NEW RADICALISM
357
until, in the fifties, it emerged in the conservative liberalism of John
Kenneth Galbraith and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. The sixties, however,
have seen a further refinement. Consensus liberalism, which began
with President Kennedy, has found its greatest exponent in the person
of President Johnson. The consensus liberalism of today has become
the politics of the possible. It has eschewed leadership and embraced
the polls. It is intent on finding the popular conditions for political
success. But at the same time it confuses what is popular with what
is right, and tries to be all things to all men.
It is within this context that the success or failure of the new
radicalism of Hentoff and Harrington must be judged. It will have its
skirmishes and perhaps even a few successes. It may topple a mayor
or two, but all told it will be peripheral in its influence. Some of the
new radicals may, in time, give vent to their frustrations and become
more extreme- thereby isolating themselves and further reducing their
political weight. I do not find this a pleasant prospect, but I expect
no less.
Under these circumstances it is extremely difficult to entertain any
serious hopes for a radical resurgence in this country. And it
is
on
these grounds that I find Hentoff's and Harrington's analyses so
wanting. The problems we will have to cope with now and in the
immediate future are much greater than the problem of poverty
itself. And to expect to use poverty as the touchstone for their solution
is to exhibit a monumental lack of political sophistication.
It
would be nice if progress were neat and continuous. Un–
fortunately, things may get worse before they get better. Like Harring–
ton, I cannot bring myself to say that all
is
lost. But unlike Harrington,
I am not willing to entertain false hopes. The only alternative is to
stand somewhere between these two extremes and counsel an intran–
sigent despair.
