The Betrayal Of The American Right

by Murray N. Rothbard

This remarkable piece of history will change the way you look at American politics. It shows that the corruption of American "conservatism" began long before George W. Bush ballooned the budget and asserted dictatorial rights over the country and the world. The American Right long ago slid into the abyss. Betrayal of the American Right is the full story, and the author is none other than Murray N. Rothbard, who witnessed it all first hand. He tells his own story and reveals that machinations behind the subversion of an anti-state movement into one that cheers statism of the worst sort. The book was written in the mid-1970s and is only now published for the first time. Each time a prospective publisher promised to go ahead, the deal fell through. Even so, it has been privately circulated for the 30 years since it was written - and everyone lucky enough to own a copy of the manuscript knew he had a treasure. People who have read it swear that it is the best account ever how the old right was subverted to become a propaganda branch of the state, not just recently but fifty years ago. So Rothbard's account is not only a critical historical document; it also has explosive explanatory power. According to Rothbard, the corruption of the right began in the ten years after the end of the Second World War. Before then, a strong movement of journalists, writers, and even politicians had formed during the New Deal and after. There was a burgeoning literature to explain why New Deal-style central planning was bad for American liberty. They also saw that central planning and war were linked as two socialistic programs. The experience of war was telling. Prices were controlled by central edict. Businesses were not free to buy and sell. Government spending went through the roof. The Fed's money machine ran constantly. The war was a continuation of the New Deal by others means. They learned that a president dictatorial enough to manipulate the country into war would think nothing of ending liberty at home. There were wonderful intellectuals in this movement: Frank Chodorov, John T. Flynn, Garet Garrett, Albert Jay Nock, Rose Wilder Lane, and dozens of others. This movement didn't want to conserve anything but liberty. They wanted to overthrow the alien regime that had taken hold of the country and restore respect for the Constitution. They believed in the free market as a creative mechanism to improve society. They favored a restoration of the gold standard, decentralized government, and peace and friendship with all nations (as George Washington wanted). Murray Rothbard recounts all this, and then enters into the picture. He was a central player in the unfolding events. As a young man, he first encountered the new generation of people on the right who departed dramatically from the old. They were the first "neoconservatives." They favored war as a means. They were soft on executive dictatorship. They considered economics rather trivial compared with the struggle against international foes. They found new uses for the state in the domestic realm as well. They like the CIA, the FBI, and no amount of military spending was enough for them. A leader of the movement William F. Buckley even called for a "totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores" so long as Russia, which had been an alley in the war, had a communist system. This transformation was formative for Rothbard. He began an intellectual journey that would lead to a break from the movement that was now calling itself conservative. He studied with Ludwig von Mises during and after his graduate school years. He wrote a seminal book on economics. He wrote at a fevered pace for the popular press. By 1965, he found that he was pretty much alone in carrying on the Old Right vision. Most everyone else had died or had entered

Genres: Politics, History, Economics, American History, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Political Science

231 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2007

About the author

Murray Newton Rothbard was an influential American historian, natural law theorist and economist of the Austrian School who helped define modern libertarianism. Rothbard took the Austrian School's emphasis on spontaneous order and condemnation of central planning to an individualist anarchist conclusion, which he termed "anarcho-capitalism".

In the 1970s, he assisted Charles Koch and Ed Crane to found the Cato Institute as libertarian think tank.

Reviews

[Stephen · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I began exploring politics and forging my own ideas, I steered leftward out of hatred for the war on terror and Bush’s burgeoning police state. I soon discovered, however, that not only were most progressives more partisan than principled (the antiwar/civil liberties crowd vanished into thin air when Obama continued Bush’s same policies), but that there had existed and still existed, conservative resistance and outcry against the war state. Murray Rothbard offers a history of how the Old Right, typified by its contempt for the establishment and its full-throated support of individualism, was fractured and corrupted into neocons, typified by their embrace of the corporate-military complex. Unpublished until after Rothbard’s death, Betrayal is at the same time a history of modern Individualist-Libertarian thought, and an intellectual biography Rothbard, who came of age during World War 2, formed unique alliances with the left, and kept the torch of liberty alight during the darkest years of the 1950s. Rothbard’s review of political thought and literature throughout the early 20th century turns convention on its head, and makes for compelling reading.

