This past Saturday, I had a meaningful time with Vigen Guroian, Annette Kirk, George Nash, Doug Minson, and a number of very bright students from the University of Virginia and from Central Michigan University. After the best lecture that I have ever seen George Nash deliver (and, he’s always quite good), Vigen brilliantly led us through a nuanced discussion of four texts attempting to define the term “conservatism” in the 1950s and the 1960s.

Though many in Saturday’s group came from a more traditionalist conservative background—and, consequently, tend to value the meaning of culture over the importance of politics—it hit me rather hard how important politics really can be. Not that I ever denied this, and I teach parts of Aristotle’s Politics every fall. Rather, I realized just how important a dynamic political figure can be to rally a variety of disparate groups, giving them a cohesive symbol.

During the discussion at the Russell Kirk Center, Vigen mentioned the importance of his participation in the New York City Youth for Goldwater rally in 1964. As he began to describe the energy of the crowd, Annette cried from the back of the room, “I organized that rally.” This served as a Eureka! moment for all of us. As the two reminisced about the significance of the moment and of the Goldwater campaign, I could only think of the ways in which I thought of President Ronald Reagan. Then, I remembered how important a figure Senator Robert Taft (1889-1953) was to men such as Russell Kirk and Leonard Liggio (a classical liberal scholar I greatly admire).

Taft and Kirk, admittedly, have been on my mind recently. In August, while visiting Winston’s Center for the American Idea, I’d found that Transaction Press had recently reissued Kirk and James McClellan’s 1967 work, The Political Principles of Robert A. Taft. Though never in full agreement with the Ohio Senator’s political views, the two authors clearly admired Taft for his ability to gain respect from his opponents, pursue prudence in politics, and defend his own views rather than play to the perceived desires of the voter.

Most importantly, though, Kirk and Patterson believed Taft the best defender of what mattered most in America and in western civilization. “Taft spoke for constitution, self-government, private rights, the rule of law, security, peace, community, economic stability, the fabric of civilization. He contended against ideology, concentrated power, grandiose political designs, imperial aspiration, class hostility, economic folly, the rootless massage. What he had prevented being done mattered more than what he had himself accomplished.” [194].

Adorning this new edition from Transaction is Jeff O. Nelson’s masterful introduction. Nelson’s introduction alone is worth the price of the book. Well written, well-argued, and well-documented, Nelson not only puts the original project into a historical and biographical perspective, but he also very ably explains why the book and an understanding of Taft’s thought is as important today as it was 43 or 57 years ago. Because Taft spoke for transcendent things, his words carry a permanence to them, not subject to the whims or passions of the moment. Most important, Nelson convincingly argues, the Old Right—of true conservatives and libertarians—must be reconstituted if we are to survive the massive expansion of Leviathan and empire.

Almost certainly, Taft was the last great American spokesman for a real depth in politics prior to the TV and internet age. Indeed, because he abhorred ideological confrontation and sound bite communications, he would have certainly failed miserably in our day and age.

But, he once spoke for all that mattered, and, perhaps more importantly, he inspired those around him to do the same.

Books on the topic of this essay may be found in The Imaginative Conservative BookstoreThe Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.

All comments are moderated and must be civil, concise, and constructive to the conversation. Comments that are critical of an essay may be approved, but comments containing ad hominem criticism of the author will not be published. Also, comments containing web links or block quotations are unlikely to be approved. Keep in mind that essays represent the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Imaginative Conservative or its editor or publisher.

Leave a Comment
Print Friendly, PDF & Email