498
PARTISAN REVIEW
different views from liberals and radicals on such issues as the
communist threat, the Third World, welfare, feminism, affirmative
action, the role of the state, the quality of existing society, crime, etc.
There are also cultural differences on the question of authority,
elitism, mass culture, and modernism. And
Commentary
has even
reviewed fiction ideologically. I suppose too, some of the speakers
will want to talk about the relation of neoconservatism to old–
fashioned, traditional conservatism.
The main question, however, is whether the views of neoconser–
vatism are helpful in solving the enormous domestic and foreign
problems this country faces. This is what I expect will be explored
this evening. Nathan Glazer will begin.
NATHAN GLAZER
This is only the second time in my life I've stood in front of an
audience to defend or expound neoconservatism, both times reluc–
tantly, because while I am happy to defend my own positions, and
attack those I disagree with , I am allergic to all-embracing labels,
whether app lied
to
me, or others. Nevertheless, I am here
to
talk about
neoconservatism because I have the feeling that I would be considered
evasive if I didn 't rise to this occasion. They are after all talking about
me and my friends when they say "neoconservatism," even though we
didn't invent the term. Pat Moynihan says it was Michael Harrington
who did. There is hardly one of us who has written an article
exp laining what neoconservatism is. We do squirm a bit, but it's not
because of the conservatism-actually I rather like that word-it's the
"neo" part. There is something denigrating about "neo." Think for
example of a neoliberal, who is not really a liberal. I find it hard
to
label the people I disagree with, and I reject most of the labels people
try
to
pin on me.
This began with socialism . I was a socialist in my youth - as who
was not?-but after a while all possible meaning disappeared from it.
Despite that, people who continue to call themselves socialists main–
tain an air of superiority over those of us who no longer do, and expect
suitable moral obeisance, even though the fact that Sidney Hook is still
sticking
to
the term hardly helps him. I find it more and more
mysterious to understand why socialists feel superior, for it seems to be
the case that socialists and nonsocialists agree on more and more.
Neither of us think that nationalizing industry, which used to mean
