Daniel J. Flynn’s upcoming biography, *The Man Who Invented Conservatism: The Unlikely Life of Frank S. Meyer*, explores the role of philanthropy in shaping both Meyer’s career and the evolution of American conservatism.
Frank S. Meyer, originally recognized as a founder of the Communist student movement in the United Kingdom, later became an influential figure in American conservative thought. According to Flynn, “Incredibly, the man who Johnny Appleseeded Communism in one country reprised the role for conservatism in another— the United States—Flynn writes. ‘Yes, a fervent Communist became the man who invented conservatism.’”
After returning to America as an ex-Communist intellectual, Meyer advocated for a form of conservatism that he described as conserving “the American tradition, which is ordered freedom inherent in the American Founding,” according to Flynn’s account. Flynn notes that Meyer’s central idea was fusionism: “Thus, he fused two disparate camps—traditionalists and libertarian—into one. This fusionism was his Big Idea,” Flynn writes. “[I]t remarkably came to him as a Stalinist in his attempt to reform the Communist Party.”
Flynn continues: “Ultimately, the Big Idea united the right. The competing partisans, of freedom and individualism on the one hand and of order and virtue on the other, saw in fusionism compelling reasons to reconcile their interests.”
A significant platform for these ideas was National Review magazine. Flynn describes how Meyer contributed by using his column “Principles and Heresies” as a forum for postwar conservative ideology while also developing its book section with contributions from diverse talents.
Philanthropic organizations played key roles throughout Meyer’s life. While studying at London School of Economics in the early 1930s, he received support from Rockefeller Foundation funds. Later, after being expelled from graduate school at University of Chicago in 1938, he became director at Chicago Workers School (CWS), which was established by John D. Rockefeller.
Meyer also sought funding from various foundations when planning a book on Communism’s methods within America during a period marked by demand for anti-Communist literature. Although initial approaches did not result in publication or funding—including an approach to Henry Regnery—the RAND Corporation provided some support before ultimately withdrawing it due to delays.
In early 1954, Meyer secured $1,000 from William Volker Fund along with subscriptions to scholarly journals so that he could serve as a reviewer and scout for them—a relationship that led to further grants including $9,500 toward writing a history of America from a libertarian perspective.
Flynn explains: “Like Meyer, Luhnow ‘had experienced a political epiphany upon reading Friedrich Hayek’s Road to Serfdom,’” which influenced Volker Fund’s direction toward supporting libertarian causes nationally rather than focusing solely on Kansas City charities.
Meyer later wrote critically about Russell Kirk and New Conservatives with backing from Volker Fund; this work would evolve into his major text *In Defense of Freedom: A Conservative Credo*. During this period Clinton Rossiter and Ford Foundation-supported Fund for the Republic provided additional funding so that Meyer could complete earlier work on Communism.
Flynn recounts: “In February 1960, Meyer signed a contract with the Henry Regnery Company for the conservatism book… just less then he made for a speech and a tiny fraction of Volker’s grants that had poured into the project since 1955.”
Meyer eventually published *The Moulding of Communists* (1961) followed by *In Defense of Freedom* (1962). While commercially less successful than anticipated—“As a commercial endeavor,* In Defense of Freedom flopped,” according to Flynn—it had significant influence within conservative circles.
The story highlights how patient philanthropic support enabled projects whose impact may only be seen over long periods rather than through immediate measurable returns—a contrast with contemporary expectations around grantmaking outcomes.
Flynn concludes by noting lessons current philanthropists might draw regarding timelines and openness toward supporting thinkers across ideological lines.
