# Back to Basics **URL:** **By** Felix Morley **Published:** December 1, 1979 --- “The best relationships between author and publisher are therefore to be expected in the field of ideas.” _Memoirs of a Dissident Publisher, by Henry Regnery._ Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 260 pp, $12.95. Towards the close of her posthumously published autobiography Agatha Christie wrote: “I have never given in to anyone over what I write.” The emphasis is her own. From the other side of the fence that separates author and publisher the equivalent might well be said by Henry Regnery. His _Memoirs of a Dissident Publisher_ reveal a man who knew in advance the sort of manuscript he wanted to see in print, almost regardless of commercial prospects. Unfortunately there was never a Christie-Regnery affiliation. As Regnery says: “The publisher’s role is often misunderstood.” It is his business to find a market for the literary wares that he finances and this expensive subsidization of course entitles him to make editorial suggestions. To these the author may or may not respond cooperatively and on the manner in which minds meet will depend the harmony of the relationship. The fledgling writer will probably be deferential, since to break into hard covers is a big step up the ladder to literary success. Even Agatha Christie admits to being malleable at the outset, though in later years publishers would line up to court her. Yet there is little doubt that her life story would have gained in read-ability from some discriminating pruning of trivia. The best relationships between author and publisher are therefore to be expected in the case of a small firm, with more likelihood of personal appreciation on both sides. We have been moving away from this condition. Many of our historic publishing houses have become subsidiaries of huge con-glomerates, where pressure While several of Regnery’s early books were distinctly “revisionist”—such as Professor Charles C. Tan-sill’s _Back Door To War_—the young publisher soon broadened his reach. There were important Regnery books on education and a distinct leaning towards the philosophic and religious, as in the story of _Great Saints_, by the Swiss Protestant theologian Walter Nigg. In its comments on this wide variety this memoir reveals a highly discriminating rather than a perversely dissident character. From one of his authors (Wilhelm Roepke) Regnery selects the quotation which “I like best of all.” It is: “The highest interests of the community ‘and the indispensable things of life have no exchange value and are neglected if supply and demand are allowed to dominate the field.” As related in these memoirs Regnery moved into book publishing through the medium of the old _Human Events_ pamphlets, in which he and I were closely associated. Several of the immediate postwar studies emphasized that what was left of Western Civilization would collapse in Europe if Germany were reduced to the “goat pasture” that some Americans seemed to think desirable. In presenting this viewpoint Henry may have been influenced by his German ancestry and his student years in that country. But the theme seemed equally vital to me, with a completely English background. affirmation Regnery conceals a will of the finest steel which can be inflexible where political values are concerned. Among these he gives first place to Order, without which individual freedom of course soon becomes impossible. This instinct for Order may well account in part for the strong attraction which Regnery says the Roman Catholic Church exerts for him. That its influence is authoritarian, in the best sense of the word, is certainly no objection in his mind. He is properly proud that _The Lord_ (by Romano Guardini) “became the most successful book in our firm’s history,” going through nine large printings. “Young people,” Regnery contends, “listened to Guardini in the confusion and uncertainty of the postwar period because he was able to offer them the wisdom and sense of order and direction they needed and longed for.” The premium placed on Order by Regnery helps to explain both his own strong leaning towards conservatism and the difficulties which have arisen to diffuse that movement as it has sought to take political form in the United States. There is no doubt that Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley, Jr., both launched by Regnery, have in his words “contributed substantially to the development of the modern conservative movement.” Whether that influence will acquire political importance is more dubious. Contemporary Americans as a whole simply do not possess that instinct for Order by which Regnery sets such store. We are, indeed, in some respects more anarchic than orderly. And the history of conservative parties in other countries shows that they have largely depended on the retention of special privileges—such as a graded nobility, an established church, hereditary mercantilism, a dominant military caste or some combination of these—which are not in keeping with the American way of life. The last conservative bastion in this country disappeared with the plantations of the Confederacy. Big Business cannot supply a substitute so long as it is kept competitive, a condition on which many of our nominal conservatives somewhat ironically insist. One of Regnery’s conservative galaxy really grapples with this underlying difficulty. Willmoore Kendall, in _The Conservative Affirmation_, flatly asserts that “the highest political loyalty,” of the American conservative, “is to the institutions and way of life bequeathed to us by the Philadelphia Convention.” Yet localized undertakings and personal self-government, as nurtured by the original Constitution, are not what contemporary conservatism wants most. The point was unconsciously sharpened by a recent (May 24) _Wall Street Journal_ editorial. Grouping the elections of conservative Prime Ministers in Great Britain and Canada, the _Journal_ said approvingly: “Both are fundamentally internationalist in outlook, promising to strengthen their nations’ military power and contributions to NATO.” This certainly implies that in order to be called “internationalist” a conservative foreign policy should favor those “overgrown military establishments” and “entangling alliances” which were so roundly condemned by practically all the Founding Fathers. The policies to be followed by the British and the Canadian Conservatives is, of course, for their determination. But they can scarcely be used as models by our conservatives if the keystone of the latter is our own Constitution, as Kendall says must be the case. And Regnery, as his publisher, calls Kendall “without doubt one of the truly original and creative figures in the field of political science of his time.” This, I think, is a true estimate and if so the corollary is that our politics should be aligned, in principle, with the abiding issue that the framers of the Constitution had to confront. Should the United States remain a federal or become a unitary republic? Should political power continue to be divided and balanced, as so carefully planned, or should we let the executive authority of the President expand until it becomes overwhelming? Should we get involved in matters like the conduct of elections in Zimbabwe, or is the non-alignment “bequeathed to us by the Philadelphia Convention” still desirable? These are the sorts of issues that are very much alive today. They cannot be answered by superficial dodging. Indeed the constitutional problem is not even confronted by the hostile posturing of two socialistic parties, with many Democrats favoring ever-greater centralization for Welfare while many Republicans do the same for Warfare. Here there is no Liberal vs. Conservative confrontation but merely a trade-off for unlimited extravagance under which the dollar is collapsing while representative government becomes meaningless. There is an ominous shadow-before in the growing number of voters who refuse to identify with either of the two old parties. Henry Regnery does not explore this murky situation in his memoirs. But these show him to be a catalytic agent with an extraordinary capacity for developing and blending various strains of political philosophy. Such insight was not unusual in the infancy of this republic, but nowadays it is the politician rather than the ideas for which he stands that gets publicity. A dissidence shown in going back to basics is something with which the country could do more, right now. Felix Morley, former Rhodes scholar, Pulitzer Prize winner, founding editor of _Human Events_, and author of many books, has recently published his own autobiography, _For The Record_.