In its present, i.e., “modem,” meaning, conservatism is anrather new notion in America. Many will object to the descriptionnof conservatism as a novelty; others wiU see it as some sort ofnwordplay, solecism, or incoherence. Yet even a cursory overviewnof American history will bear me out. American historynoriginated with the exploration of the new, and, actually, thencountry has never ceased its relentless march forward in timenand space. From its inception, the American universe has beennconstructed on ideas of advancement and betterment: the environment,nman’s overall well-being, political institutions, andnsocial relations were all targeted for nonstop improvement.nSoon, a civilization emerged whose most sacrosanct directivenwas to harness the natural phenomenon of change and transformnit into the idea of progress—an idea that had been longnand fervendy discussed in Europe, but which had never distillednthere into a power capable of successfully pervading both societynand culture. That’s what happened in America.nHe Lere, for nearly three centuries, that idea saturated bothnhistory and everydayness with a sense that everything was improving—allnthe vicissitudes of individual fetes notwithstanding.nAn all-encompassing feeling that everything is getting betternand better all the time accompanied each generation. This improvementnwas omnipresent: household facilities andnamenities, the availability of basic material commodities, acceptabilitynfor ever-larger social groups, health and longevity,nthe quality of democratic freedoms that might require constantnstruggle but which could be pursued by any means—neverything -was pressured to roll forward. The figure of speech:n”They came up with a new way, gizmo, approach, contraption,nproject, gimmick…” could serve to denote progress in peelingnpotatoes or reorganizing legislatures. It ultimately became annidiom. Admittedly, some parts of reality did not move quite sonrapidly: racial discrimination and ethnic discrepancies impedednthe joyous procession of unbounded opportunity, butnthe essential vector was clear and unmistakable.nHow could one afford to be a conservative in such a constandynchanging social landscape? Thus, there were no conservativesnin America for a protracted stretch of history; thosenwho might have merited the name either did not associatentheir leanings with any ideology or were simple reactionariesnopposed to reform, progress, and change for various reasons.nNineteenth-century positivism and the Civil War finally relegatednmajor conservative impulses to a state of complete disgrace:nsuch inclinations were evicted from the enlightenednperson’s mental equipment and civic decalogue. During thenRoosevelt era of tampering with economic mechanisms, conservatismnstood for a hopelessly truncated, purely economicnreaction to New Deal transgressions; its simplistic label was asnremote from its intrinsic meaning as doggerel is from poetry.nIn the I950’s conservatism was vaguely linked to a hard-linenposition on communism—a meager and lackluster identity.nChronicles of Culturen• CONSERVATISM AS NOVELTY •nEDITOR’S COMMENTnnnparticularly in an era that also produced the Trumans and thenKennedys.nConservatism owes its philosophical renaissance, epistemologicalnrise, dazzling career in human sentiments, profoundnsignificance for the rebirth of mankind’s commonnhopes, and sudden identification as Western civilization’s neo-nSt. George to the 1960’s—^which otherwise constituted thennadir of this civilization’s spiritual fortunes. That was an era, asneveryone now knows, when gawkiness was called idealism,ncallowness was hailed as wisdom, charlatanry proclaimed itselfnsincerity, frenzy stood for happiness, conformity meant independence,nsubservience to totalitarian regimes abroad wasncamouflaged by shrill anarchism, groveling before ugly totemsnwas described as freedom of thought, worship of foolish wickednessnwas termed openness to ideas, crude frresponsibilitynwas acclaimed as liberation, while the wealthy celebratednpoverty without relinquishing thefr wealth and were salutednas progressive instead of being branded as hypocrites. It was antime when unaccountable fecklessness was accepted as guilelessness;npeople were supposed to relate to each othernthrough a single word—love—as if no other interdependencenbetween them had ever existed—after five millennia of civilization.nThe heady feeling that each day was constantiy gettingnbetter was dead. Suddenly we were fighting a well-intentionednwar to save a small country from a common and certifiednenemy, but our soldiers were forbidden to win that war bynthose who had sent them to the batdefields in the first place.nSuddenly, our own country was ftill of rabid friends of ournenemies, who w^ere celebrated in our press and in our univer-n