# Liberty’s Heritage: Frank Chodorov and the American Right **URL:** **By** Charles H. Hamilton **Published:** December 1, 1979 --- “His unerring championing of individualism, the free market, tolerance, anti-statism, and anti-imperialism makes him an important figure in liberty’s heritage.” Frank Chodorov has a special place in liberty’s heritage. Part of the Old Right, he helped to preserve that tradition of anti-statism, voluntarism, and anti-imperialism through the frightful years of World War II. On the other side of the war he was a founding father to the modern conservative movement. M. Stanton Evans once wrote that “The Chodorov imprint is visible in every phase of conservative effort.” His articles, books, and organizational ability gave American conservatism direction and a libertarian sensibility it desperately needed. But while he was instrumental in the formation of this burgeoning conservative movement, Chodorov was also among its most vociferous critics when it eagerly began to embrace militant anti-communism and statism. Ignoring or forgetting Frank Chodorov has left conservatism poorer and certainly less liberty-conscious. As Murray Rothbard has lamented about those days in the 1950’s, “we should have listened more carefully to Frank Chodorov.” He wrote for the Remnant, that tiny band of obscure and unorganized people who would in time build a new society from the ashes of the old, tired, totalitarian one. He offers much to those of the libertarian Remnant today. Frank Chodorov was born on February 15, 1887 to two poor Russian immigrants. He grew up on the lower west side of New York City, went to Columbia University (unusual for a Jewish kid at that time), and then “wandered through the years.” Between the various jobs that occupied his time, Chodorov developed a sort of interest in politics: a dislike for the political and a passionate commitment to individualism and the free market. “A young man must have a cause,” he wrote in his autobiography. He found his in a book called _Progress and Poverty_, by Henry George. Henry George is usually remembered for his concern over the ownership of land and his advocacy of the single tax. But it was George’s place in the broader Jeffersonian and Spencerian tradition that was most important, and Chodorov never lost his deep commitment to Georgism: “George is the apostle of individualism,” he wrote. “He teaches the ethical basis of private property; he stresses the function of capital in an advancing civilization.... His is the philosophy of free enterprise, free trade, free men.” By 1937, at the age of 50, Chodorov became the director of the Henry George School of Social Science and a short time later the editor of the School’s magazine, _The Freeman_ (not a continuation of Albert Jay Nock’s _Freeman_ of the early 1920s). Dedicated to the philosophy of Henry George, _The Freeman_ attracted authors like John Dewey, Albert Jay Nock, George Bernard Shaw, and Francis Neilson. One topic above all others concerned Chodorov when he began editing and writing for _The Freeman_: the coming war. Presciently, he saw war being forged by politicians and intellectuals. And he knew that when “Truth Faces War Hysteria,” as he titled one of his editorials in August 1940, principle is the first thing to go by the board—and with it freedom. Chodorov refused to get involved with the emotionalism surrounding any war issue. He was against war, all wars. Even if the battles were won, he warned, the State would never give up its war powers, and “Americans of the future will be slaves to the State.” The task at hand, he warned, called for courage and resolution. As early as November 1938, in an article titled “When War Comes,” he wrote, > Those of us who try to retain some modicum of sanity will be scorned by our erstwhile friends, spit upon, persecuted, imprisoned. We must steel ourselves for the inevitable. Every day we must repeat to ourselves as a liturgy, the truth that... no war is justified; that no war benefits the people;... that war destroys liberty.... Now, before it is too late, we must learn to think peace in the midst of war. The war came and Chodorov dedicated himself to “educating for an enduring peace.” His anti-war stance, however, angered many people (he was called an “anti-semitic Jew”), and in early 1942 he was ousted from his directorship of the School and his editorship of _The Freeman_. This was a terrible blow to him. Unfortunately, the same fate was shared by others. The trauma of the war for the Old Right is often forgotten. Just a few years before, the Old Right had been a genuine force in intellectual circles. With the war, individualism, antimilitarism, and anti-statism became expendable attitudes. Most people got on the war band wagon. Those who didn’t lost their jobs or couldn’t find outlets for their writing. People like Garet Garrett, John T. Flynn, and Albert Jay Nock joined Frank Chodorov on the outs. In November 1944 Chodorov started his own foray into personal journalism with a four-page monthly named _analysis_. It was the most gratifying venture in his life. As he said, “It’s fun to fight—when what you are fighting for stirs your imagination.” His little magazine became important to the development of the postwar American Right as Chodorov delivered up such little gems as “Don’t Buy Bonds,” “Socialism Via Taxation,” “Commies Don’t Count,” and “A Byzantine Empire of the West.” No converts were sought. Chodorov didn’t