Blaming Bill Buckley

IT'S THE CLEANEST, neatnest [sic] operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious." When Rexford Tugwell, an adviser to President Franklin Roosevelt, wrote these words in 1934, he was not referring to the New Deal programs in his purview.

- PHILLIP W. MAGNESS

He was recording his thoughts on fascist Italy while awaiting an audience with Benito Mussolini. Tugwell reacted with similar awe upon touring the Soviet Union in 1928, penning an essay urging Americans to reflect on what they might adapt from Josef Stalin's "experiment." For progressive historians who depict the New Deal as a "democratization" of the economy, Tugwell creates an unsettling complication. So do the many other leftist intellectuals who turned to the illiberal regimes of interwar Europe as models of economic planning. When conservative writer Jonah Goldberg assembled those episodes in his 2007 book Liberal Fascism, he struck a raw nerve with progressives.

Taking America Back-a book from Yale University Press by David Austin Walsh, currently a postdoctoral researcher at Yale-emerged from a decadeslong fit of spite over Goldberg's explorations of the undemocratic left.

Walsh's monograph is an oddity. It mainly consists of scattershot vignettes about the racist and antisemitic figures who hovered around the American far right of the mid-20th century. The closest the text comes to a thesis statement is this: "All of the principal protagonists in this book-Merwin K. Hart, Russell Maguire, George Lincoln Rockwell, Revilo Oliver, Pat Buchanan, and Joe Sobran-have something in common," he writes. "They were all connected in some way to William F. Buckley, Jr." Walsh views Buckley, the "respectable" founder of National Review, as an arms-length partner of the aforementioned "crackpots" in what he dubs a conservative "popular front" against Roosevelt's policies. As in many works of this genre, the New Deal never faces meaningful interrogation. Its policy prescriptions are seen as obvious "democratic" correctives to capitalist excesses; the only conceivable motive for opposing it, Walsh apparently believes, is the reentrenchment of wealth and power.