Conservative Thinkers: From John Adams to Winston Churchill

by Peter Viereck

Across America today, conservatism is being hotly debated both across the political spectrum and within the conservative movement itself. Much of the public debate is without definition or historical context. This history of conservatism by renowned historian, social critic, and poet Peter Viereck aims to meet the need for a concise, balanced picture of conservative thought in all its different shadings and cultural contexts. The analytical portion of the book provides a succinct but thorough critical overview of conservatism's most representative figures. Viereck begins with chapters defining conservatism itself, its special technical terms, and its changing historical circumstances. The rest deals with its actual thinkers and statesmen. After each main conservative thesis, the anti-conservative rebuttal is summarized, and the reader is allowed to reach his own conclusions. Though the first stress is on conservative political philosophy (from John Adams to Churchill), key sections also stress non-political in religion (Cardinal Newman) and in the primarily cultural protest against material progress (Coleridge, Dostoyevsky, Melville, Henry Adams). Every major point is concretely illustrated by an appended cross-reference to a primary source in the second half, a well-chosen anthology of key conservative documents. Criteria for inclusion are three, representativeness, depth of perception, importance of influence. The result is not uniformity but a from extreme intolerant reaction to an evolutionary moderate spirit. The former passes imperceptibly into authoritarianism; the latter, into liberalism.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy

196 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1956

About the author

Peter Robert Edwin Viereck (August 5, 1916 – May 13, 2006), was an American poet and political thinker, as well as a professor of history at Mount Holyoke College for five decades.

Viereck was born in New York, the son of George Sylvester Viereck. He received his B.A. summa cum laude in history in 1937 from Harvard University. He then specialized in European history, receiving his M.A. in 1939 and his Ph.D. in 1942 in history, again from Harvard.

