51

the end of an almost undisputed fifteen- The Conservative Intellectual Movement year dominance of cuIturaLleadership. in America Since 1945 Amid currents such as these, George .H. Nash’s new intellectual history of by George H. Nash conservative thought in America since (Basic Books; 463 4- xv pp.; $20.00) 1945 provides well-organized, coherent, descriptive reportage. so that the.reader senses the sweep of the subject and catches a quite satisfactory glimpse of The Superfluous Men the landmarks, major and minor, that he edited by Robert M. Crunden will wish to visit again. His book pro- (University of Texas; 289 + xx pp.; S14.95) vides a useful and substantial tour. Nash is wise enough not to try to define conservative. It is, he notes, not a set of doctrines but an attitude of “resis- Michael Novak tance:” He writes: “I have designated various, people as conservatives either The words “conservative” and “liber- to voice its moral condemnation. For because they called themselves conser- al,” like new forms of child’s putty, can the opposite sort of mind, the moral vatives or because others (who did call be made to assume all sorts of shapes signals are reversed: “Liberal” signifies themselves conservatives) ’regarded and still retain some bounce. Yet of the morally corrupt, “conservative” genu- them as part of their conservative intel- two, “conservative” probably suffers inely moral. In part, this moral meaning lectual movement.” He gives helpful from more misuse-including failures dkpends upon a vision of history. Belief thumbnail summaries of the positions of to use it when, in a straightforward in “progress” (moral progress) leads to scores of writers.and teachers, indicat- sense, its use would seem to ’be appro- a high valuation upon the “forward- ing their relationships . and disagree- priate. Environmentalists (conserva- looking” (liberal) mind. The conviction ments. There is enough meat in these tionists), for example, are conservative that “moral progress” is, largely, illuso- sections to make the book readable as a both in a plain philosophical sense, and ry leads to cynicism about “utopians,” coherent argument. perhaps also in terms of their relations who are regarded either as dupes or’as Nash distinguishes three main cur- to the working class and the poor. But a liars. Needless to say, where visions of rents in the self-conscious conservatism more stunning example is socialism. So- history are at stake, interest as well as that developed for the first time in cialists today are probably more “con- intellect enters. Those who “promote America after World War 11: (I) the servative” than any of the rest of us, change” or those who “resist change” defense of liberty over against statism clinging ddspite historical evidence to a do so not only in defense of their own (socialism); (2) the rejection of moral vision now more than a century old and economic, political, and cultural power. relativism and the mass society, in favor dying by ceaseless qualification. Social- There is also hope of gain and fear of of classic communal values; and (3) ists of the present generation toil over loss. Thus, to call someone “liberal” or opposition to communism, led particu- tortuous exegeses of the 1844 manu- “conservative” is to place oneself and larly (but not solely) by several ex-radi- scripts of Marx, in order to recover him the other within a vision of history and cals and ex-Communists. Nash shows as a humanist misunderstood. The to assign roles in the competition of how some conservatives defend capital- “community” socialists long for, the interests. No wonder the merely de- ism, as in the first of these strands, “alienation” they wish to end, and the scriptive use of the words-“He’s more while others, as in the second, deplore “solidarity” they hope to attain seem liberal than she is”-shades off immedi- capitalism as one of the agents of shal- clearly to represent nostalgia for Ge- ately into moral comment. low modernity. These contrasting tradi- meinschujl long lost. Socialism, the last By and large on the American literary tions of conservatism occupy the first of the old-time religions, is now our scene, in the most prestigious circles (at four chapters. Nash treats of Friedrich conservative force par excellence. Harvard. in New York City, in Wash- Hayek. Ludwig von Mises. Frank Cho- What do we mean by “conservative,” ington, in Hollywood), to be called “lib- dorov, Henry Hazlitt, Leonard Read, then, if even Paul Goodman in his last eral” is to have higher status and to be John ‘Chamberlain, Wilhelm Ropke, writings depicted himself as a %eo- called “conservative” is to be placed and others in the first group; Richard conservative” and if writers so classical- morally on the defensive. To be on the M. Weaver, Eric Voegelin, Leo Strauss, ly “liberal” as Irving Kristol are desig- left is idealistic, heroic, virtuous; to be Robert Nisbet, Peter Vierek, Ernest nated (by his enemies on the Left) as on the right is to be self-interested. At van den Haag, Russell Kirk, Francis G. “neo-conservative”? Are the words the moment, to be sure, the Left is in Wilson, Thomas Molnar, and many oth- ‘‘liberal’’ and “conservative” so fluid disarray, %eo-conservatives” are in thc ers in the second; and James Burnham. that they mean almost anything-and ascendancy, major newsweeklies have Whittaker Chambers, Ralph de Toleda- nothing? announced that the nation is “turning no, Will Herberg, William A. Rusher, Not quite. The words are, of course, right.” But the mode of those pro- Willmoore Kendall, and others in the polemical. And also moral. In one,camp nquncements is what newspaper editori- third. to call something “liberal” is to give it aljsts describe as “viewing with alarm.” From chapters five through eight moral approval, and to call something The rebirth of the Right is trumpeted in Nash describes the consolidation of else “conservative” is, perhaps politely, order to rejuvenate the weary Left, at these separate strands and the search for 52 common traditions, common purposes, classic