"In Defense of Freedom" and Related Essays

by Frank S. Meyer

When it first appeared in 1962, In Defense of Freedom was hailed by Richard M. Weaver as “a brilliant defense of the primacy of the person” and an effective “indictment of statism and bureaucratism.” Meyer examines the tension between the freedom of the person and the power of social institutions. In his view, both the dominant Liberalism and the “New Conservatism” of the American tradition place undue emphasis on the claims of social order at the expense of the individual person and liberty. Frank S. Meyer (1909–1972) was a senior editor of National Review . William C. Dennis is a Senior Fellow, Atlas Economic Research Foundation, and a consultant in philanthropy.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Essays

261 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1962

About the author

American philosopher and activist best known for his theory of "fusionism"that unites elements of libertarianism and traditionalism.

Before converting to conservatism he was a communist from 1931-1945.

Reviews

[Bob · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am very impressed with Frank Meyer's essays In Defense of Freedom. The 1996 edition I read had even more essays than the original 1962 edition. Reading these essays requires concentration and makes one consider the ideas long after the reading is done. I will soon study much of this book in greater detail in order to firm up my conclusions. Much of the concept of conservative thought that Meyer proposes was already on my mind, but he brought me more perspective on both freedom and tradition. He also helped me understand what is different in the European meaning of the terms conservative and liberal compared to the terms in the US. In one essay, Meyer discusses the origin of the idea of independent individuals in Western thought. The concept of freedom and limited government have reached their current peak in the US constitution. The idea of utopianism in the US today, which is contrary to our constitution, is part of the liberal thought in the Democratic party and also of the neoconservative wing of the Republican party, both of which insist on government solution to all problems, whether secular or religious solutions.

[Jean-françois Virey · Rating 2 out of 5]

Frank S. Meyer had a very decent applied philosophy, and his heart was in the right place on many questions on his day. But his fundamental philosophy was very rudimentary (he will repeat again and again that "you cannot force anyone to be virtuous") and poorly argued (when he bothers to argue for it, rather than simply assert it.) For instance, when trying to extend his idée fixe to the truth ("you cannot force the truth on anyone"), he reverts to his point that you cannot force virtue, as if the truth was a virtue (or what John Finnis and Germain Grisez call a "reflexive good".)
I found Meyer's comments on the debates of the 1960s more interesting to read. But this attempt to lay down the ethical fundamentals of conservatism is very weak. Meyer's basic point is just muddled and plain wrong: it seems to confuse free-will with political liberty (Bozell made a good point that no amount of political control can eradicate free-will, especially not the New Deal reforms, as Meyer assumed), indulges in all-or-nothing thinking (you need perfect political freedom for your choices to be morally meaningful) and falsely assumes that free-will presupposes the choice to do wrong (Grisez and Finnis's theory of choice explain why not.)
The alternative conception to what Meyer is defending here (i.e. that government can and should play a role in the promotion of moral behaviour) has been convincingly argued in Robert P. George's "Making Men Moral", which is on a totally different intellectual plane than this book.
Most of the "Related Essays" in this edition are also included in "The Conservative Mainstream", but a couple are not, as far as I can ascertain.

[Joel · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Freedom”. Hollywood movies have made it melodramatic; politicians, a punchline at the end of a bad speech; and the cognitive dissonance whereby the word falls so easily from the lips of those who would enslave us has made it almost meaningless. “Liberty” – for what does it mean? That is debated ad infinitum and ad nausea in the ivory towers of our ‘betters’ and on the street corners where young men rage against a system which has left them behind. Left them behind, for when they talk of freedom they are not speaking of the three fundamental rights by which we are made free – those of life, liberty and property – but instead of a job and a dowry for which to marry their betrothed and a savings account they can contribute to for the coming days when old age starts to gnaw and bite. But is that liberty? “Freedom from…” juxtaposed against “freedom to…” and then again maybe it’s found in that perfect balance between liberty and equality, as Edmund Fawcett writes. Is it utilitarian, like John Stuart Mill says – the greatest good for the most? Or is it absolute, as Meyer contends in this his greatest treatise “In Defense of Freedom”.

One of the things that makes this challenging is that conservatism itself is torn between two ideas, balanced or not, which are at war against each other. Libertarianism – to stand naked, valueless and community-less and truly alone and still to survive, somehow; juxtaposed against culture and community and that embroidered quilt knitted over time upon which successive generations preserve what is the best of themselves to pass it on to those who follow. Libertarianism which quickly becomes libertinism as the empty vessel of the human soul is filled with licentious possibilities and the ever-present tyranny of now; or the stifling jacket of conservatism tailored in days of yore when things were meant to be uncomfortable and restraining, and still worn for decorum in defiance of a world that has invented new ways of dress. This tension, while appropriately balanced in times of peace, is strained in times of war.

