14 / CHRONICLESnArab traders and the merchants of Genoa and Venice.nEnglish capitahsts and merchant adventurers (with thensupport of a sympathetic government) won the globalnstruggle for wealth and power during the mercantilist era.nExamples such as these abound. Economic historians donnot confine capitalism to merely the last two centuries. Thisnhistorical record should strengthen the ease for capitalism,nbut it is often ignored. Libertarian defenders of capitalismndismiss history either because real people in real situahonsndo not conform to their abstract ideals or because recitingnslogans is easier than studying history. For libertarians whonthink of themselves as progressives or radicals, historynbecomes a loathsome prison.nHistory is important because it provides perspective. Itnshows that private property and capitalism predate classicalneconomic theory. Capitalism emerges as both more and lessnthan its classical proponents claim. More flexible andnadaptable than the fragile assumptions of the classicalsnwould allow, but less suited to serve as the sole pillar ofncivilization. In short, capitalism works but liberalismndoesn’t. By the same token, the enemies of property andnbusiness also predate the socialists. The ancients regardednthe battle between the rich and the poor as an abidingnpolitical split, the natural division between parties. Conservativesnin all ages have had to defend order and hierarchy—nthe rule by those of talent and demonstrated competence—nagainst radicals advancing the cause of egalitarian rule bynmere numbers.nNot that a true conservatism defends wealth and privilegenper se. That would remove from the right any intellectualncontent and would reduce it to merely a politics ofneconomic distribution, the mirror image of the politics ofnredistribution. Instead, conservatives recognize that sincenmen are unequal in ability and the task of building andnmaintaining a civilization is extremely difficult, societynmust elevate its best citizens to the positions of leadership.nNot infrequentiy, these leaders will be found among thenranks of those who have been successful in business. But inna society that more richly rewards rock singers and cosmeticsnmanufacturers than Presidents and generals, privatenwealth cannot serve as our primary criterion for leadershipnpotential. Often a leader will prove himself in public servicenfirst, then draw his material rewards. The important thing isnthat society attracts and promotes able people to leadershipnpositions.nA conservative view of history refutes the argument that itnis necessary to abolish or cripple the state in order to protectncapitalism. No sane citizen, least of all a man of business orna holder of extensive property, wants to see rise the serpentnhead of anarchy. Even Adam Smith knew that it was onlynby the strong arm of the civil authority that the man ofnproperty could sleep in safety. But the state has a larger rolento play in the economy than just the protection of property.nRobert L. Reynolds concluded as much in his study of thenmillennium during which Europe Emerges to dominate thenglobe:nIt was a great asset in commerce that Europeanngovernments put their whole strength behindnmercantile enterprise, and considered the devisingnof ways and means for making their merchantsnnnricher and stronger a valid activity. . . . Modernngovernments which foster trade are following anpattern established by the strong states of Europensome six or seven hundred years ago. ThosenEuropean governments had a theory that if theirnmerchants were strong and rich, the governmentsnthemselves would carry greater weight in war andndiplomacy.nThucydides, Alexander Hamilton, and Amaya Naohironall shared in this philosophy. Amaya Naohiro, an influentialneconomic strategist in the Japanese Ministry of InternationalnTrade and Industry, devised ways for Japanese capitalistsnto win major victories in the ongoing struggle forncontrol of global production. The need for economicnleadership is not confined to business: “visible hands” maynalso guide the marketplace.nEconomics is very important, but so are other things, andnif they are neglected economic success will prove meaningless.nCertainly the Roman Empire possessed greater economicnresources as well as a larger population and a highernlevel of civilization than the barbarian tribes which destroyednit. Yet its wealth could not compensate for militaryndefeat, internal division, and a general decline in moralndiscipline. It takes more than “economic opportunity” tonhold a society together. Russell Kirk has argued that “In anynsociety, order is the first need of all. Liberty and justice maynbe established only after order is tolerably secure.” He hasndefined the nature of conservative government in moralnterms:nThe realm of polities and the realm of morals do notnexist in separate spheres, Comte notwithstanding;nthe state exists to enforce a moral system, to redeemnmen from the impulses of the flesh and theirnignorance. And morality must be supported by thensanctions of religious faith, or it cannot stand.nSince World War II the West has been in steady retreatnbefore the barbarians of the East and South. The left hasnencouraged this retreat in part because it feels a commonnbond with foreign movements proclaiming socialism. Butnthe arguments used in public by the left have stressednlibertarian more than socialist themes and have more oftennechoed the speeches of Paine and Cobden than those ofnMarx and Lenin, The Rights of Man more often than thenCommunist Manifesto, and the ACLU more often than thenCPUSA. This anarchic counterculture has done as much ornmore damage to American society and the national interestnthan has the Welfare State, and has done so by design. Tonthe extent that the right has been infected with the samenideas, it has been inhibited in the fight against the left.nThe business of conservatism is not business, it is society.nThe task of conservatism is to defend only those ideas whichnhave proved themselves beneficial. It must look beyond anynschool of economic theory and reject the hobgoblin ofn”consistency” defined by the libertarians. It is a dehumanizingn”consistency” which defines heroin and abortions asnjust more goods and services to be made available in a “freenmarket” or which treats immigration merely as a problem innwage theory.n