Harry V. Jaffa (1918–2015)

A book of superb legal and philosophic analysis, though reading it today one is put off by the degree to which it is fixated on historiographic disputes of the 1950s. Jaffa undertakes a thorough but mostly fair defense of Abraham Lincoln, pre-presidency, against historians of his day who were taking the side of Stephen Douglas and his "popular sovereignty" doctrine.

Lincoln's star has risen somewhat since this work's original publication — perhaps in no small part BECAUSE of this work's publication. But its careful reading and contextualization of Lincoln's speeches, as well as a shorter preceding explication of Douglas's point of view, remains sharp and still relevant today.

The book does presume a fairly hefty preknowledge of the life and career of Abraham Lincoln and the major political controversies of the 1850s — not merely a basic understanding of "popular sovereignty," "Bleeding Kansas" and "Dred Scott" but details of particular speeches and the exact path certain laws took through Congress. The book is still readable with a moderate historical background, but the occasional omission of important context combines with its already intricate political philosophy to make this a pretty tough slog, though always fascinating.… (mere)

This slim volume, by the legendary Straussian scholar at Claremont, is a masterpiece of political invective, particularly noteworthy since it comes from one conservative exposing the noxious and antidemocratic underpinnings of another--or in this case, of a whole movement.

Although this pamphlet may appear to be nothing more than a salvo in an obscure internecine battle among conservative thinkers--and it is that--it is something more than that. Jaffa meticulously lays out the case that the American Enterprise Institute strain of neoconservatism takes its philosophy, intentionally or not, from the thought of John C. Calhoun, and is essentially that of the Confederate States of America. It would be well for progressives to pay close attention to Jaffa, because he outlines the fundamental principles on which liberalism is based. They may not like the specific policy choices he derives from this examination, but they will find no more pointed dissection of the dominant brand of modern conservatism--and they may find, unsettlingly, that some of their own ideas stem from the same flawed principles.… (mere)