laughed in his face, and when it was over
the novelist James Baldwin remarked,
“Man, he didn’t get the point at all.” The
point, which is becoming a little clearer now, is that what some of these militants
want is not a solution but a rev.olution.
One ponders with awe the public behavior of this young man, now nearing middle
age, who continues to dare the undareable.
He went to South America where his open
consorting with Communist youth distressed and alarmed not only the governments of the countries he visited but also
the American diplomatic representatives.
He went to South Africa where he made
anti-government speeches to university students and made ostentatious visits to leaders of the black nationalist movement. Everywhere he has abetted the cause of rebellious youth, saying, “I believe we must encourage them [even] if they have to pull
governments tumbling down on their
heads.” He even ventured to tangle with J.
Edgar Haover on a point of veracity, but
in that one case he came off second best.
Ralph de Toledano’s book should be read
by everyone who is seriously attempting to
follow the pre-convention maneuvering
within the parties. At this writing the 1968
presidential election seems to be anybody’s
ballgame, and there is no doubt that Bobby, no matter what his public professions,
is among the contenders. But can he do for
himself what he did so expertly for Brother
Jack? In some quarters no doubt he is
loved, as Cleveland was, for the enemies
he made, but the enemies have multiplied.
Perhaps his real forte is that of an
Bminence grise, a power behind the one in
power-a Wilson’s Colonel House, a RODsevelt’s Hopkins, an Eisenhower’s Brother
Milton. Such was his role in the first Kennedy administration, and such it may be in
the next. If there is to be a Kennedy d y
nasty in the White House, the succession
may fall not to Bobby but to the remaining
brother, the mild, amiable, handsome Senator from Massachusetts, who like Brother
Jack has contrived to make few personal
enemies or none. And it may very well be
that this, rather than his own aggrandizement, is the end purpose of Bobby Kennedy’s scheming.
Reviewed by
ELIZABETHCHURCHILLBROWN
A Man of Principle
The Political Principles of Robert A.
Taft, by Russell Kirk and James McClellan, New York: Fleet Press Corporation, 1967. 206 p p . $6.95.
ROBERTALPHONSOTAFT of Ohio-more
perhaps than any other American public
official in contemporary history-has been
called an unofficial “prime minister” of
our republic. Certainly, he set the tone for
the first Republican administration in
twenty years in 1952 and personally
guided the Republican chief executive
w h e a t best-must
be regarded as politically naive. Twice, Taft himself had come
within a hair of being the Republican
nominee for President; and it has been
suggested-quite reasonably-that the reason for his political defeat was his own
personal integrity.
In this book, made possible as a project
of the Robert A. Taft Institute, Russell
Kirk and James McClellan attempt-quite
successfully, one must note-to put the
basic political principles by which Tah
lived and worked into perspective. Their
task is particularly noteworthy since Robert A. Taft’s integrity-and,
indeed, his
entire view of government’s role in the
lives of free men-set him so much at odds
with the prevailing political trends and
personalities of his, and our, lifetime.
It is as important to understand what
the authors have not attempted to do here
as it is to recognize their purpose. This
volume, after all, is intended merely as an
introductory guide to the life, thought, and
political career of Senator Taft. Theirs is
103
Modern Age
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
not a highly detailed biography nor is it
a cataloguing of public acts and utterances.
Rather, Kirk and McClellan have drawn
from Taft’s conduct of his public life and
his statements a coherent and cogent analysis of what Taft, the man, stood for. The
essential raison #&re of any public man
is infinitely more of consequence than all
the superficial mannerisms he may adopt
publicly or otherwise possess. It is that
kind of motivation-the purposeful principle-the authors reveal.
Taft was, the writers show, a man to
whom the “whys” of public performance
were of more importance than mere style.
In other words, Robert Taft is seen as a
man who would have been very uncomfortable in today’s political world where
Presidential aspirants are groomed by
Madison Avenue, where principles are tailored’ fitted like a suit, to a candidate’s
image.” Because of our society’s increasing acquiescence to the computerized,
L C overnight
star” politician-candidate, a
book dealing with a seminal American politician who never approached public affairs in such a flamboyant manner is not
only revealing but sobering.
