tages to such a program. Conservativesnhave been notoriously unsuccessful inntrying to convince the public thatnunemployment compensation or socialnsecurity programs are threats to freedom.nApparent indifference to massnunemployment during the Great Depressionnsent the right into eclipse for half ancentury. There is a large number of hardworking,npatriotic citizens with conservativensocial values who are politicallynalienated from the right purely on thisnissue of economic insecurity and instability.nThey do not consider themselvesnpart of the perennial welfare class andnprobably resent the existence of such anclass as much as anyone. But they alsonrealize that they are vulnerable to thenworidngs of economic forces over whichnthey have no control. They are not goingnto elect as guardians of society leadersnwho claim that society needs no guardians.nKristol hopes to win these peoplenaway from the liberal coalition with anconservative social program aimed atnthe working class. President Reagan’sn”safety net” is potentially in thisnframework, though it needs to benoriented more towards blue-collar andnworking-poor femilies than towards thenunderclass which will always vote withnthe left.nThe desire for stability is also reflectednin Kristol’s approach to the corporation.nHe states that:nthe majority of those who work for anliving, of whatever class, have learnednto prefer the security, the finelyncalibrated opportunities for advancement,nthe fringe benefits, and thenpaternalism of the large corporationnto the presumed advantages of employmentnin smaller firms.nMost people don’t like risks. AlthoughnKristol rejects the view of J. K Galbraithnthat large firms control their markets andnhave eliminated competition, he notesnthat large corporations do exhibitnsmaller fluctuations in prices and outputnand greater survivability than do smallnbusinesses. Corporations are attackedn16inChronicles of Culturenfrom all sides, however, and their leadersndo not know how to fight back or evenntake the time to think about fightingnback. Populists fear the concentration ofneconomic power; socialists see thencorporation as the final monopolist stagenof capitalism whose oppression willntrigger the revolution; and libertariansncomplain that corporate managers deviatenfrom the “free market” ideal ofnclassical theory. Kristol dismisses thesencriticisms as dangerous misunderstandingsnabout how the world works. Corporatencapitalism not only providesnmaterial abundance, but can behave as anconservative institution. Rightist intellectualsnneed to provide a basis fornlegitimacy for the corporation withinnsociety.nOn this point Kristol seems to echonpoints raised much earlier by Peter F.nDrucker and most fiilly put into effect bynthe Japanese. Japan has managed to buUdna highly efficient economy that stillnincludes traditional values and stability.nThe corporation with its employmentnsecurity and social benefit programsnplays an important part in this synthesis,nand relieves much of the pressure whichnwould otherwise exist for expandingnpublic welfere programs.n1 o add fiirther strength to the conservativencause, Kristol calls for anheightened sense of integral nationalism.n”Nationalism in our time is probablynthe most powerful of political emotions.”nWhile patriotism is closelynnnassociated with the right, Kristol feelsnthat, ^ain, economic issues have ho^edncenter stage, preventing conservativesnfrom taking full advantage of widernopportunities. Nationalism fits thenneoconservative/traditionalist view ofnsociety as a vertically structured, “organic”nsystem embodied with moral andncultural values. It is the antithesis of thenMarxist view of materialistically definednhorizontal classes constandy at war withnone another. It is also opposed to thenatomistic individualism of the classicalnliberals. Kristol believes that nationalisticnfeelings have been weakened in thenU.S. by appeals to supposedly supranationalnideals. Woodrow Wilson’s “war tonend all wars” to “make the world safe forndemocracy” led Americans to “disregardnthe obvious for the sake of a quixoticnpursuit of impossible ideals.” This liberalnapproach could provide no counter tonthe antinationalistic stand of the NewnLeft which supported foreign ideologicalnmovements against its own country.nNationalism is an ideology. It shouldnlead American policymakers beyond thenminimal concerns of national security. Itnshould provide a vision of what a futurenworld should look like and inspire ancoherent strategy to move the world innthe chosen direction. The U.S. is a GreatnPower and its people should embracenthis as their destiny. Crusades for democracynand human rights are imrealistic. Anpride in the achievement of American-nWestern Civilization and a desire tonattain new peaks will provide the justificationnfor policy. While the U.S. shouldnnot seek out unnecessary confrontations,nit must realize that it has implacablenenemies in the Soviet bloc andnThfrd World which diplomacy cannotnappease. When an “us” versus “them”nconfrontation occurs, nationalismnshould produce such a ground swell ofnsupport for “us” that those on the leftnwho favor “them” will be isolated andnpowerless. Unfortunately, Kristolnmerely expresses this as a hope withoutnpresenting a plan by which this happynstate could be brou^t about. Dn