Betrayal of the American Right - Ludwig von Mises Institute
Betrayal of the American Right - Ludwig von Mises Institute
Betrayal of the American Right - Ludwig von Mises Institute
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
PREFACE TO THE 1991 REVISION<br />
The manuscript <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> greater part <strong>of</strong> this book, The <strong>Betrayal</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Right</strong>, was written in 1971 and revised in<br />
1973. Little <strong>of</strong> this original manuscript has been changed<br />
here. In a pr<strong>of</strong>ound sense, it is more timely today than when it was<br />
first written. The book was a cry in <strong>the</strong> wilderness against what I<br />
saw as <strong>the</strong> betrayal <strong>of</strong> what I here call <strong>the</strong> “Old <strong>Right</strong>.” Or, to allay<br />
confusion about various “olds” and “news,” we call it <strong>the</strong> Original<br />
<strong>Right</strong>. The Old <strong>Right</strong> arose during <strong>the</strong> 1930s as a reaction against<br />
<strong>the</strong> Great Leap Forward (or Backward) into collectivism that characterized<br />
<strong>the</strong> New Deal. That Old <strong>Right</strong> continued and flourished<br />
through <strong>the</strong> 1940s and down to about <strong>the</strong> mid-1950s. The Old<br />
<strong>Right</strong> was staunchly opposed to Big Government and <strong>the</strong> New<br />
Deal at home and abroad: that is, to both facets <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> welfare-warfare<br />
state. It combated U.S. intervention in foreign affairs and foreign<br />
wars as fervently as it opposed intervention at home.<br />
At <strong>the</strong> present time, many conservatives have come to realize<br />
that <strong>the</strong> old feisty, antigovernment spirit <strong>of</strong> conservatives has been<br />
abraded and somehow been transformed into its statist opposite. It<br />
is tempting, and, so far as it goes, certainly correct, to put <strong>the</strong><br />
blame on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Right</strong>’s embrace in <strong>the</strong> 1970s <strong>of</strong> Truman-Humphrey<br />
Cold War liberals calling <strong>the</strong>mselves “neoconservatives,” and to<br />
allow <strong>the</strong>se ex-Trotskyites and ex-Mensheviks not only into <strong>the</strong><br />
tent but also to take over <strong>the</strong> show. But <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>sis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> book is<br />
that those who wonder what happened to <strong>the</strong> good old cause must<br />
not stop with <strong>the</strong> neocons: that <strong>the</strong> rot started long before, with<br />
<strong>the</strong> founding in 1955 <strong>of</strong> National Review and its rapid rise to dominance<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> conservative movement. It was National Review that,<br />
consciously and cleverly, transformed <strong>the</strong> content <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Old <strong>Right</strong><br />
into something very like its opposite, while preserving <strong>the</strong> old<br />
forms and rituals, such as lip service to <strong>the</strong> free market and to <strong>the</strong><br />
xxi