Robert Taft’s career is revealed as .one
of articulate and enlightened opposition to
the near-totalitarian dominance of the
Democrats’ New Deal. Kirk and McClellan
explicate Taft’s broader political principles
from their compilation of his stands on
specific issues. For example, they trace his
initial Senatorial fight against the Gilbertsville dam project, another behemoth in the
already burgeoning Tennessee Valley Authority. It soon becomes evident, however,
that Taft’s fight on the Senate floor was
more than momentary opposition to a flagrantly obvious piece of “pork-barrel” l e g
islation. “Grandiose planning of this sort,
Taft believed, was contrary to the American political system; it could be achieved
only through propaganda and compulsion.” Thus, from the specific issuethe
battle of the moment-emerges the broader line of political principle. Such an approach is used throughout this work, and
66.
because of their non-partisan and honest
analysis, Kirk and McClellan’s concise volume undoubtedly will remain a necessary
point of departure for all future Taft
scholars.
Early in their study, the authors explain
that one of the difficulties encountered in
their pursuit of Taft’s political ideals was
the Senator’s own infrequent writing, of
setting down on paper-for
future students to ponder-his political first principles. Taft, they point out, “published no
regular manual of his opinions.
his
thought must be extracted from the immense mass of his remarks in the Congressional Record and his other political addresses, and from occasional articles he
wrote for magazines.”
How well the authors have succeeded in
their task of succinctly capturing the essence of Taft’s thought in this thin volume
is best seen in Chapter VI11 entitled “A
Foreign Policy for Americans,” which was
also the title of Taft’s .only book. The
thought of any great political figure is valuable primarily because of its continuing
relevancy to the affairs of men, specifically,
in the application the politician’s views
have to the solution of pr.oblems still facing the society for which he wrote. In such
a sense, the foreign policy proposals of
Taft--seen in the light of the United
States’ current chaotic involvements abroad
-are relevant indeed.
In A Foreign Policy for Americans, Taft
wrote in 1951: “Unless our foreign policy
is conducted more competently than it has
been during the past ten years, our very
survival is in doubt.” Unlike so many other forgers of American foreign policy in
recent history-both
Democrat and Republican-the
survival of the United
States was to Robert A. Taft a viable and
logical first premise of internationalism;
his was an articulate nationalism from
which all foreign policy planning must be
derived.
So it is that Kirk and McClellan wisely
have given considerable emphasis not only to Taft’s book in this chapter but also
...
Winter 1967-68
104
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
to his notable foreign policy address to the
American Assembly on May 21, 1951. In
that speech, Senator Taft said:
My view is that American foreign policy should be directed primarily to the
protection of the liberty of the people
of the United States, and that war
should only be undertaken when necessary to protect that liberty, that we
are not justified in going to war simply to increase the standard of living of
the people throughout the world, or to
protect their liberty unless such protection is necessary for our own defense.
Those seeking to apply Taft’s foreign
policy formula to today’s events in Southeast Asia would find no rationale for
America’s initial intervention in Vietnam.
Senator Taft specifically warned against
the United States trying to control or defend land masses in either Asia .or Europe.
Likewise, Taft saw the need for “definite
limitations” on American commitments if
our nation was to avoid wrecking both ita
economy and its morale.
These policy formulations, however,
must in no way be regarded as indicative
that Taft underestimated-or failed to recognize accurately-the aggressive nature
of international communism. Once the issue was joined-as it was in Taft’s time
in Korea, and as it is now in Vietnam
-Taft would have advocated pursuing the
crisis to a solution most satisfactory to the
interests of the United States. Similarly,
one gathers he would have endorsed even
more sweeping use of both air and sea
power in times of crisis, since he invariably argued for those instruments as key
elements in the maintenance of U.S. policy.
