OPINIONSrnForce and Idearnby Samuel Francisrn’The tone and tendency of liberalism … is to attack the institutions of the countryrnunder the name of reform and to make war on the manners and customs of thernpeople under the pretext of progress.”rn— Benjamin DisraelirnAfter Liberalism: Mass Democracyrnand the Managerial Staternby Paul GottfriedrnPrinceton: Princeton University Press;rn176 pp., $27.95rnAlthough Paul Gottfried begins hisrnmost recent book with what appearsrnto be merely a cliche of modern conservativernthought—that “Liberalism has . . .rnlost any meaningful connection to whatrnit once signified,” that the word nornlonger refers to the defense of decentralizedrnpower, a restricted state, and arnstrong and independent moral order andrnhas come to mean the defense of exactlyrnthe antithesis of historic liberalism —hernsucceeds in elaborating the cliche intornan incisive and at times brilliant, if occasionallyrnflawed, interpretation of thern”managerial state” that parades underrnthe mande of liberalism.rnThe concept of the “managerialrnstate,” first used by James Burnham andrnreformulated by myself largely in articlesrnand columns in Chronicles, is more thanrna synonym for what conservatives andrnclassical liberals usually call “big government.”rnAs Gottfried explains, 19thcenturyrnreformers in Prussia and Francernintroduced an enlarged scale of governmentrnby sponsoring public education,rnbut “the justifications were both practicalrnand nonegalitarian,” the purpose beingrnto increase the literacy of workers andrnto strengthen national unity. By contrast,rnpublic education in the managerial staternaims explicitly at “changing social structurernand social attitudes.” The manage-rnSamuel Francis is a nationally syndicatedrncolumnist and editor of the SamuelrnFrancis Letter, a monthly newsletter.rnrial state, in Gottfried’s usage, has an explicitrnmission—reconstructing society—rnthat was (so he claims) foreign to classicalrnliberalism.rnIn Burnham’s original usage, however,rnand in the reformulated usage that Irnhave developed, the state (as well as thernculture and the economy) is an instrumentrnof a managerial class, a class characterizedrnby its acquired mastery ofrnthe technical and managerial skillsrnthat enable modern society- to function.rnSuch skills include not only scientificrnand engineering but economic, legalistic,rnadministrative, communicativern(public relations), and psycho-socialrntechniques that have become essentialrnfor the operation of large-scale organizations,rnwhether the organizations in questionrnare formally political (the state andrnits units), economic (the mass corporations),rnor cultural (the media, foundations,rnand educational institutions).rnWhile the managerial state and the otherrncomponents of the regime are indeedrndriven by a need to reconstruct society,rnthis need arises only secondarily from thernideological persuasions of the managerialrnclass and primarily from its structuralrninterests: In order to enhance thernrewards of its technical skills, it must extendrntheir application to an increasingrnrange of governmental, economic,rnsocial, and cultural functions, and thernextension of technical skills to new functionsrnand institutions brings the managerialrnclass into conflict with older classesrnthat lack its skills and interests.rnBut, like any elite or ruling class, thernmanagerial class cannot baldly acknowledgernthat its behavior is driven by its interestrnin gaining wealth and power, andrnso it masks its drive for these by adoptingrnand invoking convenient ideologies thatrnjustify expanded government and staternmanipulation of social functions whilernalso denigrating, debunking, and delegitimizingrnthe older, pre-managerial classrnand the institutions and values by whichrnit dominated. The “social reconstruction”rnthat the managerial regime undertakesrnarises, then, not only from the interestsrnof the elite that controls thernregime but also from its need to destroyrnits predecessors and competitors forrnhegemony.rnGottfried’s analysis of the “managerialrnstate” only tangentially resembles thisrnBurnhamite model, and he accords farrnmore motivating force to the ideology ofrnthe state than either Burnham or I. “It isrnhard to demonstrate,” he writes, “thatrnmanagerial elites have consistently benefitedrnby pushing their own bodies of belief”rnNazi state managers, for example,rnwere “rushing headlong into cosmic violencernand arbitrary personal rule,” whilernliberal managers today universally supportrnmass immigration, which Gottfriedrnargues cannot be justified in terms of therninterests of the managerial class. Thosernwho run Gottfried’s managerial state arernprimarily driven by ideology, and thatrnideolog)’ is not a mask by which to disguisernthe pursuit of their group interests.rn26/CHRONICLESrnrnrn