intellectual movement, but also the role of William Buckley and William Rusher in the blossoming of the youth conservative movement? Talk about structure of paper, who not strictly chronologically placed (ie hayek before the rest) ? in this order for thematic purposes, to enhance the genuiness of the paper (branches of the movement brought up in order of importance to youth conservative revolt) For instance, Hayek had perhaps the greatest impact on the effects of the movement ? Buckley and Rusher. These individuals, their beliefs, their principles were extremely influential in better understanding the origins, history, and leaders of American conservatism.
Introduction:
In 1945 no articulate, coordinated, self-consciously conservative intellectual force existed in the United States. There were, at most, scattered voices of protest, profoundly pessimistic about the future of their country. Gradually during the first postwar decade these voices multiplied, acquired an audience, and began to generate an intellectual movement.
- George Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945
In 1950 Lionel Trilling, one of America?s leading intellectuals, made his famous remark that ?In the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition. For it is the plain fact that there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation.?
What caused this gap in ideology to be bridged?
What did the end of World War II bring?
The 1950?s - characterized by strong anti-communist sentiment and the convergence of parties and the electorate on the center - would mark a political watershed in the United States. In 1952, Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson commented, ?The strange alchemy of the time has somehow converted the Democrats into the truly conservative party of this country ? the party dedicated to conserving all that is best, and building solidly and safely on these foundations.? Further, as sociologist Daniel Bell points out, the left virtually disappeared during the 1950?s and the ?socialist and the communist parties dwindled to insignificant factions (Oakley, America?s Country in the 50?s).? The dissolution of the Left would mark the emergence of a ?conservative consensus,? also known as the new conservatism.
WHAT WERE THE CAUSES OF THIS MARKED DEPARTURE FROM LIBERALISM AND THE EMERGENCE OF CONSERVATISM?
By the mid 1950?s the conservative intellectual movement began to gain momentum. The social and political implications caused by the end of World War II and the beginnings of the Cold War ? primarily a strong anti-communist sentiment - would be essential in providing the framework for the development of the conservative intellectual movement. At the center of this movement were William F. Buckley and William Rusher. William Buckley?s main contribution to the conservative intellectual movement was God and Man at Yale ? a ?godsend? for conservatives in America, ?a manifesto akin to what C. Wright Mill?s The Power of Elite was for left-wing students (Cadres for Conservatism, Schneider).? Buckley, in attacking the ?atheism and collectivism? in religion and economic courses at Yale, drew national attention to the conservative intellectual movement of the 1950?s.
William Rusher played a similar role in the development of the conservative intellectual movement. As publisher of National Review and first president of Harvard?s Young President?s Club (Cadres for Conservatism, Schneider), Rusher was further able to bring attention to the principles of the conservative movement. However, in contrast with Buckley, who had been deeply rooted in conservative ideals since childhood, Rusher claimed that, ?the atmosphere of the Cold War and particularly the Korean War brought about his transformation to staunch anticommunism (Cadres for Conservatism, Schneider).?
The emergence and rise of the conservative movement of the 1950?s, in combination with the emphasized roles of William F. Buckley and William Rusher begs a fundamental question: What compelled young intellectuals ? Buckley and Rusher ? to ?represent the first wave of youth revolt in favor of conservative principles, anticommunism, and growing state power (Cadres for Conservatism, Schneider)? in American during the 1950?s? In addition, what triggered this movement and what were its effects?
Intro: Evidence that each author puts forward in advancing the causes and effects of the conservative intellectual movement?
The conservative intellectual movement ought to prove interesting to anyone concerned with major trends in American politics.
Paint the picture of the 40?s?
Before examining the causes and effects of the conservative intellectual movement, we must define liberalism and conservatism in the context of the 1940?s and 1950?s. Liberalism signified the broad series of ?reformist, interventionist, collectivist, and redistributionist impulses, to be implemented within the free-enterprise system, that were associated with Franklin Roosevelt?s New Deal.? In defining liberalism during this time period, show how the conservatives, old and new, readily attacked liberal ideals. Conversely, conservatism, in a very broad sense referred to the opposition of these policies and an emphasis on individualism, traditionalism, and anti-communism.