Rothbard’s narrative begins in the late 19th century, when DC’s nascent imperialism in the Philippines and Cuba, and the growing influence of corporate titans on its policies, inspired resistance from right and left alike, who defended the individual and looked askance at government collusion with the powers of big business. There were no shortage of stalwart voices active in this time: H.L. Mencken, Lysander Spooner, and Albert Jay Nock’s works feature prominently. They scoffed at the mob, argued that the state was guilty of breaking the laws it claimed to enforce, and cried foul whenever tycoons attempted to put the government to work for them. The downfall began with the Great War, as some left-individualists were attracted by Wilson’s crusade for ‘democracy’ (nevermind the fact that the hypocrite Wilson was imprisoning war protestors), and was made permanent by the arrival of the New Deal. Although individualists made some common cause with the powers of business then — including Hoover, who was once decried as a cartelist but who was now attacking FDR — the onset of war saw that momentary alliance destroyed immediately, as Eastern money saw in the growing military-industrial complex their income for life. Increasingly isolated, dismissed as Hitlerites if they dared criticize DC, individualists of this time were no less active: John T. Flynn wrote a prescient work amid World War 2, for instance, called As We Go Marching, which posited that the United States had become a militarized, imperialist state in its mission to destroy Hitler, and that after the war it would seek to surpass Great Britain in being a global hegemon. Flynn was prophetic: DC immediately assumed responsibility for all of creation, seeking out the Red Menace to destroy — throwing away money and then later the lives of young men across the world, most notably in Korea and Vietnam. In this time of perpetual war and McCarthyism came William F. Buckley and the National Review, which completed the work of persuading those with individualist sympathies that the threat posed by Moscow should override their concerns about the growth of the state and its effect on individual liberty — and if it didn’t, they were no-good god-hating commies.

Rothbard’s recounts this not as a historian who can only see in the rearview, but as someone who was an active participant. Coming of age in the late forties and fifties, he was invigorated by New York’s holding of anarchist-libertarian literature, attended lectures from Mises, and worked in numerous organizations defending individualism, attacking the state’s usurpation, and advancing economic education. When an entire body of thought disappeared, reduced to a superficial part of Buckley’s new Conservatism, Inc, Rothbard sought out allies on the left. While the likes of SDS proved too self-destructive for that to last, the experience made him rethink the spectrum of political thought: he concludes the book by arguing that if the individual-libertarian position is an extreme left position, then Buckley and Kirk’s throne-and-altar conservatism is an extreme right position, and socialism is a muddled in-between, aspiring for emancipation from the state but embracing its worst practices and doomed by its internal contradictions. Rothbard also throws Russell Kirk into the Buckley camp, which is a disservice to Kirk given his deep distrust of the war state and loathing of ideology. Having read a fair bit of Kirk, I don’t think Rothbard had more than a cursory appreciation of his work. Although the history of the right’s full takeover by the neo-con movement of Cheney and Bush is only complete up to the 1970s, Rothbard’s personal participation in so many of the events gives this book an unexpected perspective.

[Russ Lemley · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating book that is equal parts political history of the American right and memoir of Murray Rothbard's participation in it. While the book contains many fascinating nuggets, I'll focus on three.

1. Rothbard talks extensively about how opponents of the US going into WWII were demonized as Nazis, and Americans who fought against going into a cold war with the Soviet Union were supposedly Stalin's mouthpieces. In other words, the New Dealers and cold warriors used the same tactics as CNN and Antifa do today when dealing with anyone who is not a leftist.
2. Rothbard's discussion about the cold war is illuminating, for no other reason than his characterization of US foreign policy after WWII seems to have been just productive as foreign policy today. In other words, counterproductive! In the name of containing communism, Rothbard argues that US foreign policy actually helped communism spread past Russia and eastern Europe.
3. Near the end of the book, Rothbard discusses how he and Leonard Liggio re-align the left-right spectrum into a more logical framework. While I won't go into the details for fear of providing spoilers, that brief discussion is worth the price of the book all by itself!

