Geroge H. Nash’s book, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945 is a book that has long been on my reading list and I finally got around to reading it over the past few weeks. It is a really comprehensive and insightful analysis of the development of modern conservatism and libertarianism. In particular, Nash’s key theme is ongoing story of the way in which disparate strands of thinkers have been able to be melded together into a stable conservative “movement”. The core is the alignment of traditionalists, libertarians, and anti-communists into a coherent conservative movement. It is very reminscent of the recent David Brooks article that made waves, where Brooks notes that conservatism has always been an “ideas” movement.
The book was originally published in the 1970s, but remains remarkably fresh today. A new edition appends a discussion of Reagan and the development of the Religious Right. The main outdated concept of the book is the repeated use of the concept of Gnosticism, a term I had never previously come across, but which apparently was a theme of Eric Voegelin’s work.
I think that Nash overstates the influence of the Southern Agrarian tradition specifically, which I think has failed to exert much of a force over the development of conservatism, although he does note the way in which it has grown into the traditionalist element of conservativism. Reading between the lines here, I think that part of what Nash is up to is trying to identify an indigenous American traditionalism that is not as reliant on Burke as Kirk was, and he finds this in the Southern Agrarians (such as Weaver). He also has an interesting discussion of the rise of Tocqueville’s influence on American conservatism that I found very interesting.
And neoconservatism comes along a bit after this book (Bill Kristol, for instance, is referred to as a nameless Harvard undergraduate in this book).
Otherwise, the debates described in the book are remarkably fresh today and Nash does a great job describing them.
Another striking element of the book is the way in which conservative thought was fundamentally spawned outside the academy, and of course, remains so today in the form of think-tanks. Even academics like Russell Kirk and Wilmoor Kendall ended up outside the academy. Kendall was an especially interesting discovery to me–I’ve only known him as a character who flits in and out of William F. Buckley’s various novels, so it was interesting to learn more about him as my impression is that he has not withstood the test of time as well as some of the other thinkers discussed here.
What I liked best was Nash’s even-handed treatment of all of the various strands of the conservative movement–it is rare to find someone equally adept and sympathetic to people as diverse as Kirk, Mises, Chodorov, Nock, and Frank Meyer. The knowledge here is really encyclopedic. I found it a great read, very informative, and I learned a lot about the roots of the modern conservative movement that I didn’t previously know from the generations that preceded mine. Nash places a substantial emphasis on the role of Catholics in building modern conservatism, and the debates within the Catholic conservative community.
So, especially for the general reader interested in the roots of various strands of modern conservative thought (I consider myself a general reader in this area), I commend Nash’s book.
Nash’s book is especially useful when read in conjunciton with William Rusher’s great book The Rise of the Right, which I read many years ago. Rusher focuses more specifically on the development of the conservative movement as a popular and political force, in packaging and retailing conservative thought. Rusher has some great stories and info about Goldwater, Reagan, and the National Review, stuff that I hadn’t previously read anywhere else. Rusher also is a great writer and tells a great story.
Comments are closed.