DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN CONSERVATISM
Louis Filler
New York: Philosophical
380 pp., $29.95
This work, widely touted as "The First Complete Guide" to American conservatism, is severely flawed by sins of omission and commission. Surely, if we judge this work by what the author has seen fit to include and what he has omitted--a standard normally applied to works of this nature--we see at once that it is far from comprehensive. Yet, this is only a symptom of its fatal weakness--the lack of any semblance of coherency. Certainly Filler's meandering "Introduction" offers up no workable criteria for determining what should or should not be included. Thus, not unexpectedly, the reader is confronted with baffling array of entries many of which, to be charitable about the matter, at best bear only a tangential relationship to conservatism no matter how defined or conceived. Put otherwise, the selection process used in compiling this "dictionary" is characterized by an arbitrariness verging on sheer whim, which renders the volume virtually worthless for the serious student of conservatism and critically deficient for the intelligent layman.
In fairness, it should noted that Filler in his "Foreword" does write--and this in spite of the publisher's hype--that "there is no way in which a dictionary of American conservatism can expect to be definitive." Of course, this is true. But the omissions in this volume are so egregious that Filler cannot be excused on this account. Let me deal with only a few of the more glaring instances; those which, at least, struck me after less than an hour with this volume in hand.
On the academic side there are, by any standard, serious omissions: James Buchanan, Forrest McDonald, George Panichas, Peter Stanlis, John Hallowell, Paul Gottfried, Mel Bradford, Gottfried Dietze, Steven Tonsor, Gordon Tulloch, Stanley Jaki, Francis Canavan, Harvey Mansfield, Jr., John Hospers--to name but a few who represent different and somewhat conflicting strains of conservative thought. Missing, too, are entries for those who are now gone but whose impact by words and deeds on the direction of modern conservatism is undeniable--e.g., William McGovern, Martin Diamond, Francis Wilson, or Benjamin Rogge. Nor, on the action or activist side do we find entries for the likes of Howard Phillip or Paul Weyrich. And while Filler seems to have included most of the conservative journalists (e.g., Will, Novak, Kilpatrick), there are still conspicuous omissions in this general category--e.g., Patrick Buchanan and Tom Bethel. At another level, the reader will look in vain for entries on the Philadelphia society, the Federalist Society, the Public Choice, or the Liberty Fund. Nor with regard to leading ideas does Filler deal with fusionism, federalism, constitutionalism, rule of law, or the separation of powers.
Now, I hasten to add, to comprehend the magnitude and seriousness of these omissions, they must be placed in the context of what Filler does see fit to include. As for individuals we are left to wonder why, say, Nathan Glazer (we are, thankfully, spared Patrick Moynihan), Sidney Hook, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Abbie Hoffman, Claude Pepper, or John Steinbeck are included. Likewise, why does Filler see fit to include Hitler, Stalin, Trotsky, or Lenin? And what does Benjamin Gitlow have to do with American conservatism? Or Turgenev? Or Emily Dickinson? Or Al
...
Read Full Article
|