texts from the conservative crit- innovative in poetry, the arts, architec- and practical alliances. These efforts ics of American culture, whether in ture, fiction, and other energies of cul- were not easy. Conservatives tend to be individual essays or in chapters from ture. Americans, says Louis Hartz. are stubbornly faithful to their own minds. books. In all, there are twenty-eight inherently “liberal” in their hopes and (“Open” is often used to describe the selections, five from George Santayana, believe in progress from their first liberal mind; the conservative, Nash three from Albert Jay Nock (from breath. “Part of the reason conserva- shows, is “open” too, but less so to the whom comes the collection’s title), five tives felt so out of place in modern comings and goings of new conventions, from Henry Louis Mencken, and others America was that so many half-articu- more so to the persistent hard questions from Ralph Adams Cram, Irving Bab- late assumptions seemed to be both of skeptical intelligence. The conserva- bitt, Paul Elmer More, John Crowe universally held and demonstrably un- tive seems to be more willing to say Ransom, Walter Lippmann, Allen Tale, true,” writes Crunden. “no” and is harder to organize.) Donald Davidson, and Frank L. Owsley. It is quite striking to read critiques of In his last three chapters-the prose “The most important single doctrine in American society coming from the moving more swiftly, less certainly the conservative frame of reference,” right, which might have been written now-Nash tries to bring the mush- writes editor Crunden, “is that the best today (in less masterful prose) by writ- rooming debates, tendencies, and grow- things in life are not political and cannot ers on the left. Yet one must always ask ing numbers of personalities into the be obtained by political means.” This is the purpose of a critique of America. confusions of the present. He notes that a penetrating way of understanding the What is the writer up to? It may be too the Left is now, where not in disarray, issue between conservatives and liber- simple to suggest that liberals desire in a conservative phase and that conser- als. It helps to explain how conserva- political change, conservatives cultural vatives are making the news. Nash does tives might think the whole nation has change. In an odd way writers of both emphasize that the radical “movement” gone liberal, while liberals tend to think tendencies appeal to the deepest values of the Sixties had an ambivalent effect of the bulk of the population as conser- of the Judeo-Christian tradition. But upon liberalism. In part the radical vative-each offers a quite different each thinks the other has misunder- critique adopted many of the criticisms sort of leadership. It helps to explain stood-and, most probably, serves ne- of “corporate liberalism" well known to why conservatives have so often been farious interests. the conservative critics of the mass soci- ety. In part the radicals moved in an increasingly illiberal direction, especial; ly on matters of race and the “Third World.” Thus, classical liberals were Personal Destinies: forced to abandon their narrow “end- of-ideology’’ phase and to differentiate A Philosophy of Ethical Individualism genuine liberalism from the radical im- by David Norton pulses of the Sixties. In this sense many (Princeton; 398 pp.; $22.50/4.95) “neo-liberals” are making at least par- tial alliance with conservatives and have thus been dubbed “neo-conservatives.” This last designation more nearly fits Stanley Hauerwas some writers like Irving Kristol, but far less well classical liberals like Daniel In making the “individual” the basic In this important book Norton argues Patrick Moynihan. Some who are called unit of the social and political order, that liberalism’s inability to account for “neo-conservatives”4ike Edward Ban- liberalism has found it quite difficult to social cooperation has been due to an field and Robert Nisbet-have always account for social cooperation. Robert insufficient understanding of the indi- been conservatives. Others are, have Nozick’s resort to “invisible hand” ex- vidual. The liberal understanding of the been, and remain social democrats. On planations is an indication of how diffi- individual (i.e., the rational calculator these matters Nash is less successful cult it is for a consistent liberalism to of satisfactions and/or an instance of than on those dealing with conservatives justify even minimal forms of societal disinterested rationality) is a corrupt proper. cooperation. John Rawls appears to be form of a richer understanding of the an exception to this, but as David individual that Norton sees as being In sum this is a useful book. It is too Norton points out, he is able to secure originally associated with Aristotelian bad that many in the literary-intellectu- cooperation only by stripping the,“indi- eudaimonism. Norton thus calls his po- al world have paid much less attention vidual” of all characteristics that make sition “normative individualism” to in- than they ought to the work Nash here it worthwhile to be an individual in the dicate clearly that any adequate account reports on. It may shed more light on first place. Ironically, liberal ethical and of individualism entails substantive the near future-and lend itself to dis- political theory has had to generate a commitments concerning how we criminating liberal uses-than some of theory of nonpersons-in the name of should be individuals. the tired strains of statism. the freedom and autonomy of the indi- Norton develops his position through Ralph Crunden’s collection of essays, vidual. In the interest of securing a basis a sympathetic critique of British ideal- The Superfluous Men. fills in the peri- for cooperation, then, philosophers in- ism, Kierkegaard, ,Nietzsche, and od from 1900-1945. the period just vent individuals who are devoid of par- Sartre. Against the ’numerical individu- before Nash’s book begins. It consists of ticularity and history. alism of utilitarianism, the British ideal-