Isabel Paterson

I have become interested in Isabel Paterson. She was one of the three founders of the modern libertarian movement (along with Ayn Rand and Rose Wilder Lane). Unfortunately, she is somewhat forgotten today.

I came across Wendy McElroy's review of "The Woman and the Dynamo" by Stephen Cox. McElroy notes that Paterson was an important novelist yet unlike the her left wing contemporaries, is little remember today, even in libertarian (and broader conservative) circles.

So, why is Paterson so obscure today? McElroy thinks it is because in libertarian circles at least, novelists have not been as well regarded as professors. While I agree (despite the fact that Rand and Heinlein were both novelists), I think there is another important reason. Ayn Rand had her Objectivist movement. Rose Lane had the Freedom School and she acted as grandmother to the Libertarian Party. Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard had organizations devoted to their ideas. And of course Milton Freedom had the ear of presidents and a network of disciples on economics faculties across the world.

Paterson, on the other hand, was in many ways a lone wolf and most of her work was in a newspaper that ceased publishing 45 years ago. Each time she did try to collaborate, it ended badly. Russel Kirk, William F. Buckley and most famously Ayn Rand all were influenced by her, but she was unable to work with them. They all went onto greater fame, but Paterson remains sadly obscure. Hopefully, that will change (now more than ever).

EDITED Welcome fans of Wendy McElroy. I have learned my lessen and promise not to post typo ridden blog entries in the middle of the night. Look around, and make sure you read more about Isabel Paterson!

1968 -- Buckley on the "Next President"

This was part of those great 1968 commentaries by Buckley and Vidal. My favorite quote from Buckley, "The best run country in the world is Switzerland . . . no one can remember [the] name [of Switzerland's president]."

Obviously, my view of the presidency is closer to Buckley's than Vidal's (OK -- much closer to Buckley's) but I think our remaining candidates should pay close heed to what they both said.

They all need to keep their egos in check. One reason I think government increasingly does not work is that we have grown to expect far too much from it. It is reaching the point where government is seen as the font of all that is "good and holy" and the only end of that can be a lessening of our freedoms. It can be over stupid things -- the Chicago City Council is considering outlawing small plastic bags as part of the "war on drugs" that has devastated our cities and our poorer classes.

I am no anarchist (at least not before my third martini) and believe government to have an important function. I do not, however, believe that the government (especially Washington) must solve all problems and cure all ills. Not do I think government is capable of solving all problems and curing all ills. But government must serve everyone (though we will all disagree as to what the best course is).

So take heed of Vidal's warning to heed the ghetto as well as the boardroom, but also remember, as Buckley pointed out, that no one knows who is the president of Switzerland.

A Quote I Like

"I will not cede more power to the state. I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the state, not to General Motors, not to the CIO. I will hoard my power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain it away from me. I will then use my power, as I see fit. I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth. That is a program of sorts, is it not? It is certainly program enough to keep conservatives busy, and liberals at bay. And the nation free." – William F. Buckley, Up From Liberalism

William F Buckley

William F. Buckley, the father of the conservative movement in America died today. I never met him, but I owe much of my political beliefs to him. For not only did he create a conservative movement purged of the paranoid anti-Semitic ranting of the Old Right, he help create the fusionism between traditional conservatives and libertarians that created the unique philosophy which is American conservatism (as I consider myself a conservative AND a Catholic libertarian, he showed the way).

He was not perfect. It took National Review too long to accept color blindness as the way to address race in America. That tardiness clearly harmed conservatism's appeal to minorities. And at times, his intelligence could be confused for elitism or arrogance. But he bequeathed to America an intellectual conservatism that, while clearly in trouble today has gone from a fringe movement to one of the mainsprings of American politics.

In college, reading National Review was like engaging in some sort of subversive activity. We would get the new issue, hide in some obscure corner of the library, and read it while we took turns as look outs, or so it seems in hindsight. Of course, it was never quite that way. By the time I entered college, Ronald Reagan had twice been elected president, the second time in a landslide. Conservatives had gone from being marginal figures to running the country, though of course, on campus, we were something of an oddity. But it is fun to remember it as such.

He was known for his speech and boy how he spoke. Here he is on election night, 1968.

(HT Ann Althouse)

Granted, a few months earlier Vidal and Buckley got into a shouting match on live t.v. during the 1968 Democratic Convention (Vidal called Buckley a "crypto Nazi" to which Buckley responded by threatening to punch Vidal in his "God damned face!"). That probably explains why they were in different locations.

Why can't we get political coverage like this today? Instead, today we get talking points and shouting and Ann Coulter. Ultimately, the problem with Coulter is a problem with my fellow conservatives more and more these days. We USED to seek out the intellectual high ground. Now, it seems we are in a race to the bottom with the Michael Moores and Ted Ralls. Who can be more outrageous? Who can sell more books?

Where is the William Buckley or George Will for the next generation? Instead of Russell Kirk or Irving Kristol we are getting mediocrities dressed up in drag. In the spirit of Mencken we have Steyn and O'Rourke to be sure, but where will the intellectual foundation for the next 20 years come from?

I see the same happening on the other side. The great social critics on both sides are either gone (Buckley, Mailer, Hunter S. Thompson) or old (Chomsky, Buchanan). And yes, most of them are annoying (Mailer was a psycho and Thompson probably insane). But they were intelligent and thought provoking. In their place we have mediocrities.

Farewell WFB.