184
PARTISAN REVIEW
not a formula for the security of the]ewish state .
The author's worries , if not limitless , extend to the conservatives.
American conservatives, he thinks, are motivated by base material consider–
ations : business is business . De. Kissinger, by contrast, earns praise for beat–
ing an unwilling and sad retreat from world power in the face of his coun–
trymen's lassitude and lack of conviction. Suppose , however, that the con–
servative interest in doing business and our lack of national purpose are con–
nected. Suppose, in other words , that our capitalist society is incapable of
generating either Athenian or Spartan virtues. Mr. Podhoretz is unsure
which he prefers, but he deplores the fact that we are acting like late Romans.
If our society's national substance is so eroded, perhaps we would do well to
refrain from offering ourselves as an example to the rest of the world . I do
not, myself, think that our spiritual resources are so depleted-but perhaps
I am more reconciled with our country , at this moment , than is Me.
Podhoretz.
Mr. Podhoretz fears that fewer numbers of Americans these days, are
critical of the Soviet system. He is quite wrong . Never were its monstrous as–
pects evident to so many-and not only in our country but everywhere in the
world. The Soviet ideological threat is, for that reason, small. Our own con–
fusion and tentativeness, by contrast, may be a sign of our potential, of our
historical strength rather than the opposite . Me. Podhoretz would like to see
us marching through our own equivalent of Red Square. A mature society,
however, requires less exhortation and more real argument over its politics.
Finally, Me. Podhoretz recurs to the populism he once denounced in the
left . He calls upon our masses to reverse our elites. His reference to Pro–
fessor Moynihan's performance at the United Nations ignores the fact that ,
whatever Moynihan's intentions , he appealed to the chauvinism and xeno–
phobia (and racism) of our population . On the logic of Me. Podhoretz's own
argument , our society lacks will , cannot generate values, or regenerate our
old ones. The recourse to defensive ,and visceral popular reactions is the
equivalent of Nixon's and Agnew's appeal to the hard-hats . It is not a ra–
tional politics on the face of it, and can be explained only by the substratum,
the hidden language, of Me. Podhoretz's essay. What he fears is less the fail–
ure of will of liberals and conservatives , than the development of a new poli–
tical argument . Me. Podhoretz's enemies are not the liberals or conserva–
tives, Democrats or Republicans , tired elites or acquiescent masses . They are
ourselves: the radical party in America. The.essay appears to be a regression
to the 1950s. In fact, Me. Podhoretz deserves praise for his prescience . He
has fired an early shot in the struggles of the 1980s. But that is matter for
later dispute .
N.B.
