through government redistribution,nand a cultural style that twitters at thenfeet of the cheap idol of “pluralism” innorder to avoid confronting the programmaticnchallenges to American civilizationnare now the content of whatnsome are still pleased to call “conservatism.”nThe metamorphosis has occurrednunder a variety of labels —n”neoconservatism,” “cultural conservatism,”n”opportunity society Republicanism,”n”Big Government conservatism,”nthe “New Paradigm,” etc.—nbut upon scrutiny, all turn out to benplain old vanilla liberalism.nAlthough the metamorphosis hasnlargely been intellectual and literary, itsnchickens now have finally found theirnpolitical roost. Sooner or later, thenintellectual disintegration of the rightnwas certain to trickle down from thenlofty corridors of think tanks and wellendowednchairs (most of which curiouslynseem to be named after the samenman) to the plain little people whonhold public office. Such gentlemen arennever noted for their grasp of intellectualnsubtleties, and when their aides,nspeechwriters, campaign advisers, andnother hired guns present them withnbooks, articles, and lectures spawnednby the eggheads of the right, they tendnto swoon with the thought of hownintelligent they must really be. It isnalways a mistake for sitting politicos tonread and think very much, and usuallynthere is little danger in it. But at leastnsince the time of John F. Kennedy,npublic men have been expected tonsport not only beehive mops of dryblownnhair but also “new ideas.” Ofncourse, the left knows perfectly wellnthat the “new ideas” it boasts arenmerely the same stale premises ofntyranny it has always harbored. Onlynthe right actually falls for the slogannand earnesriy tries to catch up with itsnrivals by emulahng them.nThe rout of the right in the lastncouple of years in Congress is thenlogical extension of the new ideas itsnofficeholders have swallowed, but thatnwon’t preserve us, in the next twonyears, from having to endure fromnthese same statesmen every knownnspecies of threat, cajolement, pledge,nand hucksterism known to democraticnpolitics and the conservative repertoire.nThere will be (and already is) muchnmoaning about having to run for officenunder the burden of the President’snbroken promise. There will be fretfulnprophecies of the price — poliHcal andneconomic — the President will have tonpay for raising taxes. There will benmutterings about “not supportingnGeorge Bush anymore” and rumblingsnabout founding a “third party” —nwhich, should it ever come to pass,nwould merely be the rank-and-file ofnthe Republican Party under a differentnlabel and without most of its nationallynknown leaders.nBut in the end, Mr. Bush will sur­nLIBERAL ARTSnBEARD BANNING IS RACIST,nOF COURSEnvive, even as President Nixon survivednsimilar disgruntiement in 1972 whennhe recognized Gommunist Ghina andnreturned from Moscow with the SALTnI agreement. The President may ornmay not survive a challenge from thenDemocrats in 1992, but one thing hendoesn’t have to worry about is anythingnserious from a conservative “movement”nthat ceased being meaningfullynconservative, or a movement, or serious,nsome time ago.nnA July civil rights ruling in Maryland has called into questionnthe legality of on-the-job grooming mles that require men tonbe cleanshaven. Dermatologists claim that nearly 90 percentnof black men are afflicted in varying degrees with a skinncondition called PFB, pseudofolliculitis barbae, which makesnshaving painful. The banning of beards, therefore, is a raciallyndiscriminatory act.nThe Maryland case involved one Donald Boyd, who wasnforced to resign from the University of Maryland police forcenin Baltimore after he refused to shave his beard. Mr. Boydnsaid he developed PFB in the Army in 1963, when he wasnforced to shave regulady for the first time. The problemncontinued after he was hired as a police oflBcer by thenuniversity; co-workers reportedly noticed that he had developednred blotches and infected bumps on his face. He thenngave up shaving and grew a quarter-inch beard. His supervisorntold him to go on sick leave until the condition was clearednup. Upon exhausting his medical leave, Mr. Boyd wasnreportedly forced to resign because he refused to shave.n”Consciously or unconsciously,” he said, “the groomingnpolicy amounts to racism.” As of last July, a state hearingnexaminer had ordered the university to reinstate him withnback pay.nThis ruling is expected to reverberate throughout thencountry, affecting in particular municipal police forces.nMaryland’s Human Relations Commission, in fact, wastednno time in bringing a complaint against Domino’s PizzanCorporation, asserting that the company’s “no-beard” policynconstitutes religious discrimination against a Sikh man namednPrabhjot Kohli, whose religion dictates that he wear a beard.nKohli was turned down for a job as manager of a Domino’snstore in December 1987, when he refused to shave. ThenHuman Relations Commission has asked Domino’s to paynKohli for two years of “lost earnings” and to hire him as anDomino’s manager.nnnOCTOBER 1990/11n