“From these statistics it becomes apparentnthat the American citizenrv isnstill verv much committed to whatnmay be described as a conser’ativenposition on the so-called social issues.nAmericans believe in God. Judeo-nChristian morality, and traditionalnconcepts of crime control. Thev willnlisten to legitimate calls for justice.nSadlv. due to the leftist dommation ofnthe media, these facts are mostlvnoverlooked.”nThe problem is that the rhetoric ofnconservative politicians —the rhetoricnof Herbert Hoover and John FosternDulles—offends the ordinary American.nThose people who wear smile buttons.nor who go around saying “Have a NicenDay” are not. as Gore Vidal maintains,n”clones”: but they aren’t conservativesneither, precisely because they havenembraced the sanguine liberal mindlessnessnof the lonely crowd. Their goodnaturednoptimism means, as Rabbi Schillernknows, that they will not take instructionnfrom a Hoover or a Dulles.nSo how are they to be approached.-*nIn Chapter Six Schiller indicates thatnthe successful conservative politiciannof the future would have to be a kindnof American Disraeli. He would havento be perceived as identifving with then”common man”; he would need “bothnhumor and humility”: he would have tonshow “a fervent loyalty to traditionalnfaith and old-school patriotism”: andnhe would:n”stand four-square against the abusesnof the welfare state and four-squarenin favor of its legitimate practices. Henwould coun the approval of specialinterestngroups like labor or ethnicnminorities, but not in the manner ofnthe liberal establishment, which cavesnin to their every demand; he wouldnseparate the justifiable from the absurd.nIdeally, he would have risennfrom humble origins and thus couldnquite literally fulfill his image-projection.”nSuch a politician would be a fresh facenindeed. For in America consen-atismnhas ail too often worn the dour, bahhumbuggingncountenance of JohnnAdams. This brand of conservatismnhas served well to temper Americannliberalism, a creed that, while laraeiynunexamined bv its partisans, boils downnto a belief in Progress and the love ofnequality: or. as Schiller puts it. ton”egalitarianism. the innate goodnessnof man. and the infinite plasticity ofnhuman nature.” The ubiquity of thisncreed means that the torch of liberalismnmay be carried, more or less gracefully,nby even the most pedestrian of men.nBut the cause of conservatism, if itnpresumes to be something more than andyspeptic reaction against the liberalncreed, needs truly gifted leaders: mennsuch as Washington, whose virtuesnmade him seem larger than life even tonhis illustrious contemporaries, or Lincoln,nwhose humility and sense of ironynrendered him immune to ideology. Thengreatest conservative leaders have beennmen who have eschewed the politicsnof passion, and of interest, and who,ndonning the Sweet Smile of Reason,nhave moved through a Hamiltoniannworld with all the serenity of Jeffersonnhimself. Such men are rare; more ordinarynfellows will need a little help fromnDr. Frankensteins of Madison Avenue.ni his brings up the one respect innwhich Rabbi Schiller’s book is unsettling:nit is quite clear that Schiller thinksnthat conservative politicians need tonpractice deceit (just one example: thensuccessful conservative politician ofnthe future, according to Schiller, wouldn”have to enjoy—or at least give thenappearance of enjoying [emphasis added]—crowds,nhandshaking, parades,npress conferences, and all the ritualsnof mass-suffrage democracy”). In othernwords, pressing the flesh and exudingncompassion for the downtrodden isndesigned as a cover for conservatism,nwhich can’t reveal its true face. Schillernseems to think that there is no differencenbetween this type of deception andnthat of the New York City politiciannwho honors a venerable American tra­nnndition bv stuffing his face full of bagels,nkielbasi. pizza, barbecued ribs, andncanapes as he rides the circuit of ethnicnneighborhoods. But this institution.nlike Tammanv Hall itself, is harmlessnprecisely because no one would everndream of attributing anything ideological—anythingnliberal or conservativen— to it. Schiller’s American Disraeli.non the other hand, is at once morencerebral and more calculating. Since hendoesn’t come by his gregariousness naturally—thenway Hubert Humphrey did.nfor example—there is something dencidedlv comical about him. One contemplatesnSchiller compiling an itinerarynror his Disraeli (read Jack Kemp ornPhil Crane) on the hustings:n6:30 AM Breakfast withnBuckley brothersn7:15 Tape interview withnPhyllis Georgen9:00 Skull session withnEric “Voegelin atnNotre Damen9:15 Greet workers at autonassembly plant; donncloth cap and bowlingnshirtn9:45 Rap session withnMerv Griffinn10:25 Return Solzhenitsyn’snphone calln10:30 Take limousine tonPeoria, read Spenglernen routen12:00 Chamber of Commercenluncheon:nwear polyester leisurensuit; order “lite” beern2:30 PM Confer with GeorgenMeany; smoke cigarn4:00 Visit workingman’snbar in Gary; drinknStroh’sn7:00 Deliver Leo Straussnlecture. Universitynof Chicago.n.And so on and on.nThis juxtaposition of conservativenphilosophy with neopopulist imagerynis wildly incongruous, to be sure. Butn17nChronicles of Culturen