this impulse today than the advocates ofnHberation theology and those leadersnof the World Council of Churches whonbestowed blessings—and money—uponnthe black butchers of Rhodesia? Progressivenas it may be, millennialismnforms a volatile and potentially destructivenstrain within Christianity.nRobert Nisbet longs to bolster Americans’nsagging confidence in the ideanof progress. But should we not thinkntwice before undertaking this task.”nWithout siding with the no-growth advocatesnone can justifiably argue thatnthe historic Western commitment to thenidea of progress deserves a bit of chastening.nThe hungry search for knowledgendoes not necessarily bring beneficence,nespecially when it strips man of hisnsense of awe before the mysteries ofnthe cosmos. When cast in the form ofncontinual technological innovation,nprogress brings disruption and confusion,nand an overriding emphasis uponneconomic growth encourages crass materialism.nSince the onset of the industrialnera the quest for progress has toonoften destroyed man’s respect for thennatural world, tied him to machines,nand promoted a geographical and socialnThe New York Times’snGame of ColorsnHarrison E. Salisbury: Without Fearnor Favor: An Uncompromising Looknat the New York Times; TimesnBooks; New York.nby Lev Navrozovnivike any other social group, the NewnYork Times staff (I mean those responsiblenfor the final decision-making, ofncourse) has social interests of its ownnwhich may or may not coincide withnthose of the American people as a whole,nMr. Navrozov is currently finishing anbook on the New York Times.nmobility that has disparaged tradition,ngutted settled communities, and cutnman adrift to wander through a world ofnatomistic individualism. Allen Tate,nDonald Davidson and the other Southernersnwho wrote /’// Take My Standnfifty years ago realized all this, and theirnsymposium remains one of the bestnguides to the traditionalist quarrel withnthe idea of progress. To question thisnidea does not necessarily indicate a desirento destroy Western civilization;nindeed, only through such questioningncan one adequately conserve the bestnof the past, enjoy the full fruits of thenpresent, and lay a solid foundation uponnwhich to build the future.nUespite my reservations, RobertnNisbet has performed a valuable servicenin charting the history of the idea ofnprogress and in adumbrating what henthinks its demise will mean. The debatenstimulated by such a thoughtful and intelligentnbook will not solve the problemsnthat beset our society, but it willnhelp us to approach those problems withngreater clarity and insight and thus preventnus from lurching blindly into thenfuture. Dnnot to mention those of the nontotalitariannworld. To conceal any possiblendiscrepancy and pretend to speak alwaysnin the best interests of the United Statesnor the West, the Times, like a chameleon,nadopts whatever coloration seemsnappropriate.nUntil the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939,nthe Times’s Walter Duranty extollednStalin’s Russia. In fact, Stalin personallynpraised Mr. Duranty—not for hisnpro-Soviet stand, but for his purely Stalinistnposition. When Stalin executednthe old Bolsheviks, Duranty duly describednthe victims as Gestapo agentsnwho deserved whatever they got. Harri­nnnson Salisbury defines Duranty as ann”eccentric conservative.” Yes, beingnconservative was the coloring which henassumed, chameleonlike, because, exceptnfor the period between 1966 andn1975, it was important for the NewnYork Times to be regarded as “a littlenon the conservative side,” certainly notnleft-wing. But in his reports to the NewnYork Times from Moscow, the conservativenDuranty was a consistent andnenthusiastic Stalinist. Thus, on the onenhand, we have the social interests of thenNew York Times, which prompted itnto accept Stalin’s view of Stalin’s regimen(until 1939); on the other hand, wenhave the corporate interests of the NewnYork Times as an institution which hasnalways coveted a monopoly of cultural,nhence political, power. Duranty was employednprecisely because he could posenas a conservative, albeit a somewhatneccentric one, thus enhancing the credibilitynof the New York Times and wideningnits political base to include conservativesnas well. After all, if Stalin andnhis regime were as good—at least fornthe Russian people—as the conservativenDuranty described them, whynshould an honest conservative deny U.S.ngovernment recognition to Stalin’snregime.”nBetween 1966 and 1975 it was morenadvantageous for the New York Times,nfor the sake of its corporate interests,nto assume a liberal coloration—certainlynnonconservative—and the Timesnvied with Rolling Stone in its leftwardndash. What will be the best coloring fornthe 1980’s.? If the New York Timesnpersists in its 60’s and 70’s coloring, itnwill destroy its monopoly of culturalnand political power, because its corporateninterests now demand a new coloring.nThe chameleon would destroy itselfnif it still looked red against a backgroundnwhich had turned green. Thusnthe New York Times is changing colornagain.nTo display this new coloring is thenreal raison d’etre of Harrison Salisbury’snbook. This does not mean thatnthe Times has already assumed the fulln11nSeptember/October 1980n