I recommend anyone who is interested in American politics generally, and the American right in particular, to read this wonderful book.

[Ill D · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love Murray Rothbard.

[Terrence D. · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is simply an underrated book. "The Betrayal of the American Right" is crucial for understanding the transformation of the American Right and its shift to the Left — abandoning all semblance of the roots from which it sprang. If you know nothing of Chodorov, Garrett, and Nock, then you know nothing of the tradition from whence "conservatism" came. I highly recommend this book to all professing "conservatives."

[Garrick Andres · Rating 3 out of 5]

Powerful ending

[Joshua · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this excellent little book, Rothbard takes a semi-autobiographical approach to outlining the history of the "old right" in the United States. The old right was a movement of anti-war, individualist activists marked by opposition to imperialism, government centralization, and extensive market controls. According to Rothbard, the old right was betrayed by interventionist jihadists calling for a global war against communism. Libertarian ideas, ostensibly the backbone of rightist politics, were thrust aside by Bukley and his acolytes in favor of conservative authoritarianism, "gentle" white supremacy, and neo-imperialism. Rothbard was, himself, involved in the conflict between the old right and the new so his book represents an inside view. Rothbard passed away in 1995 so he never got to witness the culmination of new right intervention in the Middle East. But I think he would be pleased to see the widespread rejection of neo-conservative ideology in the U.S. today.

[Tony · Rating 4 out of 5]

Murray Rothbard provides an excellent telling of the history of the Old Right. Rothbard describes how the original right wing of American politics beginning in the late 1800’s, a group championing free market economics and small government, transformed into the right wing we see today, a group of statists who only pay lip service to the principles of yesteryear, but want to enlarge the State as much as the left. I highly recommend this to anyone interested in the history of American politics, specifically the history of conservative and libertarian movements in the 20th century.

[Yogy TheBear · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you have read a lot of books of Rothbard where you have meet Rothbard the economist, ideologue and theoretician, then this book will introduce you, between the history of libertarianism and proto-libertarianism in the Us, to Rothbard the individual with his career and personal struggles and thoughts.
Further I would like to speack about a specific issue of mine with Rothbard (may conatin spoilers)

The issue in question is his denunciation of the anti communist crusade. I see this subject as a very sensitive one with many faces to it. He correctly states that this crusade transformed the new righ/conservatism in statists and that the trend was anti libertarian and isolationist.
His thesis is that communist must be fought through free speak and ideological debate, that the socialist and stalinist nations are not quite as a big thread and they are not aggressive as it is told; that this nations will collapse due to internal contradictions and economical difficulties in a generation (witch happened :)) ). And that the libertarians should not prop up the government to fight communism.
Well I think he is right on all this but I think he is wrong on not seeing the hawks of the soviet union, the theoretical ideology witch is imperialist of the soviet union, and the opportunistic expansion of the soviet union.
Also he fails (at least in this book) to treat the massive aid and technology transfers to the soviet union by Big guv and Big Business (read Antony Sutton's books). The establishment was also acting very contradictory to say the least; they are very responsible in a direct and conscience way of creating a real threat beside the indirect way. If true isolationism and foreign policy of peace and prosperity was followed then the soviet union would never have been propped up by it's enemy. The soviet union would have collapsed and/or regressed to a chinese style (or Tito) nation that embraces capitalism and has an hypocritical ruling elite. But the hawks of the US by the cold war delayed this transformation witch can be observed in other nations to have been much more fast.
The establishment may have been against the excesses of stalinism, but they were never against central planing and socialism.

