524
PARTISAN REVIEW
patriots" without abandoning their claims to the rejection of the present and to
a Utopian future. I feel much more alien among the new "intellectuals" of the
right, nobably among those who have embraced an unconditional and often
vicious defense ofThatcherism with the same total devotion they once gave
to socialism and even Communism.
It
is true that in recent years the unusual
has happened, and
der Geist weht rechts,
creative minds have espoused right–
wing causes. Some of these are oflasting importance. While John Rawls may
survive Robert Nozick and others who were prepared to shed "justice as
fairness" in favor of the "minimal state," public-choice theorists and constitu–
tional economists have a great deal to offer when it comes to the issues with
which I am dealing in this letter. But having said that, there remain the many
for whom the demise of socialism means that a chasm has opened up, a great
vacuum which is as disconcerting emotionally as it is intellectually. They no
longer know where to go, and like the Italian Communist Party (of blessed
memory) or the magazine
Marxism Today
in Britain, they combine a coura–
geous preparedness for change with a remarkable confusion of ideas.
Some of these doubly homeless intellectuals - "free-floating" in any case
and now robbed of their socialist mental home as well- try to keep a dream
of some "real" socialism alive. They claim that none of the really existing
versions had anything to do with the real thing; indeed, they were all be–
trayals of the true socialist ideal. They speak of "socialism with a human
face," but the attempt is pathetic and will not lead anywhere. Kjell-OlofFeldt,
a Social Democrat and former Swedish minister of finance, has put it suc–
cinctly: "If it is that difficult to give a concept a human face, I want nothing to
do with it." I would recommend to those who still cannot get socialism out of
their minds an intellectual tradition which is admittedly less impressive in
numbers, but includes some upright individuals who have proved immune to
the temptations of dogma and Utopian fantasies when these were strong.
Karl Popper belongs squarely in this tradition. So does Raymond Aron , and
perhaps Norberto Bobbio. John Maynard Keynes and William Beveridge
have a place in this gallery. Max Weber can be found in it despite his early
forays into nationalist pastures. The authors of
The Federalist Papers -
Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison - were not tempted by
tyranny, and likewise belong in this tradition (although I wonder what they
would have said about being called intellectuals). And there are others,
fortunately. They are all children of Kant, and ofHume and Locke before
him, but emphatically not of Hegel or even of Rousseau. They are passion–
ate defenders of the open society and at the same time committed reformers.
One would be hard-pressed to place them on the left-right spectrum which
the French Revolution has bequeathed us. Keynes put it well. He could not
be a conservative - "I should not be amused or excited or edified. " He could
not be a socialist because he worried about "the party which hates existing
institutions and believes that great good will result merely from overthrowing
