but “negatively” it was solidly united: all opposed the New Dealrnand were committed to its total repeal and abolition—lock,rnstock, and barrel. The fact that its unity was “negative” did notrnmake it any less strong or cohesive: for there was total agreementrnon rolling back this collectivist excrescence and on restoringrnthe Old Republic, the true America.rnThe Old Right coalition consisted of the following elements.rnMost “extreme” were the libertarian and individualistrnwriters and intellectuals: H.L. Mencken, Albert Jay Nock, RosernWilder Lane, Caret Garrett, all people who had resisted whatrnthey believed to be the mounting statism of the Republicanrnregime of the 1920’s and who called for an ultraminimalrngovernment that would have rolled back the statism of the Progressivernperiod, the Civil War and Reconstruction eras, andrnperhaps the judicial despotism of Chief Justice John Marshall.rnNext came now virtually forgotten remnants of the conservative,rnstates’ rights Democrats of the 19th century, largely fromrnthe South, whose views were almost as libertarian as the firstrngroup’s. These men were led by Covernor Albert Ritchie ofrnMaryland, who was a candidate for the Democratic presidentialrnnomination in 1932, and Senator James A. Reed fromrnMissouri. The third group consisted of conservative Republicansrnwho were outraged at New Deal democracy and whornlargely came from the Midwest. Former Progressives andrnstatists, who believed that the New Deal was going much toornfar, formed the final group; its leader was former President HerbertrnHoover, who, though he had launched many New Dealrnmeasures in microcosm in his own administration, denouncedrnthe New Deal for going too far into “fascism.” It was the firstrngroup that set the tone, since individualist and libertarianrnrhetoric provided the only general concepts with which NewrnDeal measures could be opposed. The result, however, wasrnthat hack Republican politicians found themselves mouthingrnlibertarian and antistatist slogans that they did not really believern—a condition that set the stage for later “moderation” andrnabandonment of their seemingly cherished principles.rnUnity in our hostility and hatreds, however, combined withrndiversity of positive principle, had a healthy effect on the OldrnRight. It meant that we could unite and act together in denouncingrnand moving against the New Deal enemy, whilerndisagreeing and arguing in friendly fashion among ourselvesrnabout the kind of America we would ultimately like to achieve.rnHow much government did we wish to roll back? Stop at 1932,rnor press onward to repeal Progressive measures or even therncentralization of the 19th century? We were all committed tornstates’ rights, but how far did we want to carry this view? A fewrnlibertarian extremists wanted to go all the way back to the Articlesrnof Confederation, but the great bulk of the right wasrncommitted to the United States Constitution—but a Constitutionrnconstrued so “strictly” as to outlaw much 20th-centuryrnlegislation, certainly on the federal level.rnIn those days, it was a pleasure to pore over the votingrnrecords of right-wing Republicans in Congress, especially in thernharder-core House, for the common garden-variety rightists ofrnthe pre-195 5 era make the most right-wing congressmen todayrnseem impossibly leftist and socialistic. My two favorite congressmenrnwere Howard Buffett of Nebraska and Frederick C.rnSmith of Ohio, both of whom would invariably draw “zero” ratingsrnfrom the Americans for Democratic Action and other leftistrngroups. I remember being disappointed that once in arnwhile they might deviate by favoring a federal anti-lynching bill;rndid they not know that the federal government is not supposedrnto have any police powers?rnFriendly disagreement on positive principles meant genuinernand healthy diversity and freedom of discussion withinrnright-wing circles. As Thomas Fleming noted with astonishmentrnwhen researching the Old Right, there was no party line,rnand there was no organ or central CHQ that excommunicatedrn”unrespectable” members. There was a wide spectrum ofrnpositive views: ranging from pure libertarian decentralization tornHamiltonian reliance on strong government within rigid limitsrnto various wings of monarchists. And in all this diversity andrnrange of discourse, no one would react in shock and horror tornany “extreme” views—so long as the “extremism” did notrnmean selling out the fight against the New Deal. There wasrnalso a great deal of disagreement on specific policies that hadrnbeen open questions in the Old, pre-New Deal, Republic:rntariffs vs. free trade; immigration restrictions vs. open borders;rnand what constitutes a military or foreign policy truly consistentrnwith American national interests.rnThe Old Right experienced one big sea change. Originally,rnits focus was purely domestic, since that was the concentrationrnof the early New Deal. But as the Roosevelt administrationrnmoved toward world war in the late 1930’s, the Old Rightrnadded intense opposition to the New Deal’s war policies to itsrnsystemic opposition to the domestic New Deal revolution. Forrnthey realized that, as the libertarian Randolph Bourne had putrnit in opposing America’s entry into World War I, “War is thernhealth of the State” and that entry into large-scale war, especiallyrnfor global and not national concerns, would plungernAmerica into a permanent garrison state that would wreckrnAmerican liberty and constitutional limits at home even as itrnextended the American imperium abroad. As anti-foreign interventionismrnwas added to the anti-New Deal mix, the OldrnRight lost some adherents and gained even more. For EasternrnEstablishment anti-New Dealers, such as Lewis Douglas,rnWilliam L. Clayton, Dean Acheson, and the Morgan Bank, embracedrnthe entire New Deal package once it came wrapped inrnthe enticing trappings of American Empire. On the otherrnhand, antiwar progressives, originally New Dealers, men suchrnas Senators William Borah and Cerald Nye, intellectuals andrnwriters such as John T. Flynn and Harry Elmer Barnes, beganrnto realize that there was something very wrong with a strongrnstate that could expand into foreign adventures, and so theyrngradually became anti-New Dealers in every sense of the word.rnWorld War II added foreign policy to the mix, so that by thernend of the war, the Old Right was opposed to big governmentrnon every front, foreign and domestic. All parts of the right werernopposed to global crusading, to what Clare Boothe Lucernwittily labeled “globaloney.” They were opposed to what thernformer New Deal historian-turned-noninterventionist CharlesrnA. Beard labeled the foreign policy of “perpetual war forrnperpetual peace.”rnThere have been many memoirs about being Jewish andrngrowing up in New York in the I930’s and I940’s. AlthoughrnI am a few years younger than most of the memoiristsrn—Irving Howe, Irving Kristol, Daniel Bell, Alfred Kazin,rnetc.—my experience was in many ways the same. It was greatrnbeing a Walker in the City in that bygone age. New York streetrnlife was vital and fun. There was no harassment, no sense ofrncrime lurking around every corner. Whites would go up to thernApollo Theater in Harlem to watch Pearl Bailey and otherrngreat entertainers with no sense of fear whatever. There werern16/CHRONICLESrnrnrn