434
PARTISAN REVIEW
which has always been a minority
s~and
in the American political
tradition. "
Another whose neoconservatism is unadulterated and too strong a
brew for mass consumption is Edward C. Banfield. His
Unheavenly
City
frankly espouses the view that urban poverty is much less the
result of general economic and social conditions such as unemploy–
ment, exploitation, and the legacies of racism and discrimination than
of characterological defects in the poor themselves. Poverty persists
because society insulates such individuals from the negative conse–
quences of their improper attitudes and actions-thereby, in effect,
encouraging them. Writes Banfield:
This principle implies that the individual should be allowed to
suffer penalties (loss of the reward at the very least) if he does not
behave as he should. Herbert Spencer was prepared to follow this
principle to its logical conclusion, allowing those who failed to
provide for the future to starve in their old age in order that others
might see from their examples the advantage of saving. Few people
today, however, would consider the issue settled by the principle that
a cruel deterrent may in the long run be less cruel than the conse–
quences of not deterring. Indeed, few people recognize that there
sometimes
is
a problem of choice between these alternatives. The
almost universal opinion today is that, both for his own sake and
that of his society, an individual must not be left to suffer the
consequences of his actions.
If,
for example, he has chosen a life of
improvidence, he cannot for that reason be allowed to remain below
the poverty line. To give him money, however, is to give him an
incentive to persist in his ways.. ..
The more bashful neoconservative basic message may be the same,
but it is often espoused not as a matter of principle but of pragmatism.
As a corollary, they typically write tentatively, as if pulled reluctantly
toward conclusions by the overwhelming weight of logic and evidence.
While ideological conservatives are more inclined to dispute the
desirability of reform goals, pragmatic neoconservatives are more likely
to claim that they favor these goals in theory but are forced to point out
that attaining them is not feasible or exacts too high a price on
resources or other values.
In
the same vein, pragmatic neoconservatives
are more apt to criticize reform activists' means rather than their values,
arguing that particular means are to be preferred as less costly or
disruptive to other values-without explicitly noting that the means
they favor happen to reflect neoconservative values.
Typical of these pragmatists is Nathan Glazer. His writing is
careful and scholarly and his observations judicious. Thus, in his most
