Order and Repression

I am accused by Mr. Frank Meyer (NR, Dec. 30, 1969) of rejecting “the American tradition, the tradition of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.” I must plead nolo contendere. But any stabbing sense of guilt on my part is assuaged by the fact that these stentorian platitudes convey very little precise meaning to me, and if I do glean their general purport one thing is clear enough: They have nothing to do with the intellectual history of conservatism, and I, like most conservatives, would be more than willing to reject a very considerable part of the “American tradition,” dominated asitisby influences scarcely harmonious with the conservative cast of mind. I frankly find language of this sort, as introduced by Mr. Meyer, quite repelling; it is a sort of shibbolethic posturing. Mr. Meyer’s entire reflection on my essay (NR, Dec. 16) is a confusing skein of ideas taken out of their contexts (even quotations of mine, I should add), palpable fallacies of reasoning and unabashed Fourth of July rhetoric. Indeed, I would prefer a Bismarck to a Robespierre, for a case in point; and, on Mr. Meyer’s somewhat perplexing invitation, a George Washington to a Bismarck (with some reservations), but I would, if given a free choice, vastly prefer a Metternich to any of them.

Mr. Meyer’s principal line of attack is to imply that my invocation of the conservative zeal for order is not only un-American, but a sinister endorsement of despotism. He refers to my “menacing rhetoric” (which, by the way, merely implied that contemporary conservatives might need to abandon their intellectual detachment in order to play a more influential political role, and to be willing to initiate political action for the defense of society). He “feels uneasily that Professor Zoll is positing order for order’s sake” (in a sense this is true, as I shall observe presently, but not within Mr. Meyer’s implication). His prose assumes a mauve hue when he speaks of “Professor Zoll’s draconic . . . prescription for iron rule, like his symbolic attachment to the Iron Chancellor.” Finally, he misreads the essay in a truly mystifying manner and concludes that “the choice Professor Zoll offers . . . between revolutionary anarchy and some iron state [presumably my selection] is as false as the choice so widely promulgated in the Thirties between fascism and Communism.” Mr. Meyer then offers us the “vindication of the American tradition” —whatever this is supposed to mean.

DZ

About the Author

Donald Atwell Zoll

Featured Tags

I am accused by Mr. Frank Meyer (NR, Dec. 30, 1969) of rejecting “the American tradition, the tradition of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.” I must plead nolo contendere. But any stabbing sense of guilt on my part is assuaged by the fact that these stentorian platitudes convey very little precise meaning to me, and if I do glean their general purport one thing is clear enough: They have nothing to do with the intellectual history of conservatism, and I, like most conservatives, would be more than willing to reject a very considerable part of the “American tradition,” dominated asitisby influences scarcely harmonious with the conservative cast of mind. I frankly find language of this sort, as introduced by Mr. Meyer, quite repelling; it is a sort of shibbolethic posturing. Mr. Meyer’s entire reflection on my essay (NR, Dec. 16) is a confusing skein of ideas taken out of their contexts (even quotations of mine, I should add), palpable fallacies of reasoning and unabashed Fourth of July rhetoric. Indeed, I would prefer a Bismarck to a Robespierre, for a case in point; and, on Mr. Meyer’s somewhat perplexing invitation, a George Washington to a Bismarck (with some reservations), but I would, if given a free choice, vastly prefer a Metternich to any of them.

Mr. Meyer’s principal line of attack is to imply that my invocation of the conservative zeal for order is not only un-American, but a sinister endorsement of despotism. He refers to my “menacing rhetoric” (which, by the way, merely implied that contemporary conservatives might need to abandon their intellectual detachment in order to play a more influential political role, and to be willing to initiate political action for the defense of society). He “feels uneasily that Professor Zoll is positing order for order’s sake” (in a sense this is true, as I shall observe presently, but not within Mr. Meyer’s implication). His prose assumes a mauve hue when he speaks of “Professor Zoll’s draconic . . . prescription for iron rule, like his symbolic attachment to the Iron Chancellor.” Finally, he misreads the essay in a truly mystifying manner and concludes that “the choice Professor Zoll offers . . . between revolutionary anarchy and some iron state [presumably my selection] is as false as the choice so widely promulgated in the Thirties between fascism and Communism.” Mr. Meyer then offers us the “vindication of the American tradition” —whatever this is supposed to mean.