THE RESPECTABLE RIGHTnturned savagely against Michael Levinnlast spring for holding unacceptablenviews on the reasons for differing levelsnof measurable intelligence among thenraces. Thus Peter Collier, in organizingna Second Thoughts conference fornthose who had rallied to “democracy”nfrom the 60’s New Left, disinvited,nafter having invited, the controversialnProfessor Levin. Shortly thereafternLevin was driven from the executivenboard of the National Association ofnScholars, and criticized in the press.nFor example, in a May 18 editorial innthe New York Post, Eric Breindel decriednLevin as a purveyor of “poison.”nThough Breindel stopped short, albeitnbarely, of calling for Levin’s removalnfrom American education, he did accusenhim of “group libel” that “inspiresnracial hatred and intolerance” andnleads to “mass murder.” Never mindnthat Levin’s reasoning about I.Q. disparitiesnrecapitulates what research psychologistsnand geneticists already believenand sometimes say. Or thatnBreindel never bothers to refute Levin’snarguments. His comparison ofnLevin to cranks who deny that thenholocaust occurred ignores the obviousnmethodological difference that, unlikenapologists for Hitler, Levin builds hisncase on solid evidence. One is, ofncourse, entitled to disagree with hisnconclusion, that cognitive disparitiesnbetween the races are largely due tongenetic causes. But it is perfectly outrageousnto accuse Levin of fudging factsnor of issuing a warrant for mass murder.nAbout two weeks before Breindel’snexercise in hyperbole, a related attackncame from Bruce Fein, in the form of ancolumn against “racist speech.” Feinnpraised a recendy enacted law in Canadanthat made it a crime to offend ethnicnor racial groups. Though especiallynpleased with the prospect of treatingnbigots who challenge settled opinionsnon the holocaust as criminals, Fein wasnalso intent on clarifying “democratic”ncanons of tolerance: “Prohibiting raciallynand religiously bigoted speech isnpraiseworthy” because “it salutes rea­n6/CHRONICLESnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSnson as the backbone of freedom andntolerance.” But it is never made clearnwhat exactly Fein means by “bigoted.”nDoes he mean incitement to racial andnreligious riots, or would he extend thenterm to include those whose views onninherited intelligence or on the numbernof people killed at Auschwitz differnfrom his own? Would Fein, for example,npermit those who disagreed withnhim to do scholarship on an ethnicallynsensitive subject, without risking publicnobloquy and even imprisonment?nWithin the “conservative movement,”nwhich may be as anachronisticnan expression as “Christendom” orn”Jewry,” a growing tendency, can benfound to interpret “bigoted” in a Pickwickiannsense. It has come to connotenbeing out of sync with neoconservativenfunding organizations, the Beltway dialoguennow being conducted betweennthe Heritage Foundation and DavidnBroder, or the established social circlenof Bill Buckley. Not only the neoconsnbut much of the New York-Washingtonnright now epitomize a mockingndescription once applied to Irving Kristol’snlegions, representatives of then”harmless persuasion.”nA key problem with what is mistakenlynstyled the American right is itsnuneasiness with academic freedom. Innthe name of democratic equality andnCold War liberal slogans, the rightnassaults the academic civility that itnhypocritically claims to be defending.nIt has become the “thought police,”nintent on punishing anyone guilty ofnan inappropriate reflection.nThere is a non-opportunistic reasonnwhy these developments have occurred.nThe current debate over valuesnbetween the left and the establishmentnconservatives is one over the right tonimpose a shared democratic faith. Then”Western tradition” has come undernattack from the intellectual left as essentiallynanti-egalitarian: impervious tonthe concerns of blacks, gays, and women.nTo this the conservative response,nas articulated by Lynne Cheney, WilliamnBennett, Chester Finn, and JacknKemp, is that the Western tradition,nproperly understood, does in fact leadnnnto democratic equality, but a form of itnthat black radicals and the New Leftndisavowed in the 1960’s.nThis debate over values is necessarilynone among leftists, for it involvesnideals framed by political intellectualsnwho are willing to apply political forcenon behalf of social change. Under thenguidance of these intellectuals, cosmologicalndebates have become merelyngenealogical ones. Agreement has alreadynbeen reached on the highestngood — universally exportable democraticnequality. What remains to bendebated is whether the West, and thenUnited States in particular, is suited tonlead a global crusade for that good; thisnin turn hinges on whether and how thenWest has affected the spread of thensame good in the past.nWhat further divides the respectablenleft from the respectable right is thenchoice of means for advancing thenideal of equality. The left seeks tonapply that ideal through further transfersnof wealth and the extension ofnequal rights to hitherto “victimized”ngroups, including animals. The respectablenright, by contrast, believesnthat the democratic revolution is mostlynover at home. And though RepresentativesnKemp and Gingrich praisentransfers of income to the underclassnand minorities, they are principallynconcerned with the extension of democraticnequality outside the UnitednStates. The political right in the Reagannyears wished to see the UnitednStates further a global democratic revolution,nendorsed by the President andnmost prominent conservative journalists.nA major proponent of this policy,nBen Wattenberg of the American EnterprisenInstitute, proclaims democracynto be “our destiny.” Like WoodrownWilson, Wattenberg explains, Americansnof this generation yearn to “getnback to our mission,” “democracy peddling.”nToward this end he advocatesnincreased budgets for the National Endowmentnfor Democracy, Radio FreenEurope, and other agencies that cannhelp “[w]age democracy first class.”nIt is precisely this “democratic imperialism,”nto borrow the phrase Irvingn