488
PARTISAN REVIEW
independent socialists here and abroad, though some of them, particu–
larly in Europe, have been affected by the pressures of this new
radicalism.
What passes mostly for right and left thinking are in the main
ideologies, but not ideologies in the earlier sense of the term. They are
not systematic, nor based on a body of doctrine, nor self-contained. Both
right and left are made up of pragmatic maneuvers, adaptations to popu–
lar currents thought to be-or by force of repetition and propaganda
made to be-associated with conservative and radical doctrine.
Hence these ideologies-or mind sets- can be best understood not
by looking for their theoretical underpinning but by seeing them as social
and psychological phenomena. In the case of the neoconservatives, their
ideas and policies are matters for extensive analysis, but here I am limit–
ing the discussion to what might be called the neoconservative reflexes.
There are disagreements among neoconservatives, but most of
them feel that, if there must be a choice, defense is more important than
social justice. They
also
think that the welfare of the economy comes
before social welfare, though there is nothing inherently conservative
about supply-side economics, unless any attempt to prop up the existing
system is
to
be considered conservative. They believe that the Soviet
Union is the greatest threat to the survival of Western democracy, greater
than the danger of fascism or internal decay.
If
there is disagreement
about the nuclear strength of the Soviet Union, they are likely to accept
the maximum figures for Soviet power. They are less concerned with
women's rights, with black problems, with minority issues, with the
Third World. On the question of Israel, most neoconservatives tend to
advocate full support, though some have reservations-but not to the
point of sympathy for the PLO. On issues having to do with social
mores, many neoconservatives tend to extoll the virtues of middle
America, celebrating the family, hard work, business enterprise, small–
town morality. On the whole, neoconservatives favor a hard and "realis–
tic" foreign policy, at least in theory, in the sense of having no illusions
about Soviet intentions, while they play down the need for
social
reform.
Of course, it should be emphasized that many of these views are rhetori–
cal
and that the question of implementing them is lost in the interstices of
American politics. Reagan, for example, is more bluster than action,
while the conservatism of business puts profits above politics, but that is
another story.
On the other side of the fence, political stands are even more a mat–
ter of reflexes. On Soviet armament, the liberal-left is likely to say it is
