31b
JAMES F. PETRAS AND MICHAEL SHUTE
lumpen agitators wend their ways to the university campus
to
advocate a melange of narcotics, sexual perversion, collegiate
Castroism and campus Maoism.
And even their fellow faculty members are characterized by their
as–
sociation with extremes. Lipset and Seabury would have us believe
that
the Academic Senate's stand on civil liberties reflected the influence
of
"a few extremists."
When men like Feuer, Lipset, Seabury and Glazer abandon
the
defense of civil liberties in their rush to defend administrative order,
then
they must be classified as spokesmen of a new conservatism rather than of
liberalism. In fact, the New Conservative ideology is not so new. While
many were shocked to find these scholars and political figures hostile
to
the democratic ethic of the student movement, it was no surprise
to
those familiar with the trend toward "pluralism."
The modern "pluralists," or New Conservatives, as we shall call them,
have written extensively in recent years about the phenomenon of demo–
cratic mass politics.
1
Basically, the New Conservatives argue that demo–
cratic mass movements, like American Populism, which liberals
had
always felt to be connected with their own tradition of social reform,
are dangerous. The Populist Party, of course, did not engage in
civil
disobedience, but it did operate outside the two-party system and
threatened to disrupt it. It did involve masses of people in rallies, agitation
and political action against established social and political institutions.
Since it has become evident that totalitarian groups, like the Fascists
and Communists, can rally large numbers of people in a crisis, the New
Conservatives, concerned about this problem, as are all democrats, aigue
that the direct intervention of the masses in politics is in itself dangerous.
Generalizing from the Fascist and Communist experience, they regard
every mass movement, whatever its avowed aim, as a potential carrier of
totalitarianism. The popular mind, they assert, is uninformed and prone
to
prejudiced and undemocratic attitudes. The masses do not understand
how a large and complicated society is run and how much compromise
and bargaining go into an orderly democratic life. Experienced leaders,
on the other hand, are less provincial, more appreciative of the subtleties
of compromise and, most important, are more committed to democratic
values.
lOne of the most prominent studies is Lipset's
Political Man.
Other scholan
of the same persuasion, who have not been involved in the Berkeley controversy,
are Daniel Bell
(The End of Ideology),
Richard Hofstadter
(The
Ag"
of R"foTm),
and Edward ShUs
(The Torment of
SecTecy~.
