American political journalism and the tradition of classical liberalism The Freeman, 1920-1924 Charles H Hamilton AhIERlCAN.5 FACED THE 1920s with conflicting man proposed “to meet the new sense of emotions. The war and the failure of Wd- responsibility and the new spirit of inquiry sonian idealism reduced many intellec- which recent events have liberated, es- tuals to despair. Reformism had largely pecially in the fields of economics and run its course. A mechanistic business politic^."^ ethic and a sterile social conformity bore The Freeman helped to shape intellec- heavily upon creative impulses. But there tual opinion in America for four years. It was also a sense of excitement, for a fresh forcefully presented another thread in and free inquiry into the meaning of Amer- liberalism, claiming a classical liberal and ica now seemed possible. As Lewis Mum- Jeffersonian heritage that The Freeman ford remembered: “Despite the disillusion proclaimed as “radical.” Individual free- that set in after the First World War,we be- dom and voluntary cooperation-what is lieved that we might give a more humane called “social power” and “economic shape to American culture before our means”-were presented as the only con- molten desires had cooled. These latent sistent way to progress and freedom. This hopes tempered even our postwar cyn- was starkly contrasted with the inherently icism.’” invasive and exploitative nature of the The task of reviving a usable past and state and “political means.” building a new future was taken up by At the end of 1919 Albert Jay Nock had three important journals of opinion: The written Francis Neilson that “the sane radi- New Republic, The Nation, and The Dial. cal is up for his turn at the bat and is in the These journals, in different degrees, ex- right mood to make a hit . .”4 The idea for pressed the dominant thread in American The Freeman originated with Nock and liberalism. This form of liberalism had came to fruition through conversations found the war instructive and sought to with Francis Neilson and Helen Swift Neil- apply aspects of wartime collectivism to son earlier that year. Both the classical domestic problems. It was eager to experi- liberal Francis Neilson and the Jeffersonian ment with America’s newly found inter- liberal Nock were dismayed by liberalism’s national power. Liberals focused es- turn toward state socialism. Through The pecially on the political sphere, exhibiting Freeman they confronted the liberal jour- what Randolph Bourne decried as a “cult nals and other brands of political mes- of politics. inherent in the liberal in- sianism. But they especially excoriated tellectual’s point of view long before the liberals for their war recently concluded WX.”2 and prophesied that “far worse than a On March 17,1920,theseliberal journals liberal’s war is a liberal’s pea~e.”~The were joined by a serious rival. The Free- Freeman was to speak for the great tradi- 52 Winter 1987 LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED tion of classical liberalism, which both men most of his writings unsigned. Something were afraid was being lost, and for the from his pen appeared in all but eight ofthe economics of Henry George, which both two hundred and eight weekly issues, and Nock and Neilson shared. With the help of he often contributed as much as twenty Helen Swift Neilson’s meat-packing for- percent of the material in an issue. But it tune, the publishing venture was made would be a mistake to think that The Free- financially possible. man was solely Albert Jay Nock. Its small Francis Neilson, born in England in 1867, staff was one of the most competent and had been the leader of the British Liberal professional in the 1920s. Benjamin W. Party’s “young radicals” and was a Mem- Huebsch, who was generally acknowl- ber of Parliament until he resigned in 1915 edged to be one of the most cultivated in protest against the war. He moved to the book publishers in America, was publisher. United States. Neilson’s knowledge of Eng- Van Wyck Brooks became literary editor. A lish constitutional radicalism and his per- brilliant critic and a leader of the so-called sonal contacts were important advantages literary radicals, Brooks had previously for The Freeman. Though he did not often worked for The Dial and Seven Arts. Even write for it, his influenceis readilyapparent with his vague socialist politics, his literary in his self-described role as “a feeder of and essentially individualistic point of view ideas.”6 complemented The Freeman’s general Albert Jay Nock is best known for his sensibility. Memoirs of a Superfluous Man, a brilliant Another addition to the staff was Su- discourse on libertarian sensibilities. His zanne La Follette. She left The Nation at writings in the 1930s and 1940s were to Nock’s request. He thought she was one of have a profound influence on many of the the best editors in the business. Ceroid major conservative figures in the post- Tanquary Robinson, a former editor at The World War I1 period. As Henry Regnery Dial, joined the staff while continuing to wrote: “There can be no doubt that he teach at Columbia University. Walter C. contributed substantially to the develop- Fuller (who left in the spring of 1922), ment of modem conser~atism.”