Principles and Heresies

It is ironic indeed that, as a British government for the first time since the end of World War II begins to make serious efforts to limit welfarism and reverse the trend to socialism, an American President, elected under conservative auspices, moves in the opposite direction. Nixon has put before the country a program to double the welfare rolls, open the door to socialized medicine, and finance these welfarist measures by inflationary methods—inflationary since it is predicted that the deficits he is planning will be monetized.

These seem tometobe the conclusions that must be drawn from the State of the Union Message, the Budget Message and the Economic Message. I should like, however, to make one thing clear, in view of some discussion I have had over the past few weeks. For conservatives strongly to oppose the domestic program for the next two years and to be deeply concerned by the parlous state of our strategic defenses (as I write, the defense message has not yet been issued, but this latter conclusion can easily be drawn from the proposed budget) is neither to “break with Nixon” nor to minimize his firm stand in Indochina and his fine start toward improving the composition of the Supreme Court—for both of which Americans have every reason to be grateful. It is, however, to insist that conservatives, if they are to be loyal to their principles, must oppose Nixon where he is wrong.

FS

About the Author

Frank S. Meyer

Frank S. Meyer was a senior editor of National Review.

Featured Tags

It is ironic indeed that, as a British government for the first time since the end of World War II begins to make serious efforts to limit welfarism and reverse the trend to socialism, an American President, elected under conservative auspices, moves in the opposite direction. Nixon has put before the country a program to double the welfare rolls, open the door to socialized medicine, and finance these welfarist measures by inflationary methods—inflationary since it is predicted that the deficits he is planning will be monetized.

These seem tometobe the conclusions that must be drawn from the State of the Union Message, the Budget Message and the Economic Message. I should like, however, to make one thing clear, in view of some discussion I have had over the past few weeks. For conservatives strongly to oppose the domestic program for the next two years and to be deeply concerned by the parlous state of our strategic defenses (as I write, the defense message has not yet been issued, but this latter conclusion can easily be drawn from the proposed budget) is neither to “break with Nixon” nor to minimize his firm stand in Indochina and his fine start toward improving the composition of the Supreme Court—for both of which Americans have every reason to be grateful. It is, however, to insist that conservatives, if they are to be loyal to their principles, must oppose Nixon where he is wrong.