[rmlew]

It is not so much an encyclopedia as an attemp to redefine conservatism as the common agreements between Paleolibertarians, Southern Agrarians, traditionalists, populists, and the falsely named "paleoconservatives".

What the hell are traitors like Murray Rothbard (supported North Vietnam) and Llewellyn Rockwell doing in a conservative compendium?

Actually it is clear. They took out nationalism and aristocratic distrust of democracy.

[Stoat]

I'm wondering if you have read the submissions of those authors in the book, in their intended context?  To be honest, I haven't and so I'm genuinely curious.  Looking at the other authors in this 1000 page work, there are many whom I recognize and respect.  I would be truly amazed if a traitorous or pro_North Vietnamese viewpoint permeated the book in any truly significant way.  Perhaps they were chosen strictly in an effort to appear evenhanded and to illustrate the farthest reaches of Conservatism?    The Claremont reviewer is quite plain about the problems that he has with the work:

In general:

"This open-armed attitude toward presenting a conservative omnium gatherum not only helps to balance the somewhat indiscriminate standards mentioned earlier, it also bespeaks a laudable spirit of cordiality—vindicating the editors' claim to have sought out and welcomed "the strong opinions that often are on display, which they believe has made for a more interesting volume than would have been the case had contributors been forced into the iron cage of a supposed neutrality."

On the Civil War:

"This is taking the spirit of inclusiveness too far: to imply that each of these terms is an equally legitimate viewpoint within current conservative thought—merely a matter of preference—is not "encyclopedic" thoroughness; it is an effort to re-certify perhaps the most egregious case of revisionism in American history."

 "Lest the reader think I am inferring too much, consider how later in this entry Frohnen does not merely mute the opinions of those who dissent from the extreme traditionalist interpretation—as he often does in other entries—but misrepresents them:"

Furthermore, Amazon reviewer Larry Arnhart, who identifies himself as being involved with the production of the book as well as being the author of five articles in it, states:

"It stresses the intellectual or academic side of conservatism as dominated by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (the publisher of the book) and NATIONAL REVIEW. It gives almost no attention to the most populist elements of the conservative movement."

and

"I understand, however, that the editors of this enclyclopedia want to make the history of American conservatism intellectually respectable by concentrating on the more purely academic levels of the movement. "

Amazon reviewer R. Setliff writes:

"However, as this encyclopedia makes clear, the diversity of the movement is its strength, and the ensuing debates between its varied elements, has contributed to the advancement of the nation."

I'm hoping that you won't allow the inclusion of two extreme and disreputable authors out of the many, many great ones to cause you to turn away entirely from the book without reading it....sometimes, separating the wheat from the chaff is half the fun :-)