Editor^s Commentn1.nThe grand show of our Hfetime is the half-a-century-oldndebate about the American promise and American power—nand what we have done to and with both. Soon after WorldnWar II, something clicked in the American culture, and,never since, Americans have been supposed to react mentallynonly to preordained liberal stimuli. Academia, the opinionshapingnindustries and Hollywood have joined forces towardnthis goal. In short order, promise and power ceded to annall-engulfing disputation on American (but no other) sin.nActually, it was no longer a polemics: the endless varietynand inventiveness of accusations and condemnations hadncome to be termed a dispute. By the middle of the 60’s, thennational confabulation had been so constructed that onlynAmerican sin was allowed to be discussed in conjunctionnwith American power. Why so, one may ask, and allowed bynwhom.’ With the passing of time, these questions becomenless and less possible to answer. There certainly are powersnin 20th-century America which are capable of obscuring thennational consciousness to a degree which would be enviednby totalitarian rulers, and they can easily eclipse in people’snminds anything those powers prefer not to deliberate on.nA conservative is, by nature, inclined to ponder sin. Whatndistinguishes his from other persuasions is that, in the casenof our national debate, he also proposes to consider Americannvirtues. So far, few have wanted to listen to him. However,nthose who still insist that American sin is the only thingnwrong with the world still command the national culture.nAnd they prefer to hate rather than to discuss.n2.nBy now, the American conservative seems eagerly willingnto ventilate his views on all three subjects: power, promisenand sin. What’s disturbing is that no one wants to argue withnhim seriously. Perhaps this is because his argument now,nafter 50-odd years of liberal dominance in culture, has morenstrength than ever. Taking this circumstance into consideration,nhe is either accorded shallow accolades for his politicalnacumen, or he is called names.nan3.nurs is a marvelous country. It’s so suspiciously easynto obtain recognition and acclaim here, and no less suspiciouslynsimple to be instantly rejected and forgotten. Dispensingnattention and oblivion is a very idiosyncratic, genuinelynAmerican mechanism. I have always wondered whynde Tocqueville failed to mention this. How could he havenmissed the supreme and poetic justice inherent in this phenomenon?nPeople, ideas, which idea belongs to whom, tendnto be so utterly and universally obliterated from the Ameri­nChronicles of Culturencan memory bank that, in the end, equity is meted out toneverybody.nHowever, justice in America does not imply impartiality,nespecially in our time. Which, of course, exonerates denTocqueville. Anyway, he would have had great difficulty innpublishing Democracy in America during the 60’s and 70’s.nAfter all, his was a famously enlightened conservative impulse,neasily detectable by every New York editor. He wouldnhave read rejection slips like: “Dear Tocq (or Dear de)—nit was quite thoughtless on your part to have sent us your Ms.n’ Who’s going to pay to read about America’s phony virtues.””nIn a little-known speech prepared for the I’Academie desnSciences Morales ei Politiques and published in its Seancesnet Travaux in 1852, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote:nIt is incredible how many systems of ethics and politics havenbeen successfully, found, forgotten, found again and forgottennagain, only to make a fresh appearance later on, always enchantingnor astonishing the world as if they were quite new,nbearing witness to men’s ignorance, not to the inventivenessnof the human mind.nIt would perhaps be permissible to apply to the moral andnpolitical sciences, what Madame de Sevigne so pleasinglynsaid about love, that it is a great reviver (recommenceur).nFor moral and political philosophers often repeat what hasnbeen said before in a different way. They present very fewntruths that are not extremely old, and very few errors which,nwere their date of birth known, would not appear thoroughlyndecrepit. That is why most of those who spin social theoriesnnowadays, who justly strike us as so dangerous, would alsonseem very boring if we had more erudition and betternmemories.nAn American conservative who understands these wordsnand is aware of their perspicacity knows why he is a conservativenand where he is going. Because, in our day, conservatismnmeans a method of thinking concerned more with structuringnthe future than with extolling the past.nWKnnn4.n’hat the official American culture, on the thresholdnof the 1980’s, stubbornly refuses to accept is that Americannconservatism is a profoundly intellectual movement of ideasnwhose primary task is to probe the foundations of our moralnand existential dilemmas. As such, it may be better suitednthan any other philosophy to penetrate the enigmas of thenfuture.nWhat’s even more ignored is that American conservatismnis rational and democratic, otherwise it wouldn’t be American.nIt nurses a deeply ingrained contempt for, and a defensenagainstj fanaticism. Curiously enough, the most implacablenenemies of conservatism in today’s America are those whonare fanatically involved with ideas that have already beenn