It is indeed rare that an online magazine or a print journal dedicated to conservative and libertarian thought would feature as a "top" book, a work with somewhat unimpressive sales, written by an author of relative obscurity (within the field), and with a point of view of surface" ho-hum" significance.

The rarity is excepted in this instance.

Craig Schiller's The Guilty Conscience Of A Conservative deserves its spot on IC's Top 25 Conservative Books. 

Schiller was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1951. He eschewed his parents' political and religious liberalism at an early age. By the age of 12, he was a practicing Orthodox Jew and a political rightist.

His career objective, that of becoming a Talmudic instructor, was realized early. After six years as Rabbinic Fellow in the Kollel Avreichim of New Square, he took a position at Yeshiva High School of Queens, and subsequently a post at the Ohr Torah Institute, in Queens, New York. He is currently Talmudic instructor at Yeshiva University High School for Boys in New York City.

In addition to the book under review, Schiller has written another, The Road Back, in which he discusses the merits of Orthodox Judaism.

He lectures on topics of culture, politics, and religion in addition to his full-time teaching duties.

I doubt that Schiller, with his obvious brilliance and analytic ability, would have picked the title for this six-chapter, well-documented work (the chapter headings are even sillier), but, be it as it may, this slim book is wonderfully tight in its construction and logical coherence.

The first chapter deals with severe modifications that took place in conservative thought from the Fifties to his present (1978); the second, an original classification of conservative thought (this chapter alone is worth a book-hunting sojourn) as it relates to the death wish Schiller finds endemic in Right-wing disputation. His later three chapters, in turn, analyze the state of American conservatism, depict four failed candidacies as wrong-headed, and delve into the minds of American voters. In his final chapter he opines that the conservative cause is not lost (so long as certain frames of thought become resilient and practicable).

Each chapter deserves a hearing.

CHAPTER ONE

Schiller traces the shift from (what he fashions as) the Buckley-inspired conservatism of the fifties to the vapid Metternicheanism of the seventies. He selects two issues for discussion: civil rights and foreign policy. On the matter of integration, NR traveled from a firm denunciation on states' rights
ground to an ameliorated position leading inevitably to "reverse discrimination." Schiller finds little fault with Brown which, after all, merely declared de jure segregation in the schools to be unconstitutional. It was the retreat (or rather, the unconcern), on the part of rightist pundits when confronted with later court decisions leading to remedial forced busing, that demonstrated a discomfiting change in stance.

Schiller shows brilliant analytical prescience (remember when the work was published):

Regarding foreign policy (the Fall of the Kremlin had not occurred at this juncture), Schiller takes to task the wind-direction from firm destruction of communism to a detente of contentment. The reader might skip this section due to its age, but should not Schiller's demonstration of James Burnham's Metamorphosis (here you find my first example of Schiller's synoptic talent):

(Regardless of the age of the above passage and notwithstanding the distinct possibility that the later Burnham may have been closer to target, there is little denial on my part that Schiller's ability to pierce a complex amalgam of thought and then proceed to clarify is of genius quality).

It is Schiller's contention that the paralyzed conservatism of the seventies needed a New Message. The great ideas of the fifties became muddled as a result of the ascendancy of the "true believers." These, found in YAF and the ACU, found no truck with the early conservative meld of libertarian, metaphysical, and constitutionalist thought. As a result, the Liberalism, the Leftism of the post-New Deal days became acceptable (though dressed up a bit to appear rightist). Party loyalty became the shibboleth, regardless of doctrinal intention or nuance (Today, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity come to mind). The "'true believers" shut out of their ranks all dissidents (i.e., those willing to invigorate, to add middle-class ethnicity to the movement, like the Ralph de Toledano and William A. Rusher of old and the Sam Francis of recent). Even more shunned were the rightists of the pre-New Deal, pre-World War II period, the 'remnant' (like Nock and Spooner), who held "laissez-faire" economics and strict "constitutionalism" as sacred.

(It is unfortunate that Schiller had yet to witness (or maybe to realize) Murray Rothbard's analysis of the writings of the "remnant." Rothbard's pioneering work in this area spoke for a novel way of discerning the Left-Right "spectrum" (i.e., get rid of it). However, this is beyond the ken of my review and not concomitant with the substance of Schiller's otherwise lucid theses).

CHAPTER TWO

Schiller renders a robust, original classification of the conservative (sans the libertarian) movement. For Schiller, there is the "provincialist" conservative (represented by M. Stanton Evans and Frank Meyer), the "universalist" -- divided into three sub-classifications -- as the "metaphysical" (Frederic Wilhelmsen), the "empirical" (Donald Atwell Zoll), and the "historical" (Russell Kirk). Schiller's favorite type, the "realist," heralds a solution to conservative woes, and is represented by Thomas Molnar.
(See my IC review #16).

