into such causes as radical feminism,nhomosexual rights and abortion on demand.nThey have sought in every waynto foment a social and moral revolution.nWe have justifiably come to associatenthe left with moral decay and social upheaval.nBut something is stirring in thenranks. Witness Christopher Lasch’s defensenof the family in Haven in a HeartlessnWorld, and Dale Vree’s denunciationsnof social and moral radicalism innthe pages of the New Oxford Review.nConservatives need to take cognizancenof such developments, and SidneynHook’s Philosophy and Public Policynfurnishes a splendid place to begin.nHook phrases the matter succinctly:n”The most fundamental question of ournage is not socialism or capitalism.” Thentrue divide exists between those whonpromote moral and social chaosn(whether socialist or capitalist in theirneconomics) and those who stand for decencynand the preservation of the traditionalnstrengths embodied in our socialnorder. DnStyle and a Single WilliamnF. Buckley, Jr.nWilliam F. Buckley, Jr.: Saving thenQueen; Wyndham Publications Ltd.;nLondon (Paperback edition).nWilliam F. Buckley, Jr.: StainednGlass; Warner Books; New Yorkn(Paperback edition).nWilliam F. Buckley, Jr.: Who’s onnFirst; Doubleday & Co.; New York.nby Mary Ellen Foxnr aced with three volumes of WilliamnBuckley’s belles-lettres, one is boundnto ask: Is there more to them than meetsnthe eye.” Is his chosen genre the best vehiclenfor carrying some currently unacceptednideas about values (simple andnnot-so-simple ones) and their defense.”nHas the author (artist.^ writer.? novelist.’npoet.”) settled for le roman d’espionnagenbecause it absolves him from larger demandsnof style, literariness and intellectualitynin his pursuit of not-too-clearlynestablished goals.’ Or are all these questionsnirrelevant because we are dealingnwith a leisurely exercise of a mind usuallyninvolved in more complex realms ofnknowledge and social responsibility.’nDr. Fox holds a degree in literature fromnYale.n8nChronicles of CultttrenAfter all, the history of culture recordsncountless examples of literary frolicsnconceived as a refined pastime.nStyle may be the key word. As wenknow now, style—its semantic meaningnexpanded by the cultural vicissitudes ofnthe ripeness of our civilization—hasnbecome in our day both the medium andnthe message. And perhaps more—annideological directive. And maybe evennmore—an intellectual tropism, an orientation,na disposition of both rationalitynand moral impulse. And God knowsnwhether these new attitudes of stylendo not, ultimately, transmute it into anfactual political and cultural power, annagent of influence which transcends thenarea of form and becomes the substance,nif not the very nature, of things. Thus,nin order to tackle style as the crystallizationnof both essence and formalncompound, let’s have a look at the following:nStyle and a Single William F.nBuckley, Jr.nBuckley may correctly be considerednone of the initiators (if not founders)nof a movement —after all, modernnAmerican conservatism began to expressnitself audibly and cogently withnthe launching and organization of thenNational Review enterprise. As a journalnof opinion and ideological exploration,nNR reached deeper than anynnnsimilar venture into the consciousnessnof all those who were dissatisfied withnliberalism and its protracted reign overnthe American intelligentsia. However,nNR’s valiant endeavors to bring lightninto darkness and to restructure mentalitiesnnever translated into a largerncultural pattern, an idiosyncratic flair,na distinct multidimensional civilizationalnproposition—in a word: style. NRnhas a political personality, social convictions,ncultural preferences, a scholarlynidentity, but it has failed to establish anliterary selfdom, to present the worldnwith its own brand of sophisticationnwhich would be fully separate from andnantithetical to the liberal orthodoxiesnand cliches, to create a mood about andnaround itself which would translate intona pneuma, an id, commanding and capriciousnif need be, but significant enoughnto make the American cultural universenreckon with it.nBut Buckley has not failed. He hasnsucceeded in everything his NR has not.nBy now he is the closest counterpart tonOscar Wilde (no suspicion cast) thatnNew York has produced, in that he hasncome to embody a unity of characternwith conviction, the symbiosis of individualitynwith its public, civic, intellectualnand existential properties. Henfailed at creating a movement, but hencreated for himself the best possiblenimage under the circumstances; henworked out a phenomenon, a symbol,na one-man movement of ideas, an epitome.nIt’s a dangerous occurrence, susceptiblento the weaknesses of eccentricity,nbut it has been flawless over thenyears in its sure-fire instinct for wherento go and at what pace. Buckley’s RocknHudson-P///ow Talk lapels and narrownties might have connoted shabby-genteelismnat some point —an aspersionnwhich could have been cast at the entirenconservative syndrome during the timesnof the Esquire-Playboy subculture’s paltrynebullience—in the end it has comento mean the victory of intellectual constancy.nThe early President Kennedynsartorial apparel on Buckley’s trim silhouettenbegan to emerge in the pagesn