~ Harold Kellock (who joined in early 1923), Born in 1870, Nock started his journalis- Lucy Taussig, and Emilie McMillan corn- tic career in 1910 with the muckraking pleted the regulars. periodical American Magazine and later There were a number of others who spent time at TheNation.It was only when, were at various times closely associated at the age of forty-nine, he helped found with The Freeman. They contributed un- The Freeman, that he came into his own as signed editorials as well as signed articles. a polished essayist, a gifted writer, and an Lewis Mumford, William MacDonald, and important political essayist. Nock provided Frank W. Garrison were among the better- The Freeman with the unique framework it known. More than two hundred con- applied to politics, international affairs, tributors wrote articles and reviews. manners, literature, and the “good life.” The journal discovered or developed writ- Despite his sometimes eccentric ways, ers like John Dos Passos, Constance Nock’s special skills as an editor made the Rourke, Newton Arvin, and F,dwin Muir. journal, in the words of Van Wyck Brooks, Other writers who covered a wide range of “a wonderfully good school for us all.’” cultural and political opinion included When Nock himself protested that he did Walter Pach, Thorstein Veblen, William nothing to make The Freeman such a good Henry Chamberlin, Robert H. Lowie, Mary journal except to leave its writers alone, a and Padriac Colum, Bertrand Russell, Er- friend replied, “Yes, I understand, but if nest Boyd, Howard Mumford Jones, and someone else had been letting them alone, Charles Beard. The result was a journal it would have been a very different with a special fullness that knew no ideo- St0l-y.’~ logical boundaries and yet attained a sur- Nock wrote extensivelyin The Freeman, prisingly coherent whole. Modern Age 53 LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED The weekly contained twenty-four The Freeman within “the main tradition pages. Each issue began with two unsigned of American individualism. individualist sections written by staff members or other radicalism.”1*More than any other periodi- writers close to the journal. “Current Com- cal of its time, and perhaps ever since, it ment” had three pages of paragraphs con- was concerned with freedom-with the cerning international affairs and the foibles preservation and extension of individual of domestic politics and politicians. The freedom in all its forms. next section, “Topics of the Day,” consist- A few years after The Freeman ceased ed of five pages of editorials covering publication, Nock wrote to a close friend political, economic, and social issues in that he was “enormously impressed al- greater depth. The major, signed articles most daily with the fact that The Freeman followed, as well as columns on art, the- never died-and never will.”*3Indeed, the atre, and music, in addition to letters to the spirit and the example of The Freeman editor. One page was devoted to “Mis- have often been claimed by conservatives cellany,” a column of incidental para- and, rather more emphatically, by liber- graphs on the manners and mores of the tarians. The older Freeman, for example, times, signed by “Journeyman” (and most was a model for the New Freeman that often written by Nock). Suzanne La Follette began in 1930, for The “Books” section included a few Human Events in the mid-l940s, and for a longish reviews and a number of one-par- newer Freeman begun in 1950 and still agraph “Shorter Notices.” Frank Luther published monthly today. Less directly, it Mott concluded that “some of the best served as a guide for the Freeman pub- book-reviewing done in any American lished by the Henry George School of So- journal in the twenties appeared in The cial Science in New York in 1937, for Frank Freeman.”’OThe last page and a half was Chodorov‘s analysis in 1944, for Liber- devoted to “A Reviewer’s Notebook.” This tarian Analysis in 1970, and for Fragments, was Brooks’s distinguished and idiosyn- which has been publishing sporadically cratic column on the state of America’s since 1963. literary past, present, and future. (Nock The first issue of The Freeman was wrote this column for the last seven welcomed to the fraternity of liberal jour- months of 1922.) The back page was left nalism by both The New Republic and The for Huebsch, who contributed very good, Nation.