PARTISAN REVIEW
245
spective. No one is asking Wrong or anybody else to spout the cliches of
dissent in order to prove he's not a reactionary. But one does expect
that in terms of the total picture neither the sins nor the influence of
the intellectuals
be
exaggerated, and that an attack on the left, however
sharp, be put into the context of American politics as a whole. Other–
wise, we get the kind of confusion one can see in Wrong's piece,
which fails to distinguish our allies from our opponents. I am re–
minded of that great contribution to political theory made by the Com–
munists in the thirties, when they took the position that their main
enemy consisted of those who were closest to them.
But my real quarrel with Wrong is that he wants to have it both
ways. He wants to put down the left, but he doesn't want us to think
he is conservative. Hence all the political double-talk.
How else to understand the connection he makes between the ex–
cesses of antist:>.linism in the fifties with the excesses of the New Left
today? Taken literally, this is a parochial and a perverse view of his–
tory. Surely the growth of the New Left, from its moderate to its ultra–
left wing, had more to
do
with Vietnam and the disillusionment with
the system than with "the obsessive anticommunism of intellectuals ...
in the fifties who so muted their left traditions that radicalism virtually
disappeared." Besides, if Wrong is so solicitous of the welfare of radical–
ism, why isn't he more critical of those who assault it obsessively today?
But Wrong's special mode of debate, which permits him to attack
the left while dissociating himself from everyone else who does, re–
quires him also to distort what happened in the fifties. There is a dif–
ference between antistalinism and anticommunism. It's true that some
intellectuals carried their antistalinism too far, turning against all rad–
icalism and becoming generally quite conservative. But others, like my–
self - even if we weren't always on an even keel- were opposed to
stalinism not because of its radicalism but because of its perversion of
radical ideals. Hence we were antistalinist, not anti-Marxist or anti–
socialist.
2
I do not want to exaggerate Wrong's contribution to the general
confusion.
If
he were the only one to play these games, it wouldn't
matter too much. Unfortunately, they are typical of the way conserva–
tive opinions are often couched today in the rhetoric of liberalism. I
2. I should add I don't see what my own past has to do
with
either the current
situation or Wrong's political views, and I mention it only because Wrong brings
it up. But I must say his twisting of my position to put a better face on his own
is typical of his entire argument.