believe in them and insisted that _analysis_ “would not attempt to teach individualism; it would attempt to find individualists.” And while it never had more than 4,000 subscribers, it did “find” many individualists, including many who would later make their mark, such as the young William F. Buckley, Murray Rothbard, Edmund Opitz, and James J. Martin. When Chodorov started _analysis_, he “slapped it on its hopeful rump and the birthcry was ‘anti-statism’.” He wrote from a basic set of principles. Individual dignity, natural rights, the free market, and the importance of society over the State informed all topics he chose to discuss. The distinction between the social and the political was particularly important. He had taken this distinction from Henry George and refined through his contact with Albert Jay Nock and through his reading of Franz Oppenheimer’s _The State_. There was, on the one hand, society: the free and voluntary interactions of people in the free market. It was through these interactions that people and civilizations prospered. The political realm, on the other hand, was wholly different: “Politics is the partnership of power and privilege with the purpose of maintaining privilege.” The State was the institutional embodiment of the political. It used force to accomplish its ends; and, Chodorov added, it contributes nothing to the material or spiritual basis of civilization. Chodorov didn’t reify the State as “the enemy.” Statism was a state of mind, and he saw that it was “fast crowding out all other patterns.” Flinging principles, facts, and scorn at politicians, socialists, and communists, Chodorov also damned conservatives and capitalists for their support of special privileges and the political means. “Capitalist practice too often squares with communist theory.” Chodorov was particularly critical of the political tool of taxation. When the income tax amendment was passed, he sadly pointed out, the American Revolution was lost. Taxation was theft, and it gave the State the wherewithal to maintain its repressive structure and control. In one of his rare forays into political action, he worked for the repeal of the income tax and, in 1954, wrote a book that summed up his attitude perfectly, _The Income Tax: The Root of All Evil_. Politics had “destroyed every civilization man had ever built,” and Chodorov constantly advocated staying away from the political game. Don’t vote, for instance. (And when, as a lark in the 1950s, he ran for the New Jersey State Senate, his campaign slogan was “Don’t vote for me.”) He believed that even libertarians were at a disadvantage if they tried to achieve their ends politically. Quite apart from being inconsistent and seeking the power they were against, “On the political front you are fighting a rear guard action.” The real struggle was elsewhere: “One should concentrate on society and leave politics severely alone; which means education and more education, and ignoring the politicians altogether.” In fact Chodorov’s whole career can be seen as an important educational effort; from his early teaching and writing at the Henry George School to his writing “A Fifty-Year Project” (in the October 1950 issue of _analysis_). That article is a classic piece of libertarian strategy and led to the formation of the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists which Chodorov ran for a number of years. In the article Chodorov tried to understand the “transmutation of the American character from individualist to collectivist.” What he found was that socialism had advanced because it had succeeded to the schools. Organizations like the Intercollegiate Society of Socialists had spearheaded an intellectual onslaught. And there had been no real challenge from individualists or capitalists. Above all else, Chodorov saw that a long-term project was needed to win the minds of youth. “Individualism can be revivified by implanting the idea in the minds of the coming generations.... The assault must be made on the campus.” This article was reprinted a number of times; one version was published in _Human Events_ in September 1950. It provoked a lot of interest as well as a $1000 donation from J. Howard Pew. With the help of the Foundation for Economic Education, names were solicited, literature was sent out, and the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists was formed. Within a few years over 30,000 students had received literature. The effect of these efforts was felt in the conservative movement throughout the 1950s and 1960s and can still be seen today in conservative and libertarian circles. It was the high point in Chodorov’s case for the Remnant: > \[I\]f there were no ISI, or something like it, the blackout of individualism would be as complete as the blackout of all culture during the Dark Ages. Future generations would indeed have to dig out of their own understanding the principle of the dignity of man, and out of bitter experience learn that the State can do no good. Those on the ISI list will probably be able to pass on to their offspring knowledge they cannot get in the classroom; that is the least gain from this effort. Unfortunately, the conservative movement was moving further and further away from the individualistic and libertarian sensibility that Chodorov had done so much to foster. And it is symbolically interesting to note that the same year Chodorov died, the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists became the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. American conservatism would never be the same. Chodorov continued to publish analysis, but it was a significant financial burden. So in March 1951 he merged it with _Human Events_, a newsletter begun in 1944 by Felix Morley and Frank Hanighen. He moved to “the American Mecca”— Washington, D.C.