128
PARTISAN R\ EVIEW
Macdonald says, and toward anarchism. He may become a martyr,
and he is at any rate a gadfly.
The critical liberal is no less aware than the intransigent radical
of the defic:iencies of existing systems, and he probably does not quar–
rel fundamentally with the radical in his conception of the good so–
ciety. However, he thinks the possible is worth achieving, even though
it may fall short of the desirable. Critical liberalism has nothing except
a few phrases in common with the neo-liberalism of the
New Republic
and
PM,
and, as the late Morris Cohen demonstrated in both theory
and practice, it has only an historical connection with the laissez-faire
liberalism of the nineteenth century. It does, however, claim descent
from the great body of "reasonable" reformers in the past. Although
the critical liberal is aware of the limitations of reason, he sees reason
as our best reliance. What the critical liberal lacks in the way of
dramatic boldness, he can make up for by persistence.
In choosing between intransigent radicalism and critical liberal–
ism, the individual is likely to be influenced by temperament. The
dangers of each position are obvious. Committed to actual or at least
apparent ineffectiveness, and isolated by his fanaticism from the ma–
jority of mankind, the radical may lapse into a schizoid existence. The
liberal, on the other hand, may come to regard compromise as an
end in itself, and may succumb to the lethargy and sm"!lgness that
have brought so much discredit on the name of liberalism. Neither
of the two positions, however, can be condemned because of the ex–
cesses to which it may lead. In their best expressions the two attitudes
complement each other, and both can contribute to an effective Left.
There is one consideration that is important, though it may not
be decisive. One of the many evils of our society is the gulf that exists
between intellectuals and nonintellectuals. This
is
an evil for the in–
tellectuals and for society as a whole. Intransigent radicalism widens
that gulf, for the behavior of the radical bewilders and antagonizes
people, and the radical never has a chance to find out why otlv
people act as they do. Critical liberalism, on the other hand, at least
provides a basis for co-operation, since liberals are never indifferen t
to the possible and are willing to work with people as they find them.
If
the individual believes, as I have come to believe, that commur
tion between intellectuals and nonintellectuals is badly needed, he is
likely to feel strongly the advantages of liberalism.
The clarification of attitudes seems to me more important at the
moment than the discussion of organizations. I should like to see a
new party, unqualifiedly democratic, unsparingly critical of the evils
