174
PARTISAN REVIEW
I must say, however , that Podhoretz invites a dismissal of his entire ar–
gument by reducing these real considerations about the future of the coun–
try
to
metaphors of hardness and softness, instead of talking about real pos–
sibilities and alternatives . Like most conservative ideologists, he attributes
our softheadedness to such vague psychic forces as failure of nerve and weak–
ness of character, which remind us of campaign rhetoric designed
to
win
votes not
to
solve problems . Podhoretz also insists that the attacks on the
CIA and on the Presidency were really part of the movement to weaken
those arms of the government that could sustain an anti-Communist policy
-as though the abuses of power by Nixon and by the CIA were not suffi–
cient explanation for the assault on them. And I must say that Podhoretz 's
novel idea that McCarthy's irresponsible anti-Communism at home served
to alert the country to the menace of Communism abroad is a most ingenious
explanation not of the influence of McCarthy but of the working of the con–
servative mind . My own feeling is just the opposite: that the main effect of
McCarthy's brand of anti-Communism was
to
make all anti-Communism
suspect .
But aside from ideology, the issues raised by Podhoretz are basically
these: why has there been an ostensible shift in American policy; what viable
alternatives are there; and such general questions as : is there a genuine na–
tional interest, to what extent is it tied to an active anti-Communism , and
finally what stake do liberals and the left have in a national interest and in a
concomitant anti-Communism. Obviously, these questions are too large and
complex to explore fully here; but it might be useful at least to suggest
some approach to them .
1.
If we are no longer so ready to intervene abroad-Podhoretz's ex–
amples are Angola, Portugal , Israel-it is not because of some psychic trans–
formations but because such a policy has on the whole failed . Have the les–
sons of Vietnam already been forgotten? And though Podhoretz hints at
the roots of the failure when he speaks of the shortsightedness of business in–
terests, he quickly veers off into psychology . The fact is that the business
mentality that mostly creates official opinion , particularly in a Republican
administration, has no sense of national purpose beyond its own rhetorical
slogans and its immediate financial interests , not even a sense of its own na–
ture , of its own powers and limitations , and scarcely any sense of either the
appeals or the methods of the Communists . If one points
to
the corruptions
and the political myopia of Western society , it is not simply, as Podhoretz
assumes,
to
vent one's disaffection ; it is to express one's disgust and sorrow
at the inability of our society
to
act decently and intelligently in defense of
those freedoms it proclaims, and which are still, despite all our failures, in–
comparably greater than those in the Communist countries . The truth is
