missed with indifference, not to say contempt.”rnAt this point, a few qualifications arernin order. First, Genovese shouldrnnot be dismissed as a defeated Marxistrnlooking for new weapons of destructionrnto use against capitalism. Genovese’srnanalysis is much too profound for suchrnsimplistic reductionism. Second, hisrnanalyses of what ails higher education,rnrace relations, denominational religion,rnand otlier elements of American culturernarc first-rate and insightful. And third,rnhe has correctly acknowledged the historicalrnprimacy of Ghristianity in the establishmentrnof a humane social order.rnGenoycse sees debilitating decline,rnspurred on in large measure by “a selfrevolutionizingrncapitalist system and itsrnattendant marketplace mentality [bothrnof vyhich have been the] greatest solyentrnof traditional yalues.” The juxtapositionrnof traditional Christian yalues with financerncapitalism, he argues, will reversern”the moral corruption that now runs rifernin America,” but the corruption cannotrnbe “arrested without the interyention ofrngoyernment at all levels.” The capitalisticrnsystem and its offspring, the nationalrnand international conglomerates, are notrnintentionally seeking to destroy traditionalrnvalues; the marketplace mentalityrnsimply feels “no responsibility for the solutionrnof such problems unless the problemsrninterfere with business.” Presumably,rnif innovative public policy couldrnmake such irresponsible behavior “interferernwith business,” the end result couldrnbe a marketplace mentality with a conscience.rnA big “if,” to say the least, especiallyrnin light of the fact that the activistsrnon the left have a conscience and do seekrnto shove traditional values out of the wayrnin order to construct a social order congruentrnwith their egalitarian dreams.rnMoreover, the marketplace mentalityrnhas been very amenable to the left’s policyrnagendum, because that agendumrn”constitutes a field for economic exploitation.”rnBig business is good business,rnand the left has big—that is, nationalrn—plans.rnHerein lies Genovese’s affinity forrnconservative Southerners. First, conscr-rn’atie Southerners have historicallyrndistrusted centralized power, politicalrnand economic. Because leftists are usingrnboth to reshape America’s cultural landscape.rnSouthern conservatives are theirrnnatural enemies. Second, we find in thernSouth elements of that old-stvlcd religion,rnfrom which traditional values canrnbe nurtured and promoted. And third,rnconservative Southerners will not shyrnaway from using the force of government,rnpreferably local, to protect theirrntraditional social arrangements againstrnideological and economic national andrntransnational onslaughts. This in essencernis the southern front—conservativernSoutherners defending their communityrnrights. For conservative Southerners, thernhappiness of the individual is integrallyrnlinked with the viability of the community;rna community that transcends timernand includes not only the rights and welfarernof the living, but the rights of ancestorsrnand posterity too. In othc;’ words, arncommunity willing to make sacrifices forrnthe long haul. Centralization is anathemarnto this model, because communityrnautonomy, whatever its policy preferencesrnwithin the parameters of civilizedrnstandards, takes precedence over nationalrnuniformity. Genovese observes thatrnthis type of conservatism insists “that allrncommunities must be allowed their prejudicesrnand discriminations; that thernstate must take full account of humanrndepravity; and that respect for the inviolabilityrnof the human personality—arnconcept rooted in Christianity—mustrnnot be confused with the endless assertionrnof individual political and socialrnrights against the collective exigencies ofrnthe community.”rnIf taken at face value, Geno’esc’s depictionrnof Southern conseratism hasrnproblems: How many in the South adherernto traditional conservatism, and inrnwhat manner and to what extent has societyrnheld together by economic ties replacedrncommunity held together byrncommon blood, religion, lairguage, andrnhistor? Even if communities did predominaternover societies, how could a regionalrnconservatism be made to influencernpolitics at the national level? As arnresult, he acknowledges that the loss ofrnrepublican virtue at the national, state,rnand local levels may necessitate a measurernof neonationalism. Understandingrnhis almost casual reference to neonationalismrnis the key to comprehendingrnthe “alternate program” for which hernsearches.rnHere and there he provides us withrnglimpses of neonationalism: “In generalrnpolitical terms, the Communists saw, beforernanyone else except an occasionalrnprophet like Du Bois, that no effort to effectrna deep structural transformation inrnAmerican society or to challenge AmericanrnImperialism could rise in the UnitedrnStates without a great upsurge of thernblack liberation movement”; “The strugglesrnof black people have had a doublernaspect throughout the course of Americanrnhistory—as distinct struggles forrnblack liberation and as an integral part ofrnthe struggle of the American people.”rnReligious faith has been instrumental inrnthe struggles of black Americans in theirrnquest for liberation: “While much wentrninto the making of the heroic blackrnstruggle for survival under extreme adversity,rnnothing loomed so large as thernreligious faith of the slaves.” Genovesernsees the politically useful application ofrnreligion for upcoming “struggles for liberation,”rnthat is, liberation from the debilitatingrnsocial and economic policyrnagenda of the left and the marketplacernmentality, respectively.rnHow is this utilitarian view of religionrnto be put into operation? Genovese isrnnot shy about the scale of the changesrnthat are requisite to success: “World-historicrnevents compel a reassessment ofrnfirst principles as well as social and politicalrnpolicies” in the “challenge to constructrna decent social order.” Is he suggestingrnthat we subject America tornthe sort of vanguard reformers whorninevitably do more harm than good?rnMoreover, the primary reason that thernSouthern tradition is so vital to Americanrnconservatism today is its resistance tornsuch “restructuring”; and to the extentrnthat its resistance has been broken downrnby national reformers (especially byrnSupreme Court Justices), it has ceased tornbe uniquely conservative.rnGenovese makes clear his support forrnFor Immediate ServicernCHRONICLESrnNEW SUBSCRIBERSrnTOLL FREE NUMBERrn1-800-877-5459rnNOVEMBER 1995/33rnrnrn