Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America, 198.
James Burnham, Congress and the American Tradition (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2003), 128–29. (This is a republication of the 1959 original edition.)
George F. Will, “Why Didn’t He Ask Congress?” Washington Post (December 20, 2005), A-31
George F. Will, “National Review Hits 40,” National Review (December 11, 1995), 102.
Burnham, Congress and the American Tradition, 298.
There are a number of works (probably three dozen or more) in which this story is told. These include Dan T. Carter, From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich: Race in the Conservative Counterrevolution: 1963–1994 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1996); John B. Judis, The Paradox of American Democracy: Elites, Special Interests, and the Betrayal of Public Trust (New York: Pantheon Books, 2000); and Stephan Lesher, George Wallace: American Populist (Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1994).
Among the better historical accounts that have been written are (listed chronologically): Godfrey Hodgson, The World Turned Right Side Up: A History of the Conservative Ascendancy in America (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1996); Lee Edwards, The Conservative Revolution: The Movement That Remade America (New York: Free Press, 1999); Jonathan M. Schoenwald, A Time for Choosing: The Rise of Modern American Conservatism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001); and Gregory L. Schneider (ed.), Conservatism in America Since 1930: A Reader (New York: New York University Press, 2003).
Lewis L. Gould, Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans (New York: Random House, 2003), 488.
See Joseph Scotchie, The Paleoconservatives: New Voices of the Old Right (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1999).
William Rusher, “Toward a History of the Conservative Movement,” Journal of Policy History, vol. 14, no. 3 (2002). See also Kirk, The Conservative Mind, 476.
Historian Jennifer Burns has called this “a rare work of history that remains the authoritative treatment of its subject nearly thirty years after publication.” Rarer still, she explained, is the fact that it appeared in prepublication form as a forty-seven-page insert in the National Review (December 5, 1975). Ms. Burns noted that this “work exerts a deep influence on our common understanding of conservatism in America.” While George Nash’s politics are difficult to discern from his work, Ms. Burns reports that he is a conservative. See Jennifer Burns, “In Retrospect: George Nash’s The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945,” Reviews in American History, vol. 32 (2004), 447–62. (I have relied heavily on Nash’s work because of the near universal esteem with which it is held by conservatives among all the factions.)
Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America, xv.
Because conservatives do not view the Declaration of Independence as based on liberalism, I had to scratch my head for an authority that was clearly neither liberal nor conservative yet stated the obvious fact of its classic liberalism. The Wikipedia online encyclopedia has its weaknesses (for example, its entry for yours truly has clearly been distorted by my detractors, but I have never bothered to correct it to see if the entry is self-correcting), yet I thought this a good source to make my point, for clearly conservatives have been quite active in getting their point of view into the Wikipedia. Of the Declaration, and the Constitution, Wikipedia states that “the United States Constitution and the United States Declaration of Independence are both documents that embody many principles of classic liberalism.” See “classic liberalism” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism.
Unfortunately, Nash happened to mangle his material and its source regarding this significant point. Nash stated: “On one occasion, Jeffrey Hart of Dartmouth College in effect conceded the Declaration to the liberals. He