The provincialist holds that the political traditions of his own nation-state express genuine virtue and legitimacy. Provincialists are fusionists. The European tradition of liberty within authority (or maybe the reverse) doesn't work for the American citizenry (though theorists like Hoppe and Kuehnelt-Leddihn capably show it might). Nevertheless, Schiller,writing in his time period, takes to task the exorcism replete within Evans' famous essay, "A Conservative Case for Freedom."

Schiller states,

Evans concludes that American constitutionalism offers the decisive balance.

As for Meyer, Schiller examines his fusionism with a keen eye. Meyer's attack on the excesses found within both ends of the spectrum leads eventually to a nihilization of theory altogether. What's left, for Meyer, after no-holds-barred hyper-analysis of the Greek, Roman, and Medieval contributions is James Madison. (See my IC review #24).

Our author concurs with Willmoore Kendall's description of Meyer as "doctrinaire."

Both Evans and Meyer as provincialists offer for the movement "a conservatism at its self-crippling ideological worst."

Schiller holds as the standard for the metaphysical school the ideas of the political theorist Wilhelmsen.

According to Schiller,

Wilhelmsen visualizes the inception of his "legitimate" society as a time when secularism has finally been extinguished. For Schiller, this is too long a respite, and in addition, Wilhelmsen does not generalize faith to its necessary pluralism.

It appears to me that Schiller, irrespective of his sharply constructive critique of the metaphysical type, finds much that is worthy in his approach for,

For Schiller, then, the provincial and metaphysical theorist narrows his frame and therefore his effectiveness, that is, of course, if Leftism is considered an abhorrent ideology, as it decidedly is for Schiller.

Donald Atwell Zoll represents the empirical strand of conservative theory. Schiller comes close to acknowledging that there is libertarian influence here, by judging that Hume and Henry Adams are of empirical volition (he looks at Rand and Hospers as utopians, not empiricists).

Schiller dissects Zoll brilliantly: An anti-Goldwater, pro-Kennedy "conservative," Zoll correctly denies the utopian fancies of both left and right; he offers as recompense his notion of naturalistic empiricism. From his Twentieth Century Mind,

Schiller's religiosity holds sway as he sees Zoll's
version of Jungian discourse "similar to the transcendental morality of orthodox faith." Schiller's great leap extends to his concluding remarks on Zoll's hope for a conservative majority in which he seconds the author's summation for an American community where there is,

Schiller differentiates the conservative empiricist from his counterpart, the metaphysicist, by subtly messaging their respective notions of truth: for the Wilhelmsens, the rejection of Leftist relativism demands transcendental truth, for the Zolls, transrational.

An examination of Russell Kirk as historical conservative concludes Schiller's discussion of right-wing universalism.

In what is a scarce understanding of the ubiquitous Kirk, the comment is made: "Russell Kirk the Tory conservative is really Russell Kirk the conservative, who happens to have derived his theories from the Tories."

Drawing from his hero Burke, Kirk extrapolates from the West traditional truth maxims appropriate for use in all geographical milieu. Schiller is keen to find that,

Kirk viewed conservatism as "organic." Schiller rightly notes the Tory predilection toward hazy philosophy and thus concludes that with Kirk it is Western tradition that is right, but since there are little or non-existent ("hazy") axiological underpinnings, "historical conservatism inevitably reduces itself to either...(the)... metaphysical or empirical..."

As with metaphysical and empirical conservatism, relativism and ideology are rejected; unlike these approaches however, it is vaguely defined "Western" truth that saves the day, not the eternal truth of Wilhelmsen or the Jungian-Maurrasian "functional" truth of Zoll.

Today, Schiller is an advocate of "Westernism." It is possible he has come to grips with the unspecific nature of Burkean thought.

But in 1978, it was Thomas Molnar who waxes supreme.

Schiller on Molnar:

CHAPTER THREE

Schiller discusses conservatism specific to America without losing sight of the innards of his previously well-explicated categories.

The rightist, according to our author, has the responsibility to probe into historical situations in order to discover the true nature of his society. This process reveals assumptions about man and life. The crux, Schiller's mission, is to determine a "workable conservative theory of change." This is accomplished by deep study of philosophical influences on historical occurrences which in turn yields a national attitude.

Schiller:

Schiller:

But theory, put to tradition, put to practice, yields
problems in that there are numerous conservative stances. Which position is American? Must various and sundry conservative attitudes operate "in absentia" during particularly pressing times?

For Schiller, there are four conservative attitudes:

1. The Eternal Values attitude (represented today, I feel, by a Rick Santorum).

2. The Opposition to the Welfare State attitude (a mixture of Cato people and Limbaugh types).

3. The Traditional Morality as Shown in Custom attitude (Bill O'Reilly, Jerry Falwell on Janet Jackson's anatomical revelation).

4. The Prudential Assessment of the American Economy attitude (free enterprise/free trade/private property bring peace and prosperity types: Lew Rockwell, The Mises Institute).

