NEOCONSERVATISM
519
have generated some of the different approaches.
It
seems to me that
this question may suggest at least implicitly that there may be more
continuity amongst the so-called neoconservatives than we generally
think, and that this continuity also accounts for the success of the
neoconservative movement, particularly after the mistakes and
ex~
cesses of the sixties, some of which were due to the absence of a long
socialist tradition in this country. A great many were due, as well, to
the absence of a strong organized union component in a movement
for social change.
Jean Layzer:
I wanted to reclaim Nathan Glazer for the liberals,
because I consider myself liberal, and I find that when I read him on
the subject of welfare policy I believe him to be just a smarter liberal
than I am. I find that he informs my views. I think we part company
where we view what is happening, and what it is we are reacting
against. I believe that we either ought to include work, or have a
much more sweeping welfare policy rather than the weak and
ineffective one that isn't put into effect either by radicals or by good
liberals, but by very placating neoconservatives. They have no long–
range goals for many problems. But there are no long-range liberal
goals either. So I think we're coming from pretty much the same
position.
Nathan
G
tazer:
I have the problem of always being overwhelmed by the
complexity of small issues, let alone large ones. I think that welfare,
compared
to
some of the things that we are talking about tonight, is
small, although it is a big issue. For a lot of issues there is the
problem of premature analysis. Inevitably, if you look at the history
of any of these problems, they have gotten more complicated in our
understanding, even such issues as how you look at a policy, or
whether it helps the capitalists or the poor.
It
may be true that
cutting fifty billion dollars from corporation income taxes may be
doing more for the poor than distributing fifty billion to them.
It
is
hard to give fast answers.
Eugene Goodheart:
I'd like to pursue the line that Leon Wiesel tier took
in questioning James Wilson. I think it is pretty clear that one
understands what neoconservatism is about negatively-a resistance
to certain liberal pieties of the past fifteen to twenty-five years. But
there is also a desire to know what neoconservatism stands for. And
when neoconservatives are asked that, they feel that this is a question
about a theory or system. I think it is fair for neoconservatives, and
even for certain liberals, to resist this desire for a systematic response.
But I think it's also perfectly understandable that one wants some