—and wrote frequent articles until 1. In July of that year he became the editor of a new _Freeman_, this time published by the Foundation for Economic Education. Conflict with the Foundation and a long illness that made work quite difficult for him for well over a year (he was then 68) forced him to leave _The Freeman_ in 1955. During that short period, though, Chodorov tried once more to uphold the isolationist Old Right position. The mid-1950s represented a watershed for America’s political consciousness, for across the spectrum, from left to right, militant anti-communism was the new and dangerous fad. Within the fledgling conservative movement, Chodorov and a few others reminded their audiences that the issues were what they had always been: individualism, anti-statism, and tolerance. While communism—in both its international and domestic forms— did represent a threat, increasing State power, diminishing individual freedom, and suppressing unpopular views were no answer. The danger could be handled by the legitimate powers of the government to protect person and property. Interventionists, however, admitted that there would need to be a loss in freedom in this struggle against communism. They were, Chodorov said, “willing to gamble with freedom. I am not.” Statism and the loss of freedom, no matter what the intended purpose, were the crucial issues: “The important thing for America now is not to let the fear-mongers (or the imperialists) frighten us into a war which, no matter what the military outcome, is certain to communize our country.” Just as he had warned of the coming of World War II and of the consequent loss of freedom, Chodorov’s “well-trained nostrils” detected “the aroma of a similar stew now in the making.” Interventionism against communism was, after all, killing, imperialism and conquest. If people in other countries wanted communism, that was their right, and the United States couldn’t be the policeman for the world anyway. Let the natives alone, he said. Communism was an idea, a cult of power-seeking. “That, then, is the idea that we who believe in the American tradition should try to kill, and let all natives alone.” The growing hysteria over domestic communism similarly alarmed Chodorov. Half seriously, he offered “How to get rid of the communists in the Government? Easy. Just abolish the jobs.” What worried him most, however, was that persecution of communists would lead directly to persecution of ideas of all kinds. Chodorov’s position was clear: “Let them rant their heads off—that is their right, which we cannot afford to infringe.” If the State were to outlaw those ideas, then what would stop it from outlawing any ideas? As Chodorov pointed out when the Government tried to intimidate anti-communist organizations: “America will not be saved by getting rid of communists. The real danger is the trend toward Statism—the general attitude that condones the imprisonment of Americans for holding ideas contrary to those who wield power.” Anti-communism was a struggle between different sects of power-seekers. It was a witch hunt and a heresy trial, and it was best to steer clear of it all. Sadly, Chodorov was too alone, he was too old, and his voice lacked journalistic outlets. Militant and un-thinking anti-communism came to power in the conservative movement with virtually no struggle. And Chodorov steadily lost favor. His brand of uncompromising individualism, isolationism, and free market economics was often too extreme for this adolescent movement. Chodorov himself was losing patience with the inability of these new conservatives to stick to the important principles. A movement which he had done so much to nurture, protect, and teach was becoming less and less to his liking. In a moment of exasperation, he quipped, “As for me, I will punch anyone who calls me a conservative in the nose. I am a radical.” When Chodorov left _The Freeman_ in 1955, he was 68, and the years were taking their toll. Still, he continued to write, lecture, and work for ISI. He received a grant from the Volker Fund to write his “autobiography,” _Out of Step_. William F. Buckley was a close friend, and Chodorov wrote for _National Review_ as a gadfly associate editor. From 1957 to 1961, he went each year to teach at the Freedom School in Colorado. He suffered a massive stroke while there in 1961. The next five years he spent in a nursing home. On December 28, 1966 Frank Chodorov died at the age of 79. While so important to the growth of the postwar conservative movement, Frank Chodorov was also one of those stalwart souls who brilliantly fought for what Murray Rothbard has called “The Transformation of the American Right.” His unerring championing of individualism, the free market, tolerance, anti-statism, and anti-imperialism makes him an important figure in liberty’s heritage. Reacquainting ourselves with his life and work can give us hope and direction for liberty’s future. Charles Hamilton, publisher of Free Life Editions, is the editor of a forthcoming collection of essays by Frank Chodorov to be published by Liberty Press.