and wanted to roll back government involvement in theneconomy; above all, they hated anything that smacked ofnglobalism. On the far right, they wanted us out of the UN,nand all were contemptuous of any ideological commitmentnto the human race.nWhat do the new conservatives believe? Virtually none ofnthe above. They like government and don’t mind expandingnits powers, so long as they can put their friends into jobs innthe White House. They want to make the welfare statenmore efficient, but would never dream of dismantling it. Sonfar from disliking the elites, their fondest wish is to form annelite class that will share power with the left. Most importantly,nthey are the biggest globalists in American history.nThe American people, in their view, must be willing to bearnany burden, pay any price in carrying on a crusade for globalndemocracy, eliminating all trade barriers, and opening thencountry to unrestricted immigration. If anyone is foolishnenough to express contrary views, he runs the risk of beingneliminated as a nativist, an anti-Semite, and a factiousnsectarian — the three charges that have been leveled againstnChronicles by Richard John Neuhaus and NormannPodhoretz and repeated fervently by the less reflectivenrepresentatives of the established right.nAs Podhoretz (editor of Commentary) wrote to Neuhausnin a letter that the former Missouri Synod Lutheran pastornchose to share with the press: “I know an enemy when I seenone, and Chronicles has become just that so far as I amnpersonally concerned.” Neuhaus and Podhoretz, by makingnthese public accusations, apparendy meant to turn a guerrillancampaign against free expression into an all-out warnagainst any variety of conservatism or liberalism with whichnthey happen to disagree. In this case Mr. Podhoretz wasnannoyed by what he chose to call the “nativist bigotry” ofnthe March ’89 Chronicles perspective on immigration andnthe “anti-Semitism” displayed in Bill Kauffman’s article onnGore Vidal.nNo defense of either piece should be necessary in a freencountry. Mr. Vidal, although he has been roughly criticizednin Chronicles over the years, is a serious and influentialnwriter. Whether Mr. Kaufl’man was correct or incorrect innlocating him within a reactionary tradition that includesnHenry Adams is hardly the issue. Apparently, the first rulenof the conservative coalition is that no magazine editor maynever publish anything without first checking with NormannPodhoretz, the Mrs. Grundy of the American right. Henceforthnnovelists are not to be judged on any but politicalnstandards, and those standards are set by Commentary.nThe immigration issue is far more serious than thencensorship of literary opinion. Across the political spectrum,nthoughtful writers have been making the case for annimmigration policy in the national interest. Similar argumentsnhave issued from academic leftists like MichaelnWalzer to such centrist liberals as Richard Lamm andnSenator Graham of Florida to such diverse conservativenwriters as Wayne Lutton and Peter Brimelow. If a fewnconservative ideologues succeed in silencing all seriousndebate on such vital national issues, then the long-termnprospects for American conservatism are very dim indeed.nTo anyone who has read Chronicles, the charges aren”ridiculous” — as the publisher of National Review declarednunequivocally to The Washington Times, and as bothn12/CHRONICLESnnnJacob Neusner and Robert Nisbet told The New York Times.nBut the war against free expression extends beyond ournmagazine. Midge Decter is now referring to a speech ofnRussell Kirk’s as “a bloody outrage, a piece of anti-nSemitism.” After Kirk, conservatives are wondering, who isnnext in line to be denounced? Miss Decter and her husbandnhint that it is George Bush. According to Mr. Podhoretz, thenadministration is drifting “towards changing its position ofnadamant opposihon to a PLO state,” while his wife denouncesnour Middle East policy as “a disaster for somenhme” and — in the same breath — Mr. Bush’s presidency asna “Philistine administration,” by which she does not mean,npresumably, that she disagrees with its arts policies. Bynimplicating President Bush in their conspiracy theory, thenPodhoretzes have joined the ranks of Robert Welch, and onenmight update Russell Kirk’s response to Welch’s denunciationnof Eisenhower (“Ike’s not a Communist: he’s a golfer”)nby saying of the President that George Bush is not annanti-Semite: he’s a fisherman.nIt is interesting to note that none of our accusers hasnmanaged to lay a glove on the magazine by finding ansingle jot or tittle that could be plausibly construed asnevidence of bigotry. They have to fall back on the last resortnof the calumniator: “code words” and “insensitivity.” Thenmost dishonest attack was the suggestion that Chronicles’ncriticisms of the Northeastern literary-intellectual establishmentnhave been aimed only at Jews, and that references tonNew York and Scarsdale and Brookline are anti-Semiticn”code words.” It’s news to us, as it will be to the people ofnMassachusetts, where Brookline is associated with uppermiddle-classnliberalism. If anything, the community has anreputation for anti-Semitism.nIrritating as it must be to the epicene young conservativesnwho only recently came down to the Gity from the IvynLeague, there actually are people who think New York cannnever be part of any solution; that, for all the good peoplenwho live and work in Manhattan, what it has come tonrepresent is everything that is alien and hostile to whatever isnbest in the American tradition. As Hank Williams Jr. sings:n”You can send me to Hell or New York Gity. It’d be aboutnthe same to me.” What the future of Manhattan-stylenconservatism can be, God only knows, but Henry Regneryn— whose powers of prophecy no conservative will deny — asnearly as 1953 was telling Mr. Buckley that any newnconservative magazine should be “edited and publishednoutside New York.”nBut times have changed since 1953, and any criticism ofnNew York is now taken as evidence of bigotry. The world isna simple place for single-issues voters and conspiracytheorists.nIf they know where a man stands on nuclearnenergy, the Trilateral Gommission, the Palestinians, or thengold standard, they can locate him precisely on the grid ofntheir paranoia. Years ago National Review attempted to freenconservatism from this sort of paranoia.nSuch an effort would now encounter almost insupportablenobstacles. If the older conservative and libertariannheroes were literate, broadly educated, and intellectuallynserious — one has only to think of H.L. Mencken, AlbertnJay Nock, James Burnham, and Russell Kirk — their successorsnhave been, by and large, men of a different stamp. Inn