This same section gives considerable
insight into Senator Taft’s unceasing opposition to the arbitrary concentration of
power in the hands of the U.S. chief executive, Due attention is given, for exam-
PHALANX
AN INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL
“your publication
meritorious ,
. .”
looks entirely
Eric Voegelin
. . .”
“most worthwhile endeavor
Edward Teller
“I am very impressed with your
journal . . .”
Willmoore Kendall
“If Phalanx succeeds, the world may
. . .”
not be intolerable in 1984
Russell Kirk, National Review
ARTICLES IN
Political theory-Education-History-Economics-Art-LiteraturePhilosophy-Religion
F-----”-----------‘---‘----------------------.
II PHALANX
I 3853 Reklaw Drive, Studio City, Calif. 91604
i
I
Date ........................ I
I
I
Gentlemen: Enter my subscription to PHALANX, (published quarterly) I
for one year at $3.50(Enclosed).
I
’
...........................................................
I NAME
CITY ..............................................................
ADDRESS........................................ II
I
STATE ..................ZIP......................
I
Modem Age
I05
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
ple, to Taft’s concern about the American
President’s willingness to acquiesce to policy decisions of the United Nations Organization. He felt Congress should retain
a truly active role in the conduct of the
foreign affairs of the republic. He opposed
the concept of a President who “could send
t r a ~ p sto Tibet to resist Communist aggression or to Indo-China or to anywhere
else in the world, without the slightest
voice of Congress in the matter.” Those in
Congress today who are most skeptical
about their earlier support of the vaguely
worded Tonkin Resolution may have
Taft’s words haunting them. Indeed, their
fears may grow greater as even more drastic actions are taken in the future by executive fiat.
What finally emerges from the authors’
portrait of Taft is a man who stood not
against change, but one who stood for orderly change. Similarly, Taft was to become a symbol of permanence in the
American nation when most of his political
associates flirted with the easy substitution
and the trivial:
heartily approved; it was, as well, a fitting
description of the principles he followed
in his own political journey.
Reviewed by JERE REAL
The New Benign Despotism
The New Industrial State, by John Kenneth Galbraith, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1967. 427 pp. 66.95.
THOSEWHO are already familiar with Professor Galbraith’s Affluent Society and Liberal Hour, who were also exposed to J. M.
Keynes’ Generd Theory and Berle and
Means’ Modern Corporation and Private
Property in the late thirties will find feiv
new ideas in this volume. Most that is
worthy of note is in the interpretation and
expression - and even these will have a
Taft spoke for constitution, self-governnot unfamiliar ring if the reader has folment, private rights, the rule of law, .se
lowed, even superficially, Galbraith‘s Concurity, peace, community, economic stagressional appearances, public lectures,
bility, the fabric of civilization. He had
obiter dicta and other pronouncements.
contended against ideology, concenThis is not intended as a criticism. Very
trated power, grandiose political designs,
imperial aspiration, class hostility, em- few of us are capable of saying something
entirely fresh and new each time we write.
nomio folly, the rootless mass age.
If one adds “true” to the list of require
Taft was, the authors declare, comparable
ments, the task is well nigh impossible.
to Edmund Burke in his knowledge that
Nevertheless, Galbraith‘s effort has much
“healthful change must be in harmony
to commend it. The author is nothing if
with the historical experience of the nanot articulate, an iconoclast of substantial
reputation and ability and, above all, a
tion.” In his Rejlections on the Revolution
in France, Burke wrote that
sophisticated intellectual possessed of both
wit and perception in the best meanings of
The nature of man is intricate; the obof the terms. Although we have all been
jects of society are of the greatest posexposed to this before, this is a highly
sible complexity; and therefore no simreadable (albeit frequently repetitious) exple disposition or direction of power
pression of the not so New, not so Young,
can be suitable either to man’s nature
Left. Those who share and approve Galor to the quality of his affairs.
braithian value judgements, economic and
I t was a statement Taft-as his character
political preferences will find much to quote
and to savor; those who do not will at least
is seen in this new book-would
have
Modern Age
107
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED