by adopting their views. The Administration’s rhetoric onnthe rights of handicapped infants is only the most recentnexample of a conservative adopting liberal slogans. It is hardnnot to endorse Halifax’s assessment of the best political partynas “but a kind of conspiracy against the nation.”nMost conservatives prefer Edmund Burke’s more generousnview of the party system as an instrument of goodngovernment that transcends the level of personalities. But,nin Burke’s view, parhes represented the great constituenciesnof the nation: they were neither an ideological faction—likenCommunists or Jacobins—nor a mere historical accidentnlike the 20th-century Democrats in America—Rum, Romanism,nand Rebellion, as their opponents were fond ofnsaying. What the two parties represent now, it would bendifficult to say, when Lowell Weicker is a Republican andnSam Nunn a Democrat. Many Southern conservativesnretain their loyalty to the party of Jefferson Davis—TipnO’Neill had to drive Phil Gramm out of his own party andnturn him almost overnight into a powerful Republicannsenator. But if the Democrats drift inexorably to the Center,nit will become even more difficult to make a clear distinctionnon the basis of ADA or ACU ratings.nIf there is a powerful “party” with a shared set ofncommitments, it is probably the conservative movement.nBut good conservatives have not liked to regard themselvesnas a party. They prefer to remain a part of “the silentnmajority.” Outside of Washington, most conservatives pridenthemselves on their lack of ideology and their hostility tonabstractions. They would rather be good Americans thanngood conservatives.nThis naive variety of conservatism had limited influencenbefore the days of direct mail. Leaders of both parties knewnhow to touch the right strings to play the patriotic medley ofnGod, flag, and family. At the national level, there has nevernbeen a powerful Conservative Party as such in Americannhistory—not the Federalists, not the Whigs, not the Republicans.nAs a result, the reactionary sentiments of ordinarynAmericans were never fairly represented in the Federalngovernment. On issue after issue—environmentalism,nfamily versus the welfare state, abortion, court-orderednbusing—popular sentiments have not been taken intonaccount by policymakers.nIncreasingly, conservative journalists and politiciansnhave seized upon this disparity and have attempted to formna mass movement on the advice of Burke:nWhen bad men combine, the good must associate;nelse they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrificenin a contemptible struggle.nThere is no denying the movement’s success: Mr. Reagannin the White House; two hard-core rightists from NorthnCarolina in the Senate; Phil Gramm in Texas; a significantnnumber of young yuppie congressmen; and just outside thenpolitical arena, powerful institutions like National Review,nThe American Spectator, and The Heritage Foundationncompete with their opposite numbers for prestige andnleverage on Capitol Hill. There are countless splits and riftsnin the movement—neoconservative versus old right; populistsnversus elitist Straussians; and among the Straussiansnthemselves, the sect is splintered into fragments that follownHarry Jaffa, Walter Berns, and Strauss only knows who else.nIf the splintering sounds a little like the history of thenPresbyterian Church, it may be because of an almostnreligious zeal to save the soul of America. If there is anbinding philosophy, it is probably a vague form of thenfusionism taught by Frank Meyer to the readers oi NationalnReview: the uneasy yoking of social conservatives with thensupporters of business interests. Despite the haziness of itsnidentity, the movement shows signs of becomingnradicalized, and the right sometimes defends its positionsnalmost as predictably as the left.nConsider the abortion debate in the 1980’s. There is anrough American consensus: most people favor legalizednabortion only when the mother’s life is in danger or in thencase of rape (or incest, which usually amounts to the samenthing). It is not a logically consistent position. If it is wrongnto take an innocent life, why is the wrongness mitigated bynpeculiar circumstances? This consensus—even firmer innthe past—was able to function relatively smoothly until thenSupreme Court took the law into its own hands and made itnillegal to prevent abortions. On this issue, conservatives runnthe gamut, but the extremists usually have their way. ThenHatch Amendment would have taken abortion out of thenFederal courts and given back the power to the states, but itnwas—according to reliable sources—torpedoed by a conservativenSouthern senator with the support of antiabortionnpurists. Nothing short of an abortion amendment wouldndo.nA number of things ought to be said on behalf of thenright-to-life movement. First and most important, abortionnis a fundamental moral question that can evoke the strongestnfeelings. If it is murder, then acquiescence in the statusnquo post-Roe v. Wade is tantamount to complicity in thenHolocaust. Second, it is an issue forced upon the Americannpeople by a tyrannical Supreme Court. Third, manynantiabortionists are not at all conservative and see noncontradiction at all in their efforts to use the Federalngovernment as a weapon in a holy crusade.nGranting all that, there remains the question of what isnthe best way to stop the killing. Little headway has beennmade in Congress. More direct action, on the other hand,nis headline news: picketing, rallies, and bombing. All ofnthem may be, under the right circumstances, a morenappropriate expression of moral outrage than any attempt tonimpose the will of the minority upon the American people.nActions of the Federal government are at the root of many ofnour most serious social problems. In the long run, it doesnnot matter who wields the power, because it is inevitablynover us and eventually against us. I am probably as opposednto abortion as anyone I know. I also don’t know of andictatorship that does not express noble ideas. But merenmen are not strong enough to bear the moral burden ofndeciding what is best for other men.nIf there is one point of consensus among the FoundingnFathers, it was a healthy distrust of power and those whonseek to possess it. If we fail to return abortion to the states, itnmay even be time for confrontational tactics, but violentnrhetoric will only alienate the soft support the movementnenjoys. I also am against murder, but still oppose a Federalnlaw against it (and the national police it would require).nWhile conservatives continue to speak of “Federalism”n(continued on page 25}nnnAPRIL 1986/11n