In analyzing the causes and effects of the conservative intellectual movement, the causes ? the articulation of conservative ideals ? and the effects ? the emergence of a youth conservative revolt based on ?conservative principles, anticommunism, and growing state power? - must be differentiated from one another.
The conservative intellectual movement was initiated by a group of conservative intellectuals. The conservative principles of the 1950?s were articulated by three groups ? the ?classical liberals? or ?libertarians,? those associated with the ?new conservatism? or ?traditionalism?, and finally a militant, evangelistic anti-Communism group. Each group dealt with a particular aspect of ideals behind conservatism ? individualism, traditionalism and anti-communism. The ?classical liberals? were most concerned with ?resisting the threat of the ever expanding State to liberty, private enterprise, and individualism, while those associated with ?new conservatism? ?urged a return to traditional religious and ethical absolutes? and the third group was most concerned the Soviet threat. Each of these groups had a particular impact on initiating or establishing the intellectual framework for the conservative intellectual movement of the 1950?s.
EFFECTS
Immediate effects Emerging from these three groups would be a new generation of conservative young people to bring about the quest for philosophical order ? William Buckley, William Rusher, and Marvin Leebman. These individuals were responsible ? through the publication of the Weekly Review, and other periodicals ? William Buckley?s God and Man at Yale, as well as the formation of youth conservative groups Schneider?s YAF or Young Republicans ? for adding legitimacy and credibility to conservatism at during a time of need. THE ROLE OF RUSHER AND BUCKLEY, THEIR IMPORTANCE
Long term effects
The causes of the conservative intellectual movement can be attributed to two primary factors ? the intellectuals that had fostered the conservative intellectual principles, and the anti-communist sentiment that the United States had adopted since the end of World War II. The beliefs and works of a particular group of intellectuals - Friedrich Hayek, Richard Weaver, Russell Kirk, and Albert J. Nock - were essential in sowing the intellectual seeds of the conservative movement that developed in the 1950?s. These individuals, each representing a different wing of the conservative movement, had a profound impact on establishing the groundwork for William Buckley and William Rusher.
CAUSES -
Traditionalists ? Richard Weaver and Russell Kirk
Among the three strands of conservatism that emerged from World War II, the traditionalist branch of the conservative intellectual movement represented ?a return to traditional religious ethical absolutes and a rejection of ?relativism? which had allegedly corroded Western values and produced an intolerable vacuum that was filled by demonic ideologies (introduction, xvi, Nash).? In particular, Richard Weaver and Russell Kirk served as influential figures in fostering the development of the conservative intellectual movement in America during the 1950?s?.
As an undergraduate at the University of Kentucky in 1927, Richard M. Weaver became convinced that ?the future was with science, liberalism, and equalitarianism... (Nash, 38).? By his graduation in 1932, he had joined Norman Thomas? Socialist Party of America. However, by the early 1940?s Weaver?s beliefs and his works would become a foundation for the traditional branch of the conservative movement - ?I began to perceive that many traditional positions in our world had suffered not so much because of inherent defect as because of stupidity, ineptness, and intellectual sloth of those who for one reason or another were presumed to have their defense in charge (Nash, 38).? By 1939, in the mind of Weaver, liberalism had lost its meaning.
In 1948, Richard Weaver released Ideas Have Consequences ? referred to during its time as the ?the fons et origo [source and origin] of the contemporary American conservative movement (page 39 Nash).? As George Nash points out, ?The subject of Weaver?s book was nothing less than the dissolution of the West (Nash, 38).?
Weaver states, ?The denial of everything transcending experience, means inevitably? the denial of truth. With the denial of objective truth there is no escape from the relativism of ?man is the measure of all things.?