[Dan Sanchez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Murray Rothbard: "In the meanwhile, libertarian social life in New York City had been a lowly business. There were no young libertarians in New York after Dick Cornuelle moved West, and what few there were— who included no anarchists—clustered around the Mises Seminar at New York University. A path out of the wilderness came in late 1953, when I met at the seminar a brilliant group of young and budding libertarians; most were then seniors in high school, and one, Leonard Liggio, was a sophomore at Georgetown. Some of this group had formed a Cobden Club at the Bronx High School of Science and the group as a whole had met as activists in the Youth for Taft campaign in 1952. The conversion of this group to anarchism was a simple matter of libertarian logic, and we all became fast friends, forming ourselves into a highly informalgroup called the Circle Bastiat, after the nineteenth-century French laissez-faire economist. We had endless discussions of libertarian political theory and current events, we sang and composed songs, joked about how we would be treated by “future historians,” toasted the day of future victory, and played board games until the wee hours. Those were truly joyous times."

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a good history of the conservative/libertarian movement in the 20th century. Rothbard writes how the Republican Party moved from an isolationist party to imperialist party. It is a fascinating study on the transformation of the American political landscape--particularly as it relates to the anti-war movements from World War I to Vietnam.

One of the more interesting facts in the book is that William F. Buckley, of National Review fame worked for the CIA--a fact that cements his status in my mind as a villain.

[IMPERIVM · Rating 4 out of 5]

Historical treatment of the rise of neoconservatism.

[Dan Sasi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Murray Rothbard’s The Betrayal of the American Right is a searing critique of the ideological shift within American conservatism during the 20th century. Published posthumously in 2007 but written decades earlier, the book blends personal memoir/autobiography with political analysis, chronicling how the libertarian, non-interventionist Old Right of the early 20th century was gradually eclipsed by a more statist, militarist New Right.

Rothbard, a foundational figure in the libertarian movement, uses this work to reflect on what he saw as the corruption and co-option of the conservative movement by Cold War hawks and big-government Republicans. He traces the roots of the Old Right to figures like Albert Jay Nock and H.L. Mencken, who championed minimal government, free markets, and staunch opposition to foreign entanglements. Rothbard’s central argument is that the Old Right’s commitment to individual liberty and peace was undermined by the emergence of the New Right, which embraced imperialism, militarism, and state expansion in the name of fighting communism.

One of the strengths of the book lies in Rothbard’s incisive critique of prominent conservative figures such as William F. Buckley Jr., whom he accuses of betraying the Old Right’s principles by aligning with interventionist policies and the national security state. Rothbard’s analysis highlights the internal divisions within the conservative movement, painting a picture of ideological struggle rather than uniformity.

Rothbard also highlights books, articles etc that influenced the evolution of his political philosophy which is fascinating for anyone that is a libertarian or interested in the evolution of the Old to New Right.

However, The Betrayal of the American Right is not merely a history lesson; Rothbard advocates for a return to the libertarian roots of the Old Right, arguing that the true path to preserving liberty lies in opposing war, dismantling the welfare-warfare state, and resisting the encroachments of government in all forms. Wars abroad inevitably erode liberty at home. He said something like “the cold warriors advocate growing the government bureaucracy at home to enact the militaristic demands of the times to avoid the possibility of Russia bringing the government bureaucracy to our shores.”

The Betrayal of the American Right is essential reading for anyone interested in the intellectual history of American conservatism and libertarianism. Rothbard’s passionate defense of liberty and his unflinching critique of state power make the book a compelling, if polarizing, contribution to political discourse. Whether one agrees with Rothbard or not, his insights into the ideological currents that shaped modern conservatism remain thought-provoking and relevant.

[Alec Piergiorgi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Murray Rothbard is always enjoyable to read, particularly when he's being snippy or more generally fired up. This comes across quite clearly, as the title suggests, Rothbard feels a deep betrayal of the "Old Right" by the more internationalist and less freedom-focused "New Right" that replaced it. Rothbard presents an understandable and clear-enough lineage in how "Old Right" politicians were replaced on the national scene by others that adopted the conservative label; this was most clear when he pointed out that publications previously run by the older group were taken over by the newer group.

