conservatism. Stung by attacks on theirnintegrity, the neoconservatives wouldnlike to be regarded as the legitimatenintellectual and moral heirs of GeorgenOrwell, the self-styled democraticnsocialist most famous for his scathingndenunciations of the political left. Indeed,nin a recent article in Harper’s, NormannPodhoretz claimed Orwell for neoconservatism,nciting above all Orwell’s criticismnof the left-wing literary intelligentsianof his day. Not to be outdone, Howenpublished, almost at the same time, annessay on the author of 1984 in The NewnRepublic. Howe conceded that therenwas a “streak of conservatism in Orwell’snoutlook,” but, with himself in mind, heninsisted that such a conservatism of sensibilityndoes not conflict with democraticsocialistnconvictions; on the contrary, itnsustains socialists in the call for an enlargementnof our freedom and a deepening ofnour culture.nIn the final analysis, of course, itnscarcely matters whether or not OrwellnFanciftil Farmingnand Hindu EconomicsnLoretta Schwartz-Nobel: Starving innthe Shadow of Plenty; McGfaw-Hill;nNew York.nAlbert O. Hirschman: Shifting Involvements:nPrivate Interest andnPublic Action; Princeton UniversitynPress; Princeton.nby Bryce ChristensennAmerica, so the advertising jinglengoes, means “Baseball, hot dogs, applenpie, and Chevrolet.” This Madison Avenuenrepresentation of the national ethos is,nof course, superficial, but its central elements—^hotndogs and apple pie—donMr. Christensen is an editorial internnwith the Chronicles.n10 inChronicles of Calturenwould today describe himself as a neoconservative;non almost every issue ofnimportance—totalitarianism, patriotism,nleft-wing intellectuals—the Englishmannespoused characteristically conservativenviews. Ironically enough, the same mightnalso be said of Irving Howe, whose fidelitynto socialism is finally a lunction of hisndetermination to frame a consistent,nhence a meaningful, life. Whatevernclaims he might make to the contrary,nhis decision to remain steadfast clearlynderives less from a concern for the publicninterest—the interest that Howe purportsnto serve—than from a deeply personalnneed. And if his neoconservativenopponents can no longer lay claim tonthe same kind of intellectual consistency,nthey deserve respect for the couragenthey have displayed in repudiating publiclyntheir former convictions. At thensame time, these converts are no morenindiflierent to their personal destiny thannHowe is; they live in the liberating confidencenthat repentance is the first stepnon the way to salvation. Dnsuggest an important feature of Americannlife: most of us eat well, perhaps too well.nThe bounty of American agriculture providesnso many apple pies and othernpalatal delights that obesity is a widespreadnhealth problem and dietingnthreatens to displace baseball as ournfavorite pastime. The well-stocked refrigeratornis simply a given in mostnAmerican homes, and starvation seemsnat least as far away as East Africa. But asnthe title of her book implies, Ms.nSchwartz-Nobel has found severe hungernmuch closer than Addis Ababa In Bostonnand Chicago, Pennsylvania and Mississippi,nshe has seen and interviewed hundredsnof malnourished and even starvingnAmericans. In graphic detail, shenportrays the plight of these people: children-neating laundry starch; widowsnnnchoosing between heat and food; infantsnwith the swelling legs and bellies ofnkwashiorkor. Though it is impossible tonaccept her hysterical claim that 30 millionnAmericans—one in seven—are goingnhungry and that starvation is now atn”epidemic levels” in the U.S., Schwartz-nNobel makes it equally impossible tondismiss the problem of hunger in Americanas trivial or unreal.nAt present, Ms. Schwartz-Nobel explains,nneither the world as a whole nornAmerica in particular faces foodnshortages: hunger is currently the consequencenof various economic, moral,nsocial, and governmental barriers in thisncoimtry and abroad which stand betweennthe needy and available nourishment.nBut in the not-too-distant future realnscarcity could cause more prevalentnhunger. Indeed, practices and trends innthe much-lauded American agribusinessncommunity—^which feeds Americansnand the citizens of over 100 other countries—donnot promise long-term productivity.nThe relatively small, energyefficientnfamily farm run by people whonfeel an emotional attachment to the landnthey cultivate has largely been replacednby the mammoth farm run by absenteeninvestors who are so concerned withnimmediate profits that they reftise to seenhow they jeopardize America’s potentialnto feed herself and others by relyingntoo heavily upon petrochemicals andnmachinery and caring too little for thensoil. This is a problem identified andnthoroughly discussed before, notably bynWendell Berry in Unsettling of America:nCulture and Agriculture (1977), but innthe context of Ms. Schwartz-Nobel’snstark depiction of present-day hunger, itnseems particularly urgent.nIn pointing out contemporary andnpossible future difficulties in feedingnAmericans, Ms. Schwartz-Nobel doesnsuggest solutions, and some of her suggestions—suchnas eliminating waste,nstoring food, and gardening at home—nare sensible. But by themselves suchnmeasures are inadequate. The problemsnof hunger and agriculture must be solvednin thefr latter context. “Our ^riculture,”n