Richard Weaver, in illustrating ,had provided the basis for the principles behind traditional conservative movement - ?a return to traditional religious ethical absolutes and a rejection of ?relativism? which had allegedly corroded Western values and produced an intolerable vacuum that was filled by demonic ideologies (see beginning of paragraph).? Richard Weaver, in writing Ideas Have Consequences
In particular, Weaver is able to explicitly? [build on Hayek?s criticism] of collectivism in depriving society the right to competition and private property. While defining man?s role in defending the right of private property ? ?the last remaining metaphysical right (Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences)? ? Weaver was able to mirror Hayek?s portrayal of private property as the ?last refuge from the encroaching state (Nash, 41).? Might explore this a bit. Is Weaver?s ?metaphysical right? the same as Hayek?s ?last refuge?? In what sense? What does Weaver mean by ?metaphysical right?? Richard Weaver and Friedrich Hayek - in proposing similar criticisms to the ideals of the Left, namely the growing role of the state - perceived the same phenomenon - ?the decline of the West as a result of the triumph of pernicious ideas (Nash, 55).? If they are doing so much the same thing, then why is Weaver essential? How does he not just repeat Hayek? Is he adding something intellectually? Politically?
Richard Weaver?s Ideas Have Consequences, in questioning the fundamental values of Western society, brought much controversy to the traditionalism. Weaver had launched a credible and justified attack on liberal ideals - -, while providing legitimacy and credibility to traditionalists, as well as the conservative intellectual cause. Among those who praised Weaver?s work, Willmoore Kendall, a conservative Yale political scientist, nominated him for ?the capitaincy of the Anti-Liberal team (page 41, Nash),? while antinaturalist philosopher Eliseo Vivas labeled Richard Weaver ?an inspired naturalist.? However, liberals from the Chicago University Press met Weaver?s work with much displeasure ? it was labeled ?a pompous fraud, essentially evil, and notorious (Nash, 42).?
Despite the negative acclaim brought about by his work, Weaver?s piece served as perhaps one of the most influential works in conservative literature during the 1940?s. Not only had Weaver dared to defy the obvious liberal ideological dominance of the time in braving to write Ideas Have Consequences, but he was able to catapult the conservative intellectual movement into the national spotlight. Credibility and a newfound sense of legitimacy had been established within the traditionalist wing of the conservative intellectual movement. What was Weaver?s role in contributing to the causes of the conservative movement? What part of liberalism did he attack
Traditionalist ? Russell Kirk
Another influential figure in the traditionalist branch of the conservative intellectual movement was Russell Kirk. Like Richard Weaver, the beliefs and works of Russell Kirk ? primarily, The Conservative Mind ? would stand out as a stepping stone/building block for new-age conservatism and or the rise of the youth conservative movement. Russell Kirk was influential in triggering the conservative intellectual movement ? his ardent disgust ?conscription, military inefficiency, government bureaucracy, paternalism, and socialist economics? were key in capturing the mind of the American public following World War II (Nash, 71). As George Nash states, Kirk ?denounced liberal globaloney and feared that America was doomed to live in a collectivist economy (page 71, Nash).?
Russell Kirk had made his disapproval with New Deal policies a focal point of his conservative philosophy. A former draftee of the army during World War II, Kirk accused Roosevelt and other New Dealers of prolonging the war solely for the purpose of ?maintaining scarcity and enhancing prosperity (Nash, 71).? Kirk reveals his conservatism in his first published article in 1941, ?We must have slow but democratic decisions, sound local government, diffusion of property owning, taxation as direct as possible, preservation of civil liberties, payment of debts by the generation incurring them, prevention of the rise of class antipathies, a stable and extensive agriculture, as little governing by the government as practicable, and above all, stimulation of self-reliance (Nash, 70).? Russell Kirk was preaching the Midwestern ?individualist? conservatism of Robert Taft that would surface with William Buckley and William Rusher. How does this figure in with liberal ideas?
