GNP and the Spiritual Defects of Modern MannIrving Kristol: Two Cheers for Capitalism;nBasic Books; New York.nby Stephen Maloneyn”Even if we are spared destructionnby war, our lives will have to benchanged if we want to save life fromnself-destruction. We cannot avoid revisingnthe fundamental definitions ofnhuman life and human society. Is itntrue that man is above everything? Isnthere no Higher Spirit above him ? Isnit right that man’s life and society’snactivities have to be determined bynmaterial expansion in the first place?nIs it permissible to promote such expansionnto the detriment of our spiritualnintegrity?”n—Aleksandt Solzhenitsynn”A World SplitnApart,” graduationnaddress at HarvardnUniversitynOome conservatives are highly willingnto praise Solzhenitsyn—as long asnthey don’t have to find out what he isnsaying. The same is true of another finenwriter and moralist, Irving Kristol.nRather than Two Cheers for Capitalismnin Kristol’s new book, we get the soundnof one hand clapping. In their recentnwritings, both Solzhenitsyn and Kristolnreveal a growing distress at the amoral,nanticultural, materialistic direction ofnmodern society.nOf course the Russian author is routinelyndismissed as a “Russian mystic”nby the trendier members of the academicnset, the type of individual whontakes The New York Review of Booksnseriously. And some of Kristol’s writingnis worth dismissing, as when henassumes in the Wall Street Journal thenpersona of a philosophical “Mr. Fixit”nfor contemporary capitalism. At hisnbest, however, Kristol’s love of hisncountry is equaled only by his love ofntruth—and by his eloquence. At hisnbest, Kristol approaches the hard-wonnmoral insight of the Russian exile.nDr. Maloney is a frequent contributornto Chronicles of Culture.nSome reviewers of Kristol’s bookn{Business Week, and even his own WallnStreet fournal) find him deviatingnfrom the Gospel According to Friedmannand Hayek. They warn with alarmnthat he may do harm to the cause ofnorthodox Republicanism. They haven”i!c {Kristo!! scrsc-d onni’li-Uvr when it received laundered C!IA monev.ntotal destruction of the human spirit.”nIn contrast to the Russian, Kristol emphasizesnthe political and personal libertynthat characterizes our society. FornSolzhenitsyn, “freedom was given tonthe individual conditionally, on the assumptionnof his constant religious re-na principal ,1” P.;n— Suliirday Tie vie tvn”Here we .set tli.it Kristol’s continuous lalsificition of tlie historical jiast hasna unifying tiienic: simply vo legiliniize doniinurion … In the end his ‘tragic’nisi()n seems to coni.iin nothing larger ihan die fear that . . . nicti like himselfnand his friends and epigones ai. C’-‘////:c;i!.!r) and The Piihlic Interestn. . . \] be brouglil down from tlieir present positions of eminence afternears devoted to ‘making it’ . . . Tli.it. we see, is wliat distinguishes Krislol’snvision most of all from Marx’s.”n— The Nationn”At times the ihapttrs suggest what it might be like to reail a whole volumenmade up of nothing but old Mobil ads . . . His two dieers somid mwi: likenadesper.ilepr.iyer.”n—The New Republicn”rit’l .smells mi’.stilv of thcNixon era.’n• New York Times Book Reviewn”When Kristol attempts to defend the appropriateness as well as the Icgitimasvnof buiirgeois society, he becomes .uioihcr enfeebled, unconvincingn.ipologisl for liberal capitalism. In response to the obioiis failings of modernncapitalism. Kristol can propose no valid remedy.”n— Library Journaln”W’ilh friends like Irving Kristol. capitalism iloes not need any enemies.”n— Business Weeknmissed the point. Like Solzhenitsyn,nKristol starts with an analysis of thenmaterial condition and economic organizationnof society—and ends withnan examination of the spiritual defectsnof modern man.nBoth men realize, as we must, thatnthere are no alternatives to a societynbased upon a good measure of economicnliberty. Kristol: “Socialism, communismnand fascism have all turnednout to be either Utopian illusions ornsordid frauds.” Solzhenitsyn: “Socialismnof any type and shade leads to annnsponsibility.” However, they both seenthe rise of political authoritarianismnfilling the vacuum left by the decline ofnthe central institutions of Western civilizationn: the corporation, the university,nand the state for Kristol, the church fornSolzhenitsyn. In fact, Kristol describesnthe corporation as “a species of dinosaurnon its lumbering way to extinction.”nThe body of the dinosaur is ournaffluence; the tiny head contains the intellectualnscraps that currently justifynour economy and society.nPerhaps the paradigmatic vignette ofn13nChronicles of Culturen