Rothbard makes extensive use of primary source quotations, excerpts, and commentary from these older figures in making it clear where they stood in their time and where they would most likely stand in the current (1971) time. I've never much cared for Bill Buckley but the influence of the National Review cannot be understated in how it defined what being "right wing" meant for decades to come. I just wish Rothbard had included some more information on what the differences were within the Old Right camp, he focuses much more on the similarities, which is fine but cannot be the whole picture.

The other half of the book is dedicated to Rothbard's changing political views as he was involved in Republican or conservative groups in his youth before moving to more left-wing organizations later on, before abandoning them too. I've never agreed with Rothbard's "left-right" strategy and I think it could've been pretty easily seen as doomed from the start at the time, but for how isolated he and his friends were, I can understand seeking any coalition as a good move.

While the introduction by Thomas Woods was good, I wish Rothbard had revisited this book later in his life and reflected on his shifting alliances. I know in the 1990s he shifted rightward again (which I think makes more sense anyway), so it would've been cooled to see what he made of his previous movements.

[Mark Geise · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The Betrayal of the American Right" is a look at the political spectrum during the 20th century. Rothbard, as usual, packs a lot of information into this fairly short book. He weaves anecdote and fact with ease to tell a unified story.

Murray Rothbard focuses primarily on his attempts to find an appropriate niche for he and other libertarian-minded people. The Old Right, as he calls it, was generally anti-interventionist and pro-free markets, so libertarians could find a home with this group. However, Bill Buckley and the National Review capitalized on anti-communist sentiment to push the Old Right out of the mainstream and hijack the conservative message. The New Right was no place for libertarians, as intervention and war at the forefront of this movement's message. Rothbard and others of like mind has increasing difficulty finding publications receptive to their message, and eventually formed a coalition with the anti-interventionist left in opposition to the war in Vietnam. Desperate for a political home, Rothbard finally realizes that coalitions were not the answer; libertarianism was not left or right, but its own unique movement.

Rothbard is always an informative read. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the history of libertarianism. There is a lot of valuable information about how the world wars and the threat of communism shaped the direction in which the two major parties shifted over time. Both tended to move toward a more managed economy (away from free markets) and toward interventionist foreign policy, which left libertarians without a political home. The libertarian movement of today be traced back to Rothbard's efforts and the changing of the political landscape.

[Ray Almeida · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent resource for understanding the transition of not just the Republican party, but also the Libertarians themselves. Never did I know how Libertarians were constantly looking for a home where they could promote their vision for a country that focuses on the individual and the nation rather than the collective and the international. This book also can help dispel some of the tribalism of the 2 parties, and people can begin to look towards the middle where we can agree on our out of control government, the endless wars, and endless inflation, etc.

This book is very enlightening and allows the reader to see America from a different perspective, one where we can look at nations more objectively and understand that imperialism is a concept we thoroughly partake in whilst condemning the notions of that very thing.

[Shane Hawk · Rating 4 out of 5]

Equal parts memoir and history of the left-right paradigm between the 1920s and 1970s. An enthralling political history piece to say the least. Very interesting how “liberty-minded” leftists were hung to dry when FDR took power and shifted rightward for a couple decades. Following the death of Bob Taft, the isolationist right wing largely abandoned laissez-faire ideals for rabid anti-Communist jingoistic internationalism with a tinge of theocratic rule. This left sympathizers of freedom to find a new place to reside, the New Left and the SDS. Similarly, by the time Nixon withdrew the draft that movement fizzled out as well.

P.S. The National Review is cancer.

[Arktos · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quite an entertaining but certainly controversial at times book. Rothbard outlines the fall of the American isolationist Right-Wing after WW2, adds some personal anecdotes on his intellectual development as a libertarian, and sprinkles in his own analysis and that of several compatriots about a variety of issues. Some analysis, for instance that the USSR was and inevitably totally would collapse because of its failing economy, thus making constant interventionism superfluous, is clever, and even more clever given that this book was first published in 1970. Other analysis is more questionable.

A fun read for anyone interested in the origins of American right-wing politics.