Despite the earlier works of Russell Kirk, he would make a lasting impression on American politics and the conservative intellectual movement in his 1953 publication of his highly influential/potent work, The Conservative Mind. Kirk?s work not only chronicled the thinking behind the last 150 years of the intellectual Right (Nash, 73), but it had launched an open attack on all ideologies within the Left ? most notably liberalism, collectivism, pragmatism, and socialism. In his ?cri de coeur? for conservatism, Russell Kirk had utilized ?six cannons,? each detailing the essence of his conservative philosophy - ?The belief that a divine intent rules society as well as conscience, affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of traditional life, the conviction of society that requires orders and classes, the view that property and freedom are inseparably interconnected, a faith in prescriptive tradition, and the belief that innovation and change are not to be held as ends in themselves but rather as a means to maintain as much as possible the continuity of social order (Kirk, The Conservative Mind, page 8).? How should we relate those to Hayek and Weaver? Among the most influential why were these most influential? Why others less so? Evidence of influence? To what degree is Kirk adding anything on those two particular ?cannons?? of ?cannons? was Kirk?s philosophy on private property and government control of the economy - ?Persuasion that property and freedom are inseparably connected, and that economic leveling is not economic progress? (The Conservative Mind, Kirk).?
Kirk?s most prominent attacks, post 1789 on social order, were meliorism ? the perfectibility of man and the illimitable progress of society, contempt for tradition, political leveling, and economic leveling (The Conservative Mind).? Among these attacks, Kirk?s views fit with Weaver?s in siding with meliorism and contempt for tradition ? two focal points of the traditional branch of the conservative intellectual movement. How were these things attacking modernity, progressivism, other liberal ideals, principles? Russell Kirk in writing The Conservative Mind, offered ?a full-scale challenge to modernity (Page 73, Nash)?
The Conservative Mind, published nearly half a decade after Russell Kirk?s Ideas Have Consequences, registered a similar large impact on the American political intellectual community. Robert Nisbet a well-respected conservative intellectual commented, ?No book could have been better timed for the edification of conservative American intellectuals? Kirk had broken the cake of the intellectual opposition to the conservative tradition in the United States (Nash, 74).? However, not only had Kirk?s work more firmly established conservative ideals in the intellectual community, but it had penetrated American mainstream society in the meanwhile. The highly influential New York Times and Time magazine took immediate notice of the work. When the book review editor of the New York Times had been unwilling to review Kirk?s work, they called on a former associate to review the book, ex-Communist Whittaker Chambers, for advice. Chambers frankly stated - ?The Conservative Mind was the most important book of the twentieth century (Nash, 74).? In addition, the entire book section of the July, 6, 1953 edition of Time had been dedicated to The Conservative Mind.
The traditionalists, along with conservatives alike, experienced an amazing resurgence. An element of legitimacy and credibility were established within the conservative cause ? no longer could John Stuart Mill?s jibe of the ?stupid party? stand (Nahs, 75). Russell Kirk had advanced the conservative cause on two sides - he established intellectually formidable ancestry for conservatives and he built the proper framework for future movements of the conservative cause. As George Nash states, ? Like Friedrich Hayek, Russell Kirk had made it respectable again to be a man of the Right. The Conservative Mind had decisively catalyzed a self-conscious, unabashedly conservative movement. In the words of Henry Regenry, Russell Kirk had given an amorphous, scattered opposition to liberalism and identity (Nash, 75).?
Anti-communists, James Burnham, Alger Hiss, Chamber?s Witness
The ?intellectual roots of anti-Communist conservatism, like so much else in the intellectual traditions of the American Right since 1945, lie in responses Traditionalists classified classical liberal policies - collectivist policies and the large presence of the government ? in American politics during the 1930?s as an era of ?philosophical nihilism, totalitarianism, and the disturbing emergence of the mass man (Nash, 86). However, these policies had the greatest impact on a significant group of ex-Communists that would emerge as the second branch of the conservative intellectual movement. Traditionalists had responded to the ? of the 1930?s with ? while the libertarians responded with their values which preached of individualism and religion. Perhaps the most influential figure that would emerge from this group would be James Burnham.
From the ashes and destruction of World War II, two global powers had emerged - the Soviet Union and the United States. The United States stood as the symbol of democracy in the Western world, while the Soviet Union represented the base of socialism distinct from communism? on the Eurasian landmass. The attack that Weaver and Hayek ? stipulating that all collectivism was ?inherently totalitarian? - had waged on the Left would surface in American politics during the 1950?s.
The sheer presence and advancement of the conservative movement could be measured by the ?pilgrimage from Left to Right after World War II (Schneider, 11).? Perhaps one of the most significant cases of this ?pilgrimage? was the departure of the Leftist intellectual, James Burnham to the Right following World War II. During the 1930?s and early 1940?s Burnham had been active in publicizing his views as a ?Trotskyite Leftist? in New Editorial. In his work Burnham was adamant in defending the ?progressive workers? state,? that had to be ?defended at all costs (Nash, 81).? In addition to publishing articles expressing his support for the progress of the Soviet Regime, Burnham was also active in the organization of Communist unions in Detroit.
However, by the mid-1950?s Burnham had accepted an editorship at the National Review. Burnham, as George Nash states, had become ?the most influential right wing critic of liberal foreign policies after 1945.? Burnham was crucial in ?supplying the conservative intellectual movement with the theoretical formulation for victory in the cold war.? (Nash, 91) George Burnham in speaking of his alleged ?re-education? states, ? Having come to know something of the gigantic ideology of Bolshevism, I knew that I was not going to be able to settle for the pigmy ideologies of Liberalism, social democracy, refurbished laissez-faire or the inverted cut ? rate Bolshevism called ?fascism.? Through the Machiavellians I began to understand more thoroughly what I had long felt: that only by renouncing all ideology can we begin to see the world and man (Nash, 92).? Does this fit with the anti-communist branch that he was associated with? Is this conservatism? How does this fit with rest of conservative intellectual movement?
Burnham page 88 Nash, The New Leader perhaps the most important anti-Communist magazine in the country.
The revolt of the libertarians ? had perhaps the greatest impact on the youth conservative movement
Friedrich Hayek, an Austrian economist, played an important role in providing ?intellectual sustenance? to the American Right in the 1940?s from abroad. In his 1944 work, The Road to Serfdom, Hayek ? attacking Leftist/liberal ideals, including the governmental planning of the economy (collectivism) that characterized much of Europe, and the consequential destruction of personal liberty - was able to capture the conservative sentiment in post WWII Europe? Or do you really mean that post-WWII Europe was Hayekian conservative? of post World War II Europe. Hayek speaking of socialist economic policies commented, ?Central direction of all economic activity according to a single plan leads to dictatorship (The Road to Serfdom, Hayek)? and the ?suppression of freedom (The Road to Serfdom, Hayek).? As George Nash states, Hayek was able to demonstrate that ?collectivism, in short ? all collectivism ? was inherently totalitarian; democratic socialism was illusory and unachievable (The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America, Nash).?
In paralleling the recent socialist development of Britain to the massive socialist development that had characterized Germany prior to World War II, Hayek had created a sense of fear in the spread of socialism. Hayek warned that ? ?It is necessary to now the state unpalatable truth that it is Germany whose fate are in some danger of repeating (Schneider, 8).? Hayek?s argument had been reinforced by the sudden change of the political climate in Britain. The British government, determined to fight the evils of socialism? with the United States less than a decade earlier, had been ?turned out into the cold? ? the Labour Party had assumed control of the Parliament in 1945. why does this reinforce Hayek? Historian Mortimer Smith, reflecting on the international move toward socialism following World War II, comments, ?Through the cacophonous chorus of the postwar planners runs one harmonious theme: the individual must surrender more and more of his rights to the state which will in return guarantee him what is euphemistically called security.?
Hayek?s The Road to Serfdom, instantly receiving recognition in Europe, was influential in advancing the conservative cause in the United States. In particular, Hayek?s insight so you?re endorsing it here? into the perils of collectivism and the subsequent loss of liberty were relevant to American politics during the 1950?s. The ?central direction of economic activity? which Hayek had spoken about in The Road to Serfdom, was precisely what America had undergone in embracing President Roosevelt and the New Deal in 1945. New Deal was earlier ? mid-1930s, and the extent to which the New Deal represented the ?central direction of economic activity? is highly contestable historically. In many ways, it is notable the extent to which the New Deal differed in its strategy from the policies of W. Europe. New conservatives may have seen them as linked, but be clear when you are reporting the views of others and when you are reporting your own views. Not only had Friedrich Hayek?s provided ?intellectual sustenance? to the American Right, but he had also legitimized the development of the conservative intellectual movement in America during the 1950?s. how does this ?legitimize? the American conservative intellectual movement, and why did it need legitimizing? No mention of Hayek being substantively influential? Was he?
Nevertheless?, the period immediately following World War II would mark the emergence of a new conservative movement ? Ellen Schneider states, ?With conservative principles articulated, it was up to a new generation of conservative young people to bring about the quest for philosophical order (Schneider, 13).? Moreover, as Nash stipulates, the new anticommunist Right - composed of three groups: Hayekian individualism and antistatism, Weaver and Kirk?s ?new conservatism,? and a group including the libertarians and traditionalists (Schneider, 12) these are not very well defined categories. Want more on these, and go beyond just restating Schneider. How would you dissect the movement?? would be responsible for the development of a unified ?vital center? conservatism built around National Review (Nash, 82).
Albert J Nock, and his achievements
However, perhaps the most influential individual in triggering the conservative intellectual movement was not someone who had belonged to the traditional, libertarian, or anti-communist group. An individual that is hardly remembered during our current era, Albert J. Nock was essential in triggering the conservative intellectual movement during the 1950?s. In particular, Nock built the foundation for the movement with his book? In it he said?
Perhaps the most influential in what sense? An interesting claim since Nock is hardly remembered now. individual in the advancement of the conservative intellectual movement in the United States following World War II was Albert J. Nock. In his works, particularly, The Freeman ? which Nash points out as ?essential in providing leadership and an institutional framework for the developing libertarian wing of the conservative movement in the late 1940?s and the 1950?s (Nash, 28)? and Memoirs of the Superfluous Man, Nock was able to bring intellectual and political legitimacy again, what is that and how was it supplied? to the conservative intellectual movement. More precisely, Nock in his ?rejection of democracy and his veneration for permanent things (Schneider, 8)? had facilitated the emergence of conservative traditionalists. how related to the libertarians cited earlier in the paragraph? What are the factions at play here? In addition, Nock, in his ?defense of individualism?, was responsible for fostering growth within the libertarian wing of the conservative movement.
