Prophets on the Right: Profiles of Conservative Critics of American

by Ronald Radosh

Book Overview

First published in 1975, Prophets on the Right examines the views of five conservative critics of American foreign policy from the 1930s to the Cold War era. This new edition contains an introduction in which the author explains how his recent political reorientation, from left to right, has affected his interpretation of the views of the "prophets."

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0671219014
• ISBN13: 9780671219017
• Release Date: April 1975
• Publisher: Simon & Schuster
• Length: 351 Pages
• Weight: 1.30 lbs.

Customer Reviews

Old Right Critics of American Globalism.

_Prophets on the Right: Profiles of Conservative Critics of American Globalism_ by left wing scholar Ronald Radosh, first published in 1975, is a book which takes a look at some of the forgotten and all too often maligned Old Right critics of American interventionism. Radosh, who originally began his career as a sort of libertarian socialist and later moved to the right, wrote this book under the guidance of such Old Right libertarians as Murray Rothbard. The thinkers whose profiles appear in this book offered criticism of American interventionism, beginning with the American intervention in the First and Second World Wars and culminating in the Cold War, as well as of the creeping influence of the state that interventionism brought. These thinkers include the Progressive historian Charles A. Beard, the editor-journalist of the liberal _Nation_ Oswald Garrison Villard, the noted titular head of the Republican party ("Mr. Republican") Senator Robert A. Taft, the economist and writer John T. Flynn, and the self proclaimed intellectual "fascist" Lawrence Dennis. Against the smears of "isolationist" these critics challenged the interventionist foreign policies of such politicians as Woodrow Wilson, F. D. R., and Harry Truman. They called into question America's role in foreign wars which did not concern its direct national interest. And, they often did so at great personal loss. Charles A. Beard began as a Progressive historian whose writings on the Constitution of the United States challenged accepted belief. He came to challenge the foreign policy of Wilson and Roosevelt advocating neutrality. With the entry of the United States into the Second World War, Beard became a revisionist, attempting to show how F. D. R. had provoked the attack upon Pearl Harbor to cause the United States to enter the war. He was treated harshly by his contemporaries and by later historians for his "isolationist" stance. Oswald Garrison Villard was an editor and journalist for the _Nation_ who originally advocated anti-imperialism, pacifism, and the liberal doctrine of laissez-faire economics. He was related to abolitionists and he too would come to favor civil rights for blacks as well as women's suffrage. Later, Villard was to come to change his laissez-faire economic positions somewhat, but for his opposition to F. D. R. and to America's entry into World War II he was removed as a writer for the _Nation_. Villard later came to join the America First committee which advocated an anti-interventionist policy. He also later was to become a critic of the Cold War with Russia and opposed the anti-communist hysteria which led to investigation of Hollywood screenwriters. Robert A. Taft came from an old political family and had the reputation for being a dogmatic "isolationist". He led the Republican opposition to F. D. R.'s interventionist policies in the Second World War. Taft was vehemently anti-communist and noted that "the victory of communism in the wor

Conservatives for Peace

Nowadays, when most Americans think about people who are on the side of peace and against U.S interventionism, they tend to think about those on the Left. Of course, this isn't as true as it used to be, considering that many on the Left supported Desert Storm and the attack on Serbia. ...However, as Ronald Radosh (no man of the Right) points out, many on the Right were opposed to U.S. imperialism, globalism, and war going back to the Spanish American War. In fact, the traditional approach of the Right is a non-interventionist foreign policy (often misleadingly called "isolationism.") On the other hand, it was those on the Left - such thinkers as John Dewey ...who supported U.S. involvement in foreign wars and smeared non-interventionists.In this outstanding book, Dr. Radosh profiles five opponents of interventionism of the Right: Charles Beard, Oswald Villard, John Flynn, Robert Taft & Lawrence Dennis. These people didn't agree on everything, and one or two might not be accurately called members of the "Right." (Villard, for example, drifted from laissez-faire to support of Roosevelt's economic policy.) But they were against U.S. globalism. Radosh details their position with respect to entry into World War II and then their opposition (in whole or in part) to the Cold War. What happened in the 50s and the 60s is that the Old Right was preempted by William Buckley and others (some of whom were Socialists and former Marxists) and the Cold War become a moral imperative, even if it meant endless U.S. intervention in the affairs of other countries. (This sad fact is well told in Justin Raimondo's RECLAIMING THE AMERICAN RIGHT.)This is one of the most exciting books I've read in a while. It's fascinating to read about those on the Right who were against both the welfare AND the warfare state. They knew that interventionism abroad would mean big government at home.Now that the neo-conservatives are beating the drums of war against Iraq, Iran, and who knows wherever, it is time to reclaim a great heritage of conservatives for peace. Prof. Radosh's book is an excellent place to start.

Essential History of Men Too Long Ignored

Throughout most of the Cold War, 'responsible conservatism' spoke with one voice. Typified by William F. Buckley and 'National Review' magazine, it advocated energetic opposition to Soviet expansionism -- an internationalist posture of military alliances, proxy conflicts, and 'war in the shadows.' Opposition to this policy came primarily, if not exclusively, from the Left.Or so it seemed.Now that the end of the Cold War has led to a 'conservative crack-up,' more voices on the Right are willing to risk being tarred 'isolationist' to stand up for a principled stand of non-interventionism, an approach Ronald Radosh quotes Nicholas von Hoffman as calling (speaking of the views of Sen. Robert A. Taft) 'a way to defend the country without destroying it, a way to be part of the world without running it.' In such a climate, the views of men like those described in this book are beginning to be rediscovered and re-appreciated.Radosh's subjects -- Charles A. Beard, John T. Flynn, Oswald Garrison Villard, Sen. Robert A. Taft, and Lawrence Dennis -- cover both a relatively broad span of time and a wide ideological spectrum. Despite the subtitle's description of these men as 'conservative critics of American globalism,' several of them found themselves associating (or associated) with conservatives as a result of their criticisms, as opposed to their criticisms arising from an innately conservative philosophy. Beard, for example, advocated in the 1930s a centralized, planned economy. Villard, who began as a devoted free-marketeer, later was an enthusiastic supporter of the New Deal. One of the interesting strands of this book is watching how these men's political philosophies change and evolve (or devolve) over time.Do these men have any relevance to us today? Absolutely. The so-called 'revisionist' viewpoint Beard and others brought to analysis of World Wars One and Two is now beginning to be applied to the Cold War too. More importantly, the internationalist thrust is still alive and well in American politics today -- the need for an articulate opposition is as great as ever. For example: In his 'Conclusions,' Radosh notes that voices on the Left had arisen to criticize American involvement in Viet Nam (my edition of this book was published in 1975), using many of the same arguments the 'conservatives' had used to oppose interventionism in previous decades. Former assistant secretary of defense Paul Warnke is quoted as arguing that the Constitution 'cannot be read to give the President "the right to carry on an air war in a civil conflict in a tiny country on the other side of the world."' And yet, a quarter-century later, when an American president decided to carry on an air war in a civil conflict in a tiny country on the other side of the world, the most articulate voices in opposition to it came from the Right -- from the intellectual heirs of the men in this book. That's what makes this important.Today, the 'Buckleyite' wing of conservatism remains dom