And these are times of war. For freedom is under attack, as assuredly as are the conservative values imbued with libertarianism by which we protect ourselves. That is really my main challenge with Meyer in days when our ideologies must be weaponized. To be sure though, Meyer’s liberty is beautiful:

“There is this much truth to John Stuart Mill’s doctrine that truth will always prevail in the free marketplace of ideas, and this much only: given a society free of the power of a totalizing state, truth will survive alongside all the errors and will outlive each of them. Nor, given the human condition, can we expect more. Freedom, which is of the human essence, implies the possibility of producing error as well as finding truth. To achieve a good society requires men unremittingly devoted to the pursuit of good and truth, but it requires also that no one have he power to impose beliefs by force upon other men – and this is whether those beliefs be false or true.”

I even believe it. But how will it protect us from them? Yes, truth will outlive the lies – but how many people will die while we wait?… if waiting is the only answer the classical liberals will allow us. 100,000,000 is the number of people the communists (class socialists) took from us, mothers and fathers and aunts and uncles and children; more if you count those starving in Venezuela today. 20,000,000 the Nazis (national socialists).

Russell Kirk or Frank Meyer; Patrick Deneen or Gary Johnson – because John Maynard Keynes will not go down without a fight; his wares are peddled too effectively and while, yes, they will eventually be proved wanting, when they are at last expunged in the fires of truth they will take our great republic with them. Alas, a fight is what we must have. Because who will protect us from them? Sacrificed as we will be like Robert the Bruce screaming ‘freedom’ as our entrails are put on display for the collective hordes who bay for the blood of sacrifices to feed their collectivist project; and who know well the answer to their own question “Who will protect them from us?”

[Anders Koskinen · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is a very dense read, written in a very academic style which can at times be difficult. However, it has many persuasive and insightful things to say regarding the goal of human existence and the best political order by which to enable men to achieve their goals. These helped me to better understand and articulate my own positions in addition to learning a great deal about Meyer and his fusionist thought.

This book should be required reading for anyone interested in understanding conservative thought and especially those in the conservative movement today who are too keen to emphasize fractures within the movement rather than what binds the movement together in the first place. Anyone attempting to read it will need to do so patiently however.

[Jacob Hibbard · Rating 5 out of 5]

This one of the books I think every conservative/liberty-minded individual should read.

[Andrew Rosol · Rating 5 out of 5]

The most influential book to my understanding of political theory from a conservative viewpoint.

[Tomislav · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book is a collection of essays that attempt to combine libertarianism and traditionalism into a coherent philosophy. It seems that Meyer actually had a slightly more specific goal in mind – to present libertarianism as a viable political idea to religious traditionalists who are often suspicious of freedom and modernity. With such focus the book is not really a defense of a broadly defined libertarian conservatism for a wider readership.

In developing his arguments the author often starts from religious concepts such as human freedom and objective moral order, which he just takes for granted claiming they are "based on ontological foundations". He complains about positivism, materialism, about science being collectivist. Most of his arguments and explanations aren’t really convincing unless you already share his starting points. This approach is surprising because Meyer himself had somewhat undefined religious views, he seemed more sympathetic to religion than religious himself.

I guess that deducing the whole political system from metaphysical foundations is a logical approach if he wants to attract religious traditionalists, but because of that there is not really much in the book that is interesting to other readers. Accepting traditional morality as natural or reasonable is something that can work for many non-religious people; accepting traditional metaphysics is a bit tougher sell. Also, it is doubtful how successful Meyer was in his task because it seems that he had a lot of traditionalist critics who questioned both his metaphysical foundations and his deductions.

I’m quite disappointed by the book considering the reputation of Meyer as the founder of fusionism. This is hardly an eye-opening book that succeeds in its ambitious task of uniting libertarianism and traditionalism. The book does contain some really good criticisms of other political positions – New Conservatives, collectivist liberals, radical libertarians. A much better synthesis of conservative and free-market ideas can be found in works of Hayek and ordoliberals.

[Rodney Harvill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Frank Meyer was a former Communist who became a political conservative. In his book In Defense of Freedom, he took a first principles approach to individual freedom, a contrast to both classical conservatism and classical liberalism. The classical conservatism of thinkers such as Edmund Burke promoted absolute moral values at the expense of personal freedom. The classical liberalism of thinkers such as John Stuart Mill promoted moral relativism and supported freedom on utilitarian grounds. If the goals of the classical liberal could be met by means other than freedom, then the basis for freedom could be undermined.

Meyer looks at mankind as consisting of individual free moral agents created in the image of God, able to reason the difference between right and wrong and virtue and non-virtue. He saw community/society as having value to man but not as an end to itself. In other words, society was made for man and not man for society. In this, Meyer presents a strong contrast to collectivists and those who would use the power of society or the state to strictly enforce virtue. "Freedom has risks, because it may not be virtue but vice that men advance; but all existence has its risks. Unless men are free to be vicious they cannot be virtuous. No community can make them virtuous.

Mr. Meyer's writings strongly influenced modern conservatism and such political leaders as Ronald Reagan. This book is very thought-provoking and worth reading, even if it is out of print and hard to find. I obtained a copy via inter-library loan, a very useful service.

[Jonathan]

None

[Craig Bolton]

IN DEFENSE OF FREEDOM AND RELATED ESSAYS by FRANK MEYER (1996)