[Reed Schwartz · Rating 3 out of 5]

There's a part where Rothbard laments how Gerald Beard had converted a bunch of intellectuals (most notably Aldous Huxley) to "neo-Buddhist mystical gabble"; meanwhile, his Circle Bastiat "had endless discussions of libertarian political theory and current events... sang and composed songs, joked about how we would be treated by 'future historians,' toasted the day of future victory, and played board games until the wee hours. Those were truly joyous times."

[Jasson Howell · Rating 5 out of 5]

An interesting history of the Old Right and partial memoir of the birth of libertarianism in the latter half of the 20th century. One can see the seeds of the current corporatist system that currently rules the nation. The only flaw with the book is the missing post cold War chapter that as of yet not been found. One can hope, Patrick Newman has made miracles happen in the recent past.

[Bryce Eickholt · Rating 5 out of 5]

A much needed history of the american left and right. From the early 1900s up to around 1970. It is even more relevant now seeing how things have played out since then. I kinda regret reading it so late in my political journey.

[Josiah · Rating 5 out of 5]

must read for anyone striving to understand contradictions within modern day republican and democrat political parties. rothbard's perspective = hardcore libertarian (actually, closer to an anarchist)

[Jeff · Rating 3 out of 5]

To re-read at another time....

[Jack Wilkie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not quite what I had hoped it would be. Lots of meandering tangents and personal story-telling.

[Erik · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tells Rothbard's personal intellectually journey. Feels brief. Requires some previous knowledge of the named figures.

[Jack G. Sather · Rating 4 out of 5]

Conservative friends: this is worth a read.

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is an interesting journey through American politics from the early 1900's to the beginning of 1970. Rothbard discusses what he called the "Old Right" which was comprised of pro-liberty radicals within the Right who were dedicated to the beliefs of individual liberty, small government, and most of all: non-interventionist foreign policy.

I came to learn of Betrayal from another individual that insisted that Libertarianism was Right-wing and came from the Right, claiming that Rothbard said as much in this book. Having read through Rothbard's classic For a New Liberty, I knew how much he loathed conservatism, and having read from other authors, I knew that Libertarianism is certainly not Right-wing, and so I picked up this book to see what on earth this person was talking about. Unsurprisingly, they were wrong, and Rothbard says as much in this book.

This is a good book to read if you are interested in learning more about the history of the Left and Right in 20th century America, and how they have changed. The Right was originally the non-interventionist, while the Left wanted imperialism for a variety of excuses. The Red Scare played a big role in the beliefs of Americans when it comes to foreign policy and this shaped the Left and Right as well.

Likewise, this book is a good read if you are a Libertarian looking to better understand the history of Libertarianism prior to the party's formation in late 1971. Mentioned throughout this book are many great early Libertarian luminaries; most notably Albert Jay Nock and Frank Chodorov, whose philosophical works are invaluable.

Throughout the book, Rothbard talks about "isolationism", in regards to the more appropriate term "non-interventionism". I am unsure of why Rothbard chose to use such terminology, as isolationism is a rejection of free trade (preferring protectionism or even no trade), free migration, and military intervention abroad. 2/3 of these policies are horribly un-Libertarian and certainly not what Rothbard had meant when he used this term. Reading from other authors that wrote during this time, I believe that "isolationism" was simply the term that was most commonly used during the early 1900's and prior, instead of the proper term of "non-interventionism".

[Marcus · Rating 2 out of 5]

Kind of disappointed by this one. If you want a short history of the right from the lens of a young developing Murray Rothbard, this provides it, but it mostly reads as a bunch of autobiographical inside baseball more than a sweeping critique of modern conservatism or right wing politics. In fact, the book ends with Rothbard allying with the leftist Hippy movement and insisting that Libertarianism is a sort of "true leftism" or "neither left nor right." I don't think this is very useful unless you are interested in the minute details of the development of Murry Rothbard and the libertarian movement, and even there its missing the broader context.

[Garrett Klein · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rothbard details his personal struggles amidst the changing definitions of "left" and "right" in politics in this fascinating posthumously published memoir.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent!

[John Sherrod · Rating 4 out of 5]

A sparkling autobiography of Rothbard’s own political journey to find allies in opposing war and statism wherever he could find them.