effects of minority quotas, an obviousnpolitical demarcation, nonetheless,nexists between the two camps. For conservatives,nespecially traditionalists likenmyself, the new left and its liberal imitatorsnrepresent more than a mere wartnon the idea structure that the left hasnerected. Cultural nihilism, leveling egalitarianism,nand self-mortifying attachmentnto the cult of the downtroddennhave all fueled the leftist struggle againstnprivilege and traditional social values.nAlthough admittedly the modern leftnhas sometimes attached itself to goodncauses—e.g., intermittently to antifascismnand to the social improvement ofnAmerican Negroes—neither the levelingnimpulse nor revulsion for the dominantnculture has ever been missing fromnits members. The condemnation ofnwhite America as racist was a characteristicnliberal attitude of my youth. Nornis it remarkable that social, artistic, andnsexual experimenters have all gravitatednin modern Europe to the communistnand socialist parties. The left by its naturenis the despiser of both tradition andncultural permanence. Obviously somenneoconservatives would like to haventheir ideological cake and eat it at thensame time. Bell, for example, insists onnmaking distinctions among the polity,nthe economy, and culture. Thus whilenhe advocates economic socialism andnpolitical civil liberties, he also defendsnmoral order and artistic restraint as ancultural critic. Yet, as Steinfels properlynpoints out, the disjunction that Bellnmakes is ultimately indefensible. Thensupport Bell gave to Senator McGovernnentailed not only an economic choicenin favor of material redistribution. Hisndecision also carried cultural, or countercultural,nimplications, much as thendedication to political libertarianismnsignifies a choice of cultural values.nThe three spheres that Bell wishes tonkeep separate are indissolubly related,nbut to accept this relatedness mightnspell the end of neoconservatism: thatnis, cause its submergence into the morentraditional right.nSteinfels repeatedly notes a certainn”tough-mindedness” on the part of neoconservativencritics. They delight innexposing the sentimentality of the radicalnleft and pile up statistical researchnto expose the inadequacies of liberalnsocial programs. Yet, what he ignoresnis the continuing relationship of manynneoconservatives to the very left whichnthey attack. For example, Nathan Glazernactively supported the McGovern campaignnafter having published blisteringnattacks on minority quotas and busingnfor integration. Although his candidatenin the presidential race took far morendistasteful stands on both these issuesnthan did the Nixon administration,nGlazer put aside his scruples to campaignnfor McGovern. According to hisnlater comments, McGovern would havenended the war quickly without beingnable to implement any radical redistributionistnideas. In an essay publishednthe same year, however, Glazernfurnished a far more plausible explanationnfor his political position. As thendescendant of Jewish immigrants, henstill considered the Democrats a congenialnparty of the left which foughtnagainst prejudice and in favor of socialnjustice. Never mind that Glazer’s ownnresearch gave the lie to both these contentions,nthat the Democrats were bynnow the party of fat-cat bureaucrats andntheir hangers-on, or that the left wasncondoning Third World anti-Semitismnwhile demanding social quotas for jobsnin universities and industries. ApparentlynJean-Francois Revel’s Myth of thenLeft still thrives among some neoconservatives.nSteinfels understandably does notnquote that extensive literature whichnLipset, Bell, and Glazer have producednto outline their views on right-wingndangers. All three figures, especiallynLipset, have devoted more energy tonexposing nativist and fundamentalistnthreats to American social progress thannto defending oligarchies or denouncingnhippies. One might note that Steinfels’snflaming anticommunist Senator Moynihannhas habitually voted with thenliberals on defense issues and on eco­nnnnomic policies. At least half the editorialnstaff of Steinfels’s journalistic bite noire,nCommentary, rejected Gerald Ford asnexcessively conservative, and cast theirnlot with his more liberal opponent innthe 1976 presidential race. Finally, thatnsupposed monster of reaction, IrvingnKristol, editorialized in the Wall StreetnJournal in favor of that “prudent conservative”nGerald Ford and against thensupposedly impetuous and regressivenRonald Reagan.nIn my opinion, Steinfels not onlynengages in rhetorical overkill by callingnhis subjects reactionary, he also oversimplifiesntheir problematic connectionnto both the left and the right. Most neoconservativesnhold transitional positions.nSentimentally and practicallynthey remain allied to the Americannmoderate left; and though that positionnhas been increasingly shaped by thenmore radical left (note the political differencenbetween J.F.K. and his ne’erdo-wellnbrother), most neoconservativesnhave stayed Democrats or evennsocialists while grumbling. In fact, asnSteinfels remarks, their polemical activitiesngrew out of their relationshipnwith others on the intellectual left.nAnd as the price of maintaining thatntie, the same group continues to performnthe rituals of denouncing enemiesnon the right while rallying to the candidatesnof their leftward drifting nationalnparty.nJNonetheless, the neoconservativesntake cultural stands and raise politicalnissues to which only the right will currentlynlisten. Perhaps Steinfels correctlynattributes to them the propagation of an”serious conservatism,” but without acknowledgingnthe accidental nature ofnthis achievement for at least some ofnhis subjects. Many neoconservatives,nin clinging to unrealistic political alliances,nhave come to resemble waywardnmissionaries who swill withndrunkards in order to reform them.nSome neoconservatives—or neoliberalsnas they prefer to be called—repeatedlynassert that corporate capitalism isnmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ^nJanuary/February 1980n