together reviews and papers into a singlenvolume is, of course, no easy task;nand Mansfield tries to accomplish thisnby weaving a central theme into bothnthe introductory and closing chapters.nExamining the problematic nature ofnliberal democracy, he focuses upon thenconflicts between liberals and liberalsnand between liberals and democrats. Accordingnto his thesis, the Americannregime, in some ways, resembles thenmixed government that Aristotle praisesnin book six of The Politics. BothnAristotle and the Founding Fathers sawnthe need to balance government bynnumbers with conditions designed tonprotect wealth and certain visible inequalities.nBut whereas Aristotle soughtnto sustain oligarchy by giving the richnprivileged access to political position,nthe framers of our Constitution, takingna cue from John Locke, tried to temperndemocracy by authorizing rights. For,nafter all, who would benefit most fromnthe rights to property and speech, ifnnot those who were best at amassingnwealth and swaying others with theirnspeeches?nOne obvious source of conflict in anmixed regime, known to the ancientsnand to Locke and Madison, was betweennnumbers and wealth. One could thereforenanticipate from the beginning thatnAmerican politics would be marked bynfactional strife between liberal oligarchsnand democratic levelers. What couldnnot have been predicted, according tonMansfield, was the eruption of strugglenamong the prime beneficiaries of thenliberal order, between intellectuals andnbusinessmen, both of whom were intendednto profit from the spirit of tolerance.nFor more than a generation,neducators and publicists have appealednto popular envy in demanding the eradicationnof economic freedom. Meanwhile,nmen of practical affairs have expressedntheir contempt for the eggheads andnhave flaunted their anti-intellectualism.nAccording to Mansfield this state ofnaffairs bodes ill for liberalism, inasmuchnas it involves the wholesale defectionnof those who should be spokesmen forn22inChronicles of Culturenthe liberal order into the camp of democraticnpopulism.nAlthough the exposition of Mansfield’sncentral theme and his analysisnof “modern liberals,” especially of JohnnRawls, Charles Reich and TheodorenLowi, show argumentative skill of thenhighest order, bothersome oversightsnmar his presentation. For one thing,nthe term “liberal” is indiscriminatelynapplied to political phenomena and personalitiesnthat span several centuries.nFor example, Mansfield has no compunctionsnin assigning the predicatenliberal to both John Locke and thenauthor of The Greening of America.nWhereas the defender of English parliamentarynmonarchy is made into a liberalnjustification of capitalism has becomenhedonism, the idea of pleasure as a waynof life.” Cut off from traditional religiousnrestraints and from a philosophicalnbelief in liberty, as opposed to purenself-gratification, the capitalists themselvesnhave, by and large, welcomedngovernment regulations and controls—nproviding these might be used to excludenor throttle competition.nIf I draw a bleak picture, it is partlynto offset the overly cheerful one thatnMansfield provides. I, for one, am notnconvinced by his repeated suggestionnthat our cultural agonies can be resolvednby getting people to accept thengame rules of our common Lockeannlegacy, the source of our present divis-n”•\’e dt) not know where he stands, and so we cannot id! wlielher we nursvKisslunJnwiili him Iir,[gainst him.”n— I’hc ,i’u’ Republicnwithout qualification, the eulogist ofnAmerica’s hippie revolution is identifiednwith “liberalism in moderation.”nMansfield states his thesis too flatlynto take proper account of his own historicalnsituation. Is the “spirit of liberalism”nendangered primarily becausenbusinessmen and intellectuals are seekingnto exclude each other from its beriefits.’nWhat seems more likely is that thenWestern liberal heritage—which is widenenough to include Madison, Locke, andnBurke, but not hippie gurus—is beingnobliterated by a cult of irrationalism andnsentimentality. The most serious culturalnproblem besetting our civilizationnis neither Locke’s doctrine of naturalnrights nor spiteful liberal aristocratsnwho would deny rights to each other.nThe difficulty lies in the fact that educators,nclergymen, professionals, and,nyes, businessmen have all been permeatednby the same culture of social andnmoral disintegration.nNor have businessmen been morenjealous of their economic liberty thannhave their supposed adversaries in thenacademy. As Daniel Bell has recentlynobserved: “The cultural, if not moral,nnniveness and liberal national character.nMansfield is proposing a cease-fire, thenconversion of Locke’s natural rights andnthe American Bill of Rights into anfoundation for provisional mutual tolerance.nSupposedly by recognizing thisnDMZ, representatives of both the traditionalnand adversary cultures will benbrought closer together. As a culturalnhistorian, I am forced to doubt this impliednconclusion. Without shared moralnprescriptions and without what the newnLeft has described, albeit in a differentnsense, as a shared “meaningful past,”nthe prospects for this consensus seemndim indeed.nD uring the past several years, conservativenscholars have been writingnabout a new class of idea-mongers andnbureaucrats single-mindedly dedicatednto the undoing of America’s businessnelite. Kevin Phillips has divided thenparticipants in this struggle betweenntraditional commodity producers and anrival group of journalists, academics,nand service professionals. The termn”new class,” however, was the inven-n