I
T WAS STEVE'S
idea.
It
was Pierre's organization.
It
was Paul's passio
so this book-a product of a rather odd and improbable combinat
authors-came together.
There were doubts throughout.
Steve was concerned that the relentlessly critical tone of the book wo
damaging. He worried half seriously, half in jest, that a conservative t
would become associated in a joint enterprise with one of the most irre
and intellectually radical (if not nihilistic) thinkers on the contemporary
ican legal scene. Indeed, he had already received negative and cautionar
tions from older, wiser colleagues at another law school: "Stay away from
street toughs."
Pierre too was concerned. He had been told not to publish with the
two. Yet here he was publishing with one of the most conservative
reactionary) constitutional thinkers in American legal thought. He w
that this would be deeply confusing to readers. And he worried th
book would simply be exhibit A in the usual left or liberal charge that
intellectualism is simply neoconservatism by any other name.
Paul, who refused to divulge his political orientation to anyone (inc
the other two authors), didn't worry at all.
And all three of us decided to go forward with the book.
One reason, of course, was a shared sense of the deadening quality o
temporary political orthodoxies and their disputes. In some sense, e
us has been unwilling to simply toe the line of any political ortho
reactionary, conservative, liberal, or radical. None of us seems to be ver
at being a foot soldier. And being in Colorado, we are much too far awa
anywhere to feel the civilizing effects of the great institutions.
A second, perhaps more profound reason is that despite our widely di
political visions, there are certain things we share in common-certain
standings of the shortcomings of American legalism. We all think that le
is aesthetically, ethically, and intellectually lacking in rather profound
Previous Page Next Page