principles can be expected to triumphnm a nonpartisan political svstem. ThenAmerican Wav has been tor principlesnto become synonvmous with a partv,nand for those principles to be imposednduring that party’s period of dominance.nUnder the present circumstances conservativesnare entitled to wondernwhether their principles have anv futurenin American politics: Republicansnare right to wring their hands over theirnparty’s gloomy prospects: and an intelligentnman (William Rusher, for example)ncan be expected to ask why the fortunesnof the former should be ine.xtricablynwedded to the fate of the latter.nVjfaig Schiller’s The (Guilty) Consciencenof a Conservative raises thesenquestions and more. It has as its thesisnthe contention that “the developmentnand clarification of conservative theorynare ultimately the only means of revivingnthe sagging political fortunes ofnAmerican conservatism”: implicitly,nthe book suggests that the fate of conservatismndoes not depend on the survivalnof the GOP.nThe first chapter of the book aims tonmeasure the lengths to which mainstreamnconservatism —here representednbv the National Revieiv—s willing tongo to stav in tune with the times. Bvnorchestrating a sort of mock debatenbetween William F. Buckley. Jr. and L.nBrent Bozeil. former editor of Triumph.nRabbi Schiller shows that today’s “conservative”nholds almost exactly the samenopinions as yesterday’s “liberal.” Havingnmade its peace with Brown v. Board.nsocial security, etc.. the editorial linenof NR today is a sort of echo of thenvoice of ’50s liberalism—T/^e New Republic,nfor example. Rabbi Schiller doesnnot mean to suggest that conservatism,nproperly understood, is an inflexiblencreed: a petrified vestige of premodernnpolitics. His point is simply that “respectablenconservatism no longer possessesnthe vitality and firmness that anstrong grasp of basic principles, togethernwith starkly advanced programs, automaticalivnresults in.”n16)nChronicles of CulturenChapter Two (“What is Conservansm.’n”) seeks to remedv this situation;n•” iscover what conservatives have inncommon with one another. It is a shortncourse in modern conservative politicalnthought, introducing us to the writingsnof ii. Stanton Evans. Frank S. Meyer.nEric Voegelin. Frederick D. Wilhelmsen.nDonald Atwell Zoll. Russell Kirk,nand Thomas Molnar. His treatment ofnthese writers, while cursory, is for thenmost part admirable. Those shying away,nfor whatever reason, from total immersionnin this literature would find thisnessav quite useful.nChapter Three explores the relationnbetween conservatism and tradition