Books
The versatile and kaleidoscopic mind compliments he is at pains to bestow.
of Peter Viereck is an asset to American intellectual life. His devotion to free-dom and his self- confidence- both en-tirely honest are potentially a com-bination of great value. It is thereforeno pleasure to report that his latest vol-ume, Conservatism Revisited,( Scrib-ners,$ 2.50) is a confused and uncon-vincing exercise in heterodox history.
Not that the book is valueless. Mr. Viereck does not know how to be dull,and his topic is one which has not late-ly had many students. Even a hasty es-say in defense of conservatism is likelyto shake the complacency, and prickthe prejudices, of uncritical liberals.Uncritical liberalism is dying, but slow-ly, and from the head down. Mr. Vie reck 's attack on its excesses will hardlybe unfamiliar, but his is a sprightly,readable restatement of the case.
However this is certainly not all thatconservatism needs, nor all Mr. Vie reck 's admirers have hoped for.
Mr. Viereck 's main thesis is thatClemens Metternich , foreign minister of Austria for forty years, has been sad-ly abused and misunderstood. Up to apoint, this is not at all startling. Met ternich , the architect of a period of re-pose, and, with Castlereagh , the fram er , in 1815, of a peace without ven-geance- this is a Metternich we havehad with us now for many years.
Where Mr. Viereck breaks newground is in his assertion that, at leastin principle, Metternich 's political phi-losophy was as admirable as his diplo-macy. This is new indeed at leastamong believers in individual freedom--and it may be valid. But if the casecan be made, Mr. Viereck has not madeit. His Metternich , an apostle of law-and- ordered liberty, is skillfully con-structed of quotations by and about thegreat man, but the construction is sounreal that Mr. Viereck himself con-stantly withdraws under his breath the
Moreover, Mr. Viereck sometimescontradicts himself. He praises Met ternich for his care not to inflameFrench nationalism by a punitive peaceafter Waterloo. Then he ardently de-fends his client's description of Italy as" a geographical expression." It is a" a geographical expression." It is astrange alchemy which can transmutethis standard thesis of Hapsburg diplo-macy into a lofty principle of interna-tionalism. The Austrians wished Italy to be merely" a geographical expres-sion," and Metternich applied bothforce and guile to make this wishcome true. Metternich 's Italian policy,viewed from the standpoint of humanfreedom, was a crime; from the stand-point of diplomacy, a blunder.
Perhaps more serious still are Mr. Viereck 's omissions. Is it possible torehabilitate Metternich without somediscussion of the theory and practice oflegitimacy? And how can we acceptMr. Viereck 's portrayal of Metternich as a guide to" The Conservative Wayto Freedom" when Mr. Viereck doesnot even mention this remark:" NoGovernment can pursue a firm and un-deviating course when it is daily ex-posed to the influence of such dissolventposed to the influence of such dissolventconditions as the freedom of the Press "? Mr. Viereck tells us that Met ternich would have reformed Austria ,but history shows that he prevented thebut history shows that he prevented thediscussion of reforms by other Austri-ans. Mr. Viereck tells us that Metter nich was an admirer of the British Con-stitution, at least for the British , buthistory shows that he urged Britain tosilence any of its citizens who supportedcontinental liberalism.
Now Metternich , whatever else hemay have been, was certainly complex.Like so many politicians, he was in-ordinately concerned about his place inhistory, and many of the comments thatMr. Viereck has joyously exhumedbear the musty taint of afterthoughtand apology. Metternich was at home
with principles- he could always finda high ground for low actions. What issurprising is that Mr. Viereck shouldbe so easily persuaded by verbal acro-batics. An attractive theoretical con-servatism can be constructed from thestatements of most reactionaries, in-cluding the" stuffy- stodgy" Americans whom Mr. Viereck rightly repudiates.Why then should he accept the state-ments of Metternich , nearly all ofwhose actions show him as the lastgreat servant of a worn- out, sterile sys-tem of royalist repression and unearnedaristocracy?
Mr. Viereck 's motives are unques-tionably of the best. His retreat to Met ternich is not merely a puckish hunt foran unpopular position. He seems tohave come to the Austrian by way ofhis notable study of the romantic ori-gins of Nazism ( Metapolitics: From theRomantics to Hitler , Knopf, 1941),and some of the best passages in Con-servatism Revisited are restatements ofpassages in his earlier book. We mayjoin him in admiring Metternich 's per-ception of the dangers of romantic na-tionalism. Equally, we must applaudMr. Viereck 's emphatic denunciationof present- day Bolshevik nationalism,and his plea for common cause amongliberals and conservatives against theextremes of right and left. Yet Mr. Viereck 's topical illusions, by theirvery acceptability, seem to me to un-dermine his thesis about Metternich ,for while Metternich was no Fascist ,I find it hard to see him as the firstanti- Fascist . If he has spiritual descend-ants, I cannot find them in the menwho have fought for freedom, butrather in such gray figures as Pétain .
Mr. Viereck is right when he tells usthat there is a conservative way to free-dom. But surely it must be at all times,and passionately, a way to freedom. Itis just at this point that we get littlehelp from Prince Metternich .
The Reporter, October 11, 1949
38