Despite his death in 1945, Nock?s contributions to the conservative movement were significant in facilitating the articulation of conservative principles in intellectuals - including Richard Weaver, Russell Kirk, Friedrich Hayek, and Robert Nisbet. Russell Kirk ? in the words of Nash responsible for ?dramatically catalyzing? the emergence of the conservative intellectual movement - stationed in Great Salt Lake Desert during the early 1940?s, read Memoirs of a Superfluous Man and directly corresponded with Nock. Moreover, Robert Nisbet, stationed in the South Pacific during World War II had ?practically memorized? Nock?s Memoirs of a Superfluous Man. Edmund Opitz, a Unitarian minister in Massachusetts points out the impact of Nock even prior to World War II, ?He has a way of becoming an event in a man?s life? after World War II picked up a secondhand copy of the Memoirs of a Superfluous Man, and sat up reading it during a long train trip across the country. By the time I had reached the East Coast I had chosen sides. But I was not Nock?s man, I was more than ever my own man, as I felt, as a result of Albert J. Nock?s gentle prodding (Nash, 27).? Ok, this paragraph is useful in explaining and justifying the ?influential? claim
In addition to having a significant impact on the lives of the individuals responsible for articulating the conservative principles in America during the 1940?s, the work of Albert J. Nock was also essential in fostering the growth of a youth conservative intellectual movement who and what is ?youth? here?. In particular, Nock had a direct impact on the beliefs and principles of William F. Buckley Jr. As George Nash points out, ?Nockian libertarianism? served as a [compelling factor in exercising the first conservative influence] eh? on the future editor of the National Review ? William Buckley Jr. (Nash, 15)
Effects ? new age revolution, how did the teachings, beliefs, principles of the three branches trigger ideas within the youth movement
Perhaps the two most central figures in ?representing the first wave of youth revolt in favor of conservative principles, anticommunism, and growing state power (Schneider, 13)? were William F. Buckley, and William Rusher. Buckley, a graduate of Yale, was able to publish a work ? God and Man at Yale ? which eclipsed prior works articulating the conservative intellectual movement, including Hayek?s The Road to Serfdom and Kirk?s Memoirs of a Superfluous Man. In his work, Buckley openly attacked the reinforcement of Leftist/Socialist ideals ? ?atheism and collectivism?- in economics and religion courses at Yale University. He had made his points clear - ?Religion was taught at Yale devoid of any serious appreciation for its moral cannon, while ?economic instruction emphasized collectivist approaches (Schneider, 13).?
Buckley, in attacking one of the most prestigious educational institutions in America, created a rallying point for young conservatives during the 1950?s. Ellen Schneider calls God and Man at Yale, ?a manifesto akin to what C. Wright Mill?s The Power Elite repeats and or Paul Goodman?s Growing Up Absurd had done for left-wing students (Nash, 13).? William Buckley had become the ?dynamic new spokesman for conservatism in America.?
In addition to publishing God and Man at Yale, Buckley was also active in promoting conservative organizations during the 1950?s. In particular, Buckley, along with colleague Frank Chodrov, founded ISI ? better known as the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists the long name is the real name of what they founded, right? ISI just the abbreviation. The ISI would serve as a ?clearinghouse of conservative publications and as a coordinator of the conservative intellectual movement (Nash, 31)? ? it fostered the development of intelligent conservative youths.
* Note ? I am still gathering evidence from Firestone and internet resources into the reaction to the conservative intellectual movement in Princeton and in New Haven. Any progress?
In contrast with William Buckley Jr. ? who had been conservative since he had met Nock when? How?- William Rusher was pushed to the Right by McCarthyism. How? However, Rusher?s contribution to the conservative intellectual movement was no less significant. As publisher of National Review and the founding father of the Young Republicans organization at Harvard Law School, next clause doesn?t seem to follow from previousRusher was also largely responsible for spurring the conservative intellectual movement at Princeton University, where he has been an undergraduate until 1943. Similar, but not to the same extent of William Buckley Jr. at Yale University, Rusher was a participant in conservative activities during his time at Princeton. So then how did McCarthyism push him to the right? Timing doesn?t work.
* Note ? I am still gathering evidence from Firestone and internet resources into the reaction to the conservative intellectual movement in Princeton and in New Haven
Another integral part of the youth in the conservative intellectual movement in was Marvin Liebman, who would serve as the conservative movement?s ?premier public relations professionals and organizers (Schneider, 15).? Liebman was able to organize conservative groups including the Aid Refugee Chinese Intellectuals committee and most notably the Committee of One Million (Against the Admission of China into the United Nations) (Nash, 15). In particular, as Ellen Schneider states in Cadres for Conservatism, Marvin Liebman was a master in establishing (bipartisan) conservative ?letterhead? organizations ? ?Liebman would be instrumental in bringing together diverse and often conflicting intellectuals for anticommunist political purposes (Schneider, 15).?
Nevertheless, Buckley, Liebman, and Rusher, would become ?a group who would represent the first wave of youth revolt in favor of conservative principles, anticommunism and growing state power in American were common themes bringing them to the Right during the 1950?s (Schneider, 16).?
