Frank Meyer (political Philosopher) - Traditionalist Critics

Traditionalist Critics

Meyer’s attempt at synthesis was questioned by those representing both constituent parts. Traditionalists were provoked by Meyer’s negative statements about two of their favorites, Robert Nisbet and Russell Kirk, which Kirk reciprocated by calling him “an ideologue for liberty”. Meyer, however, did refer to both as “serious” thinkers, a Meyer footnote even conceded Kirk “in recent years” had been more supportive of freedom, and he called Kirk’s views on freedom itself “excellent”. Meyer also conceded that both Nisbet and Kirk primarily desired only local as opposed to national or even state community power “to their credit” but they could be chided even then for not understanding that the rationale for local community is that local government is more based upon freedom.

The traditionalist Rossiter rather than Kirk or Nesbit was Meyer’s target. Meyer even granted the New Conservatives were correct that virtue is “the most important of problems”. The fundamental problem was that Rossiter insisted upon a “positive freedom” that changed freedom from a means to an end, just as did the utilitarian libertarians. Contrary to the Catholic philosopher Stanley Parry’s claim that Meyer did not even recognize the family as a natural community, Meyer called the family and state “necessary associations”. The family was different from all other institutions since children were not full individuals and thus required protection and limited rights. He argued that the state actually had been a hindrance to both virtue and the family rather than their champion. As far as educating children, prior to state control schools taught virtue and the truths of Western civilization and now do not.

Fellow National Review editor Brent Bozell criticized Meyer for demanding a “maximum freedom” and for arguing that freedom is necessary in order to act virtuously. Meyer did not make either claim. He actually wrote that total freedom was impossible. He did not say that freedom was necessary for virtue but only that forced virtue is not virtuous. A forced act may be objectively virtuous in some sense but not for the individual who is forced to act. Meyer’s concern was that to give the state the power to define virtue is to have no standard for virtue at all. Its definition would change with every change in power distribution. One cannot give the state the definition of virtue or there is no virtue – there is only power. Actually, Bozell at the end recommended a social policy based upon the moral principle of subsidiarity, which is not all that different from Meyer’s position.

A Parry article argued that the Meyer libertarian critique was correct about the state and reform did necessitate a revision of tradition once the previous vision had lost its energy. Pure restoration would be reactionary and impossible once broken. Restoration required a new “prophet” who would have to convince people freely to adopt the revision, not to rely upon force, which simply cannot be inspiring enough for substantial change. It is necessary to take what is good from the present tradition, remove what has been abused and proclaim the revision as a renewed tradition, which must specifically convince the “individual members of a multitude” (surprisingly criticizing Meyer for using exactly the same term) in order for a true synthesis to revitalize society, actually not far from Meyer's position.

In the late 1960s, Meyer engaged in a continuing debate over the status of Abraham Lincoln with traditionalist Harry V. Jaffa. Jaffa faulted Meyer for blaming Lincoln for the “destruction of the autonomy of the states”. Meyer argued that Lincoln's abuses of civil liberties and expansion of government power should make him anathema to conservatives, while Jaffa defended Lincoln as in the tradition of the Founding Fathers. Slavery, segregation and African American civil rights were seen as the defining case against fusionism’s relevance to modern times because of the insistence by Meyer and others at the time that states rights be preserved even in the face of these demands

Henry Jaffa argued that neither state nor national sovereignty was clearly established in the Constitution but no American president has in fact operated on the assumption that state power was preeminent, giving the Constitution a nationalist orientation. Once in position to act nationally, all presidents have exercised national power. Some of the cited presidents did act in favor of states rights but mostly as state officials or former presidents than when in power, such as Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. Meyer replied that in fact the states had power and even caused a Civil War, which was more accurately labeled as a war between the states.

Meyer argued that limited national power, state autonomy, and decentralism were the essence of the Constitution as far as government was concerned. Lord Acton considered federalism the unique contribution of America to the historical understanding of freedom. Certainly that force has atrophied over time and even Meyer conceded some 14th Amendment limits to state actions. But he maintained with National Review editor James Burnham that the Federal Courts were not supreme. Separation of powers was the essence of the Constitution, very much including the states whose checks and balances were still alive in his day in the effective if partial state nullification of national court cases and laws