The meaning of marriage has become a prime subject of the culture
wars. The subject is itself extremely difficult to discuss dispassionately,
tied up as it is with politics, religion, and the American self-definition
as a land characterized by individual self-creation.
Some advocate that the benefits and legal recognition of marriage
be accorded to same-sex couples, while series such as HBO’s
recent Big Love, not so subtly defend polygamy, and
some feminists want to do away with marriage entirely. Meanwhile,
the majority of Americans continue to get married and have children,
confronting, in areas from television to the tax code, what in
some respects is an increasingly ant-family society.
This volume of essays arose out of a conference held at Princeton
University in 2003 to address the legal, social, and biological
meanings of marriage. The contributors include Hadley Arkes,
philosopher Roger Scruton, legal scholar David Forte, and sociologist
W. Bradley Wilcox. The selections contain deep reflections on
what we mean when we describe marriage, and why marriage is a
superior social institution than its competitors.
Several themes run throughout these contributions. First, is
that marriage, while often imbued with religious meaning, is
not an exclusively religious institution: it has existed, and
continues to exist, in almost every human society for which there
is a record. Second, the contributors argue that marriage is
not, or not simply, a private affair and cannot be properly understood
merely as another means for adults to find personal satisfaction.
Marriage has a public dimension, and that dimension is profoundly
connected to marriage being a structure designed for the begetting
and raising of children. Children are independent persons, and
must be cared for as part of the basic structure of a married
relationship, and not simply as an afterthought. Finally, as
Maggie Gallagher, for example, points out, marriage, not surprisingly,
correlates with positive outcomes for children, more so than
Once any of these themes is discounted, marriage becomes something
other than what most human societies have known it to be. As
Arkes describes in his profound essay, even those arguing to
radical reconstruction of the meaning of marriage do not follow
their logic to where it must go: the elimination of anything
called “marriage,” substituting instead an ersatz
relationship covering any human relationship, deadening within
a law-imposed uniformity the varied loves humans can experience. The
Meaning of Marriage contains essential reading on this vital
Much emphasis has been placed on the intellectual roots of American
conservatism that occurred in the 1950s. However, of no less
importance was the grassroots organizing that took conservative
ideas and transformed them into a winning political movement.
One of the more significant events of the emerging conservative
movement was the successful defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment.
That victory was engineered by Phyllis Schlafly, one of the most
important figures of American politics in the last four decades.
In this new book, Critchlow, a professor of history at St. Louis
University, recounts Schlafly’s remarkable story and her
lasting influence in American public life.
Schlafly (born 1924) rose to permanent national prominence in
1964, with her pro-Goldwater book, A Choice Not An Echo,
but she had already been a well-known anticommunist crusader,
political organizer, and candidate for Congress during the decade
before that. Graduating from Radcliffe in 1945, Schlafly traveled
to Washington and worked for the American Enterprise Association,
which solidified the conservative beliefs she had grown up with
as part of an intellectual Catholic family in St. Louis. By 1975,
she had established the Eagle Forum, as a redoubt for conservative
women who rejected feminism, which still has a readership of
Critchlow rightly focuses on the battle against the Equal Rights
Amendment, the defeat of which is largely impossible to imagine
without Schlafly’s organization and dedication. Critchlow
places the fight over the ERA (which had been mentioned in American
politics as early as 1920) squarely in the context of the aftermath
of the civil rights movement and the feminism emerging under
figures like Betty Friedan. The fight against the ERA, and an
ideological feminism that spurned traditional gender roles and
alienated millions of middle-class American woman, became Schlafly’s
While not sympathetic to Schlafly’s conservatism, Critchlow
for the most part fairly delineates her beliefs and her objections
to modern liberalism. It is a worthy contribution to the history
of the conservative political movement.
This volume is another of the books of the conservative poet-historian
Peter Viereck being republished by Transaction. Viereck is something
of an outlier of contemporary conservatism, having faded from
view in the 1950s after falling out with William F. Buckley and
others over a number of issues, including the controversy over
Joseph McCarthy. His conservatism lead him to some odd conclusions—such
as arguing that the New Deal could be defended as a conservative
program and that Adlai Stevenson was a true conservative– and
conservatives such as Russell Kirk sometimes had harsh words
about Viereck’s opinions, but his work perhaps deserves
a second look.
This volume, first published in 1956, is a précis of
most of the varieties of conservative thought up to the years
following the Second World War. The first part of the book is
a conservative genealogy, tracing it in four constituent parts:
British, Latin Europe, conservatism “east of the Rhine,” and
that of the United States. Viereck compares Burke as a conservative
of liberty, with de Maistre, who is a conservative ofauthority.
The American Founders were students of Burke, but were not the
democrats of popular imagination; while the aristocratic Hamilton
did not win the day, the founding was not a “democratic” event.
Viereck interestingly explains Calhoun’s political thought
as trying to combine Burke and de Maistre in an American context.
Of particular value here is the second section, “Documents,” which
in fact takes up almost half the volume. In it, Viereck has collected
over thirty representative conservative works that track his
earlier discussion, including selections from Burke, Coleridge,
and Disraeli, but also Calhoun, the Spaniard Donoso Cortes, Louis
Veuillot, and others, down to the Wall Street Journal of
Despite its idiosyncrasies, Conservative Thinkers provides
a good introduction to the main subjects, figures, and themes of
Russell Kirk once stated that he studiously avoided the business
section of a newspaper, finding economics justified its reputation
as the dismal science. In his writings on the “wealthy
American bum,” however, and the rarity of the God-fearing
man, Kirk anticipated the kind of character that plagued the
corporate world in the late 1990s and early years of this century.
That period, which witnessed in the internet boom one of the
largest wealth-creating episodes of American history, also featured
corporate greed not seen since the days of the robber barons.
But at least the robber barons, in the midst of their theft,
built railroads, poured steel, and mined coal; their latter-day
epigones seem to have done little but shuffle paper and engage
in the latest management-speak while fleecing millions.
It is not often that a business man comes out so firmly against
his class, but in this book, John Bogle, one of the giants of
American finance and founder and former CEO of the Vanguard group
of mutual funds, unleashes a coruscating attack on the financial
industry for its misconduct. Bogle describes the top scandals
of recent years, and tries to refocus corporate management where
it belongs: on servicing its investor-owners.
In the mutual fund area, which he knows best, Bogle promotes
a series of reforms intended to restrict the ability of fund
managers to put their interests above that of their investors,
which not only is bad for business but is also against the law.
More generally, he is a proponent of corporate democracy; a standard
defense of modern capitalism is that it mimics democracy. Shareholders
own their corporation, and can vote on how it is to be run. Bogle
overturns this easy formulation. He explains how individual shareholders
have little or no say in corporate governance, and how entities
like mutual funds are caught up in a hopeless series of conflicts
of interest, as they try to balance the needs of their investors
with the corporations with which they do business. These problems
are compounded by an ethic of greed and selfishness that too
often pervades the financial marketplace.
Bogle paints a dark, but not completely hopeless picture of modern
American capitalism. Conservatives, and others, who seek to understand
and critique how the market actually works should read this important