Viereck was prolific in his writing, publishing much since 1938. He was a respected poet, who published numerous poetry collections. In addition, a number of his poems were first published in Poetry Magazine. His collection of poetry, Terror and Decorum, won the 1949 Pulitzer Prize for Poetry.

~~~

Author of Metapolitics (1941) and Archer in the marrow, (c1984)

Biog. resource center (Contemp. authors), Oct. 7, 2005: (Peter (Robert Edwin) Viereck; b. Aug. 5, 1916, New York, N.Y.; Harvard University, Ph. D., 1942; William R. Kenan Chair of History, Mount Holyoke College, 1979-)

Biog. resource center (Contemp. authors), May 17, 2006: (Peter (Robert Edwin) Viereck; b. Aug. 5, 1916, New York, N.Y.; Harvard University, Ph. D., 1942; William R. Kenan Chair of History, Mount Holyoke College, 1979-)

New York times WWW site, May 19, 2006: (Peter Viereck; Peter Robert Edwin Viereck; b. Aug. 5, 1916, Manhattan; d. Saturday [May 13, 2006], South Hadley, Mass., aged 89; noted historian, Pulitzer Prize-winning poet, and founder of the mid-20th-century American conservative movement who later denounced what he saw as its late-20th-century excesses)

LC database, May 19, 2006 |b (hdg.: Viereck, Peter Robert Edwin, 1916- ; usage: Peter Viereck [predominant form], Peter Robert Edwin Viereck)

Reviews

[Edward · Rating 4 out of 5]

Viereck's book is a collection of various Conservative thinkers from the time of the French Revolution and late 18th Century to the 20th Century in an attempt to identify the various strains of Conservative thought.



Although he uses at times rather clunky academic terms such as "Evolutionist Conservatives" like Burke who believe that society should change, but at a slow and prudent pace, with "Ottantottist" Reactionaries who seek to preserve the Status Quo of the Ancien Regime that dominated Europe before the French Revolution. Other divisions in Conservatism are the "Atomistic" Classical Liberals who believe in the supremacy of Individualism, versus the "Organic" view of society that typified Toryism under Benjamin Disraeli. Internationalism and Nationalism are also divisions, with the Old Aristocratic order tending to be Internationalist in orientation (like Metternich and the Congress of Vienna), with the more Bougerois Classical Liberals being Nationalist in their outlook (while Bismarck was not Bougeois, he is a good example of such Nationalist sentiments).



The key weakness of this text is its age, being done in the '50's with only a slight awareness of the emerging Anti-Communist sentiment in the West that would be influential in late 20th Century Conservatism and Cold War politics. While Viereck guesses correctly that Soviet expansionism and aggression would lead to another split in the Nationalist-Internationalist debate (with Internationalism becoming more prominent), the age of the work means that it is too early to be able to discuss current issues such as the Libertarian-Conservative fusionism started by Goldwater, and perfected by Reagan. The current Paleoconservative-Neoconservative divide is another major issue in modern Conservative thought that also would benefit from a modern edition. Despite showing its age, it is not obsolete, and the source materials provide a good sampling for those who are beginning to study Conservatism in a scholastic manner.

[John Engelman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Peter Viereck, who wrote Conservatism, is my favorite conservative. This is because he introduced me to the political philosophy of Edmund Burke and used that philosophy to defend President Roosevelt’s New Deal. I love Roosevelt and his New Deal, so any defense of both recommends itself to me.

Viereck wrote:

“The old Metternich-Disraeli formula of “conservative socialist” has partly re-appeared in the New Deal. The New Deal allied the trade unions with the social and intellectual aristocracy represented by “the squire of Hyde Park. The Roosevelts were a family of old Duchess County landowners.”
Like good aristocrats Franklin Roosevelt and his cousin Thedore Roosevelt were motivated by noblesse oblige and lacked reverence for the business community.
Viereck quotes Adlai Stevensen:

“The strange alchemy of time has converted the Democrats into the truly conservative party of this country…building solidly and safely on traditional foundations. The Republicans, by contrast, are behaving like the radical party- the party of the reckless.”

This is particularly true now, as President Trump tries to restore the economic status quo of the nineteenth century while achieving dictatorial power.

What I get from Edmund Burke is his belief that there is often wisdom in tradition, his pessimism about human potential and human nature, and consequently his ambivalence about the value of freedom.

American conservatives justify the most egregious offenses of businessmen under the rubric of freedom.

Viereck quotes Burke with approval from his Reflections on the French Revolution, when he writes:
“The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please: We ought to see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations which may soon be turned into complaints.”

Viereck warned his readers that many conservatives only wish to conserve their lucrative circumstances in the status quo.

Viereck generally opposed laisser-faire and erred by claiming that F.A. Hayek was “one of today’s leading philosophers of laisser-faire.” Hayek’s most famous book, is The Road to Serfdom, which I review here:

The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek | Goodreads

In this book Hayek states that he is not in favor of laisser-faire capitalism.
One of the conservatives Viereck discusses is Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America, which was written in 1835 and 1840. Viereck quotes de Tocqueville as writing, “I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and freedom of discussion as in America.”
This does not seem to be true now. I chafe under the restrictions of political correctness. My opinions are often controversial. I like fact based and rational arguments. When I state an opinion you can be sure I have done my homework.

Nevertheless, European laws against hate speech are more restricting.
I admire Jared Taylor, although though he banned me twice from his website for praising Jews and East Asians. (I often quoted him praising them too). If he lets me back, I will praise them some more. He is not allowed in the UK. Several years ago, I read about a man in England who was imprisoned for quoting a comment by Winston Churchill about Muslims and Islam.

I have read that possession of Mein Kampf by Adol Hiter in Australia is illegal. I own a copy, and I read it. The only time it did me any harm was when I pointed out on a neo Nazi website that one of Hitler’s charges against German Jews was untrue. I was banned. Several years later I returned.

I expected to be banned in a day. Instead, I was moved to a section for those who disagreed with Hitler. I continued to find flaws in Hitler’s reasoning. There I remained until they adopted a play to play policy. Because I was unwilling to contribute money to the website I was banned again.

Viereck was a civilized and erudite exponent of what is best in the conservative intellectual tradition. Unfortunately, he was eclipsed by William Buckley. Buckley was a reactionary who devoted his career to advocating a repeal of New Deal reforms. These reforms retain overwhelming popularity. Vierck deserves more prominence.

[Jack R.]

An excellent old-school intellectual history of conservatism (focusing, also, on great representative thinkers in the movement, social history this is not) that includes the broad spectrum of European political expression: from Anglo-American Burkeans to reactionary Russians, and many in-between. The inclusion of primary sources is fine for the selection of long-forgotten voices (Santayana), but so many excerpts are barely a page thus giving only the slightest indication of the overall style, argument, and persuasion of, say, Nietzsche (qua conservative) or Cardinal Newman. Further, in the Anglo-American vein of the book, it hammers the Paine v. Burke schematic to interpret all political ideations since the Enlightenment, but like all artificial dichotomies (see the tedious Jefferson v. Hamilton debates that continue to plague popular histories and middle-brown reportage), it constricts its figures, their nuance, and demands that the whole cast of conservative characters (and their opponents) fit within neat explanatory boxes.

Also, quite funny in the final page that Viereck includes himself(!) as a leading figure in the new conservative movement blossoming in the United States at the time. It is humorous also, hubris aside, because Viereck's relationship with what would become American conservatism was hostile (at least in its most visible democratic manifestations). Indeed, conservatism to Viereck is not an anti-democratic movement per se, but one always skeptical of democratic excesses. Once Goldwater and McCarthy, and the Reagan, aligned conservatism with the masses, Viereck could only cringe.

[Tejas · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book offers a quick yet comprehensive review of almost all the important conservative thinkers of the modern world.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

Engrossing from start to finish

Admittedly, my knowledge of conservative thought isn't as deep as others, but this book seemed to be an excellent overview of the history and various strains of conservatism. The only downside is that it was written in the 1950's and therefore not as current as it could be. I'll definitely be reading more Peter Viereck in the future, though.