Schiller feels that the above #1 should never change, #2 and 3 should and do change, and that #4 is neither left nor right and not necessarily within his purview.

(It's here that Schiller fires and misses. The fourth attitude, like the first, should never change. I am surprised that Schiller didn't take Buckley's God and Man seriously (cursory as the book was).
It's not that Schiller was unacquainted with laissez faire prose. Note again, his synoptic talent:

Schiller tells his readers to wait patiently for specifics as these will come in subsequent chapters. For now, however, he posits that while eternal truths must stay static, there is room for negotiation regarding welfare statism and custom.

He sees hope in that "change and reform can be of a conservative nature..." The key, for Schiller, is that Americanism must (in fact, if given parameters, it will) reject the utopian. It may however, cede to a modified economic system (possibly distributism).

CHAPTERS FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX

The past is the past. What viable values are pertinent to the present? Schiller talks turkey.

Four factors have hampered the efforts of American rightists to confront relativist/utopian/ideological success.

1. Rightists lack the dynamism and hopefulness implicit in Leftism.

2. Rightists, in positions of policy significance, lose momentum when Leftists make (even minor) headway.

3. Rightists of the rank-and-file lack the "fluidity and originality" of Leftism.

4. Rightists tend to be a "self-satisfied lot."

With the above points in mind, Schiller skillfully writes on the failed candidacies of Landon, Taft, Goldwater and (the 1976) Reagan. Schiller:

Schiller concludes his work by first, examining the social psychology of the "American" (he is humane, virtuous, and determined) and theorizing that the populace is inherently conservative and is wide open for "...a Disraeli-style revival of (the right)...the people yearn for it and the times demand it..."

The traditional conservative cannot take a back seat since,

Is Schiller's Disraelian (sorry!) humanistic revival to be smugly political or truly principled?

He finishes his book by talking of necessary "ad hoc" flexibility:

So why Schiller on the IC Top 25 Books? Before my analysis of the book under review, I will precede with reasons: (1) Schiller writes well, better in fact than most of the writers I've reviewed or will review. His prose has a quality of anticipation, not the "angst" of a Whittaker Chambers, but rather the perspicaciousness of Falk as Columbo. (2) His synoptic ability is a marvel. William A. Rusher has acknowledged that Schiller has "read widely in the literature of conservatism and pondered deeply what he has read." His research enables his fine mind to explicate, compress, and analyze. (3) He foretold early on that there was afoot a Buckley/Kristol assignation (more on this later).

William A. Rusher, in his 1978 NR review of Schiller's work, described the thesis import as "Tory Populism." In a sense, yes, this is true. Allowing for the heresy of 20-20 hindsight, however, I am obliged to fashion the thought that the Schiller of 1978 was not sure where he would end up.

His choices were:

1. To embrace William A. Rusher's "New Majority." (Rusher felt that Schiller, in fact, was a card-carrying member). Left "in vacuo," this might have been optimum for Schiller. His conscience demanded conservatism of the pure type, however.

In discussing this movement (frequently referred to as the "New Right"), Schiller says:

2. To become a Bircher. It appears to me that here, Schiller is on-again,off-again:

3. To think like the "remnant." While he agrees, in part, with Nash, that the intellectual influence on the conservative movement from such notables as Nock, Mencken, and Root might be "negligible," Schiller asks,

Charting Schiller's intellectual travel from the date of the book's publication to the present is difficult (his priority is that of the Rabbi, to teach, of which he is considered one of the very best. He successfully separates his role as Rabbi from his role as political theorist).

Yet, I speculate this way: Schiller came across the Hamiltonian/Disraeli style conservatism of George Will (we have already noted Schiller's fondness for Disraeli). Because of the connection such has with neoconservatism (subtle, but apparent), Schiller rejected the approach. The movement's Leftist origins would be more than just problematic for him.

He came across the writings of Sam Francis and found a soulmate -- strong nationalism within a solid Western frame, (free trade or Buchananite protectionism as optional economics). Both he and Francis have been on the dais together for conferences sponsored by the American Renaissance organization.

(The reader should not get the impression that Schiller needs to follow any movement. He is a stand-alone thinker with many years of study behind him (as his book demonstrates).

Schiller's book, even his thinking today, has a quality of pessimism about it that I find dispiriting.

Christopher Mayer states in the December 2000 Free Market newsletter, published by the Mises Institute,

One's perceptions are difficult to change.

The Guilty Conscience of a Conservative is available on Amazon.com.

IC's Top 25 Philosophical and Ideological Conservative Books.

Dr. Enrico Peppe is a retired educator who runs the website The Third Way. A widower with too much time on his hands, he spends most of his time reading and thinking about the conservative movement, studying Catholic theology, working on his "Third Way" website, listening to Sinatra and Miles Davis, and admiring Ann Coulter.

Email Dr. Peppe

Send this Article to a Friend