QpiMONs & Vn:vs InPhillips’s ComplaintnKevin P. Phillips, Post-ConservativenAmerica: People, Politics and Ideologynin a Time of Crisis; Random House;nNew York.nby Charles A. MosernLost-Conservative America is KevinnPhillips’s fourrh book. Essentially, itnmerely recapitulates and develops certainnideas from the book which first broughtnhim public notoriety in 1969: ThenEmerging Kepuhlican Majority. Thenmost important idea he advanced therenwas that of the coming dominance of then”Sun Belt” in American politics, thenresult of population shifts south andnwest. The potential Republican majoritynof which Phillips wrote some 15 years agonhas, in fact, emerged no more than partially,neven in 1980; the 1982 electionsnhave demonstrated how unstable it is. Sonin his latest book Phillips sets out to explainnaway some of his previous predictions,nand, in addition, to argue that thenReagan coalition of 1980 cannot remainna long-term force in American politics.nIn short, the Phillips of today dislikes thenpartial Republican majority formed atnthe national level.nAlthough Post-Conservative Americancontains some valuable observations—nlike those Phillips has been making fornyears—it suffers from a pervasive intellectualnconfusion, unnecessary repetition,nand a prevalent pessimism thatnovercomes occasional onslaughts ofncheerfiilness. The shadow of a rightistn”Man on a White Horse” darkens itsnpages: though Phillips constantly reassuresnhimself that Americans wouldnnever accept a dictator, he probably liesnawake worrying about it some nights.nMuch of this book is “fiituristic” in thenworst journalistic sense, for it is muchnDr. Moser is professor of Slavic at thenGeorge Washington University in Washington,nD.C., and writes frequently fornthese pages.n6nChronicles of Cttltureneasier to speculate about the future—nutilizing the feeble historical parallels ofnwhich Phillips is so fond—than it is toncomprehend thoroughly the history ofneven the recent past.nAn important strand of Phillips’s argumentnis a critique of what he callsn”revolutionary” or “radical” conservatism,na “center extremism” to which henthinks Ronald Reagan adheres. As henputs it:nthe Reagan Administration’s firmlynpronounced goals . . . represent anrevolutionary blueprint more akin tonother attempts at national restorationnthan to conservatism’s usual efforts tonmaintain threatened existing institutionsnand relationships. Toynbee, onenmust note, suggests that such effonsninvariably disrupt, fail or degenerateninto Caesarism.nLike the garden-variety liberal ideologue,nPhillips evidently now believesnthat the true conservative’s task is to buttressnthat which liberalism has alreadynachieved while it goes on to new conquests,nnot to move in an entirely differentndirection. Phillips attacks the doctrinesnof supply-side economics asn”radical,” and advances a generallynnegative view of the Reagan Administration’sneconomic policies. In his typicallynirresolute way Phillips suggests thatnwhen candidate Reagan in 1980 urged anreturn to the “values of family, neighborhoodnand work” he touched sentimentsnvery like those on which Hitlernplayed during his rise to power. Phillipsnexaggerates the importance of rightistnmovements on American campuses (thennngenuine threat to civility and freedom ofnspeech in the university stems from thenradical left, which strongly influences thencenter), and consistently criticizes thennew right and its objectives.nIndeed, to the extent that a coherentnargument can be extracted fromnPhillips’s pages, it generally resemblesnthat of the radical left. In his introductionnPhillips speaks of his “vaguely neo-nMarxian brand of conservative analysis”n(the phrase beautifully illustrates his intellectualnconfusion), and throughout henapprovingly cites—along with conservativenwriters—several New Left or revisionistncommentators, includingnWilliam Appleman Williams, LesternThurow, Carl Oglesby, and MarcusnRaskin, as well as Alan Crawford, authornof an intellectually disreputable booknabout the new right. These are certainlynnot writers who would have provided anynsustenance to the Phillips of 15 years ago.nJrhiUips’s “neo-Marxian” approachnappears to derive from a Spenglerian pessimism,na conviction that the UnitednStates has entered upon an irreversiblendecline, that “history” invariably decreesnthat the central state should gradually extendnits authority throughout society. Asna consequence, he renews his attack onnthe constitutionally established “separationnof powers” in order to advocate anquasi-parliamentary system undernwhich, among other things, members ofnthe Congress would simultaneously serveninthePresident’scabinet. Butthecoreofnhis conviction is that the centralnstate—by which he means primarily thenexecutive branch—must become evennmore powerful than it is now. Thus atnone point he clearly states:nThe argument . . . which 1, for one,nfind difficult to fault … is thatngovernmental power is too diffused tonmake difficult and necessary economicnand technical decisions; accordingly,nthe nature of that power mustnbe re-thought. Power at the federajn