Birth (and near death) of the Old Right

While America retained a conservative small government tradition, it was largely lost in the political process through the progressive era.  In time conservatism eventually became loosely associated with Protestant Christianity but that would not be until around 1980 (1), in this time frame it went entirely against the flow of Protestant Denominational Christianity. Coming out of World War I a conservative or libertarian movement started to take shape made up of opponents to the intrusive pietest social legislation and anti-war activists.  Almost all of America’s intellectuals enthusiastically supported the war but there were some exceptions including laissez-faire individualist Oswald Garrison Villard, editor of the Nation, who was the grandson of William Lloyd Garrison and former member of the Anti-Imperialist League (2 p. 5) and ML Mencken along with a few prominent political figures who stood against it. The war was a great defeat for all those opposed to the war itself and the government takeover of the economy and society that ensued. This gradually formed a diverse coalition of individuals and groups opposed to the fundamental direction of American society.

​

The “Old Right” was generally disillusioned with the political process but saw the Republican Party of the day as being the greater threat to individual liberty due to their consistent history of supporting ever bigger government, government “partnerships” with big business through tariffs, subsidies, and contracts and militaristic foreign policy.  The Republicans were also most closely associated with Prohibition and related pietest social engineering projects (2 p. 12). As the New Deal developed, however, progressives now targeted them with labels like fascist or reactionary. Isolated and treated by the New Dealers as men of the right, they forged an alliance with conservatives who opposed the New Deal even though many of these were or had been advocates of cartel capitalism or corporate statism (2 p. 25).  In terms of party affiliation, this gradually took the form of western Republicans and Southern Democrats. Even Herbert Hoover, who had done a great deal to pave the way for New Deal corporatism but balked short of fully committing to the level of government control envisioned by Roosevelt, joined the ranks of the Libertarians with his anti-New Deal book, Challenge to Liberty, in 1934 (2 p. 26). 

​

In 1937 Conservative Democratic Senator Josiah Bailey of North Carolina co-authored a document titled “The Conservative Manifesto” that had broad buy in representing the bi-partisan Southern Democrat / Western Republican opposition to the New Deal. This document addresses 10 specific points relating to the domestic economy and happened around the time FDR was attempting to pack the Supreme Court that had been blocking provisions of his economic program. It was somewhat mildly worded but served as an economic policy position for the Right that was and remained widely recognized. Senator Bailey, who was Southern Baptist and spoke with the style of a Southern Baptist preacher, defended the provisions of the Manifesto in the Senate on December 16, 1937 saying “Do not do nothing while America drifts down the inevitable gulf of collectivism…Give enterprise a chance, and I will give you the guarantees of a happy and prosperous America.”

​

Libertarian beliefs have consistently opposed a large government footprint domestically in both the society and the economy along with foreign military adventurism.  Conservative and Liberal classifications, being somewhat relative terms, have frequently mixed these concepts.  For example it wasn’t uncommon for someone who was or is an economic progressive of socialist to oppose foreign wars or from someone who advocates limited government at home to support an aggressive foreign policy. As the Roosevelt administration moved to war, former anti-war liberals flip-flopped in order to support Russia against Germany (2 p. 34). The anti-war commitment on the part of the left has always been transient and controlled by opportunism.  The pressure on liberals and progressives who continued to oppose the war was bitter and intense.  Historian Charles A. Beard, who was a distinguished educator and writer, was professionally ostracized by liberals, many of them his former students (2 p. 35). Quoting Rothbard from Betrayal of the American Right, which is somewhat autobiographical for him; “The oppression of the isolationists was not confined to vilification or loss of employment. In numerous cities, such as Miami, Atlanta, Oklahoma City, Portland, Oregon, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia, the America First Committee found it difficult or impossible to obtain halls for public meetings. Another tactic that was used systematically before, during, and immediately after the war was private espionage against the Old Right by interventionist groups. These agents employed deception, abused confidences, stole documents, and then published sensationalistic findings.” (2 p. 41)

​

As war approached the Eastern Big Business conservatives saw this as a highly profitable endeavor and moved solidly back into the New Dealer’s camp (3 p. 38) creating a left-right alliance that is dangerous and will typically overwhelm any sort of ideological or populace opposition. Jewish organizations also helped to agitate for war and applied economic pressure on those who opposed it. This fact is difficult to bring up but it is also historically true and needs to be at least acknowledged. Because of this, many isolationists became embittered against the Jews (2 p. 43). Charles Lindberg was a prominent opponent of US entry into the war and could be considered the main face of the opposition.  He was portrayed by liberals and progressives as being pro-German and anti-Semitic.  Upon fair analysis, neither of these labels are true but they remain a major part of his legacy.  The entry of the US into World War II represented a low point for the old right. They foresaw Americas being transferred into a, “Leviathan State, into a domestic totalitarian collectivism, with suppression of civil liberties at home, joined to an unending global imperialism abroad (2 pp. 45-7).“ Charles A. Beard predicted a “perpetual war for perpetual peace” which has largely come to pass. Journalist John T. Flynn, who was originally a liberal supporter of the New Deal but observed the danger of “creeping socialism” and became a prominent spokesman for the old right (4) wrote As We Go Marching (1942)  of the future American state. Comparing National Socialism to the New Deal, he saw an American version of “good fascism” represented in a perpetual corporate state (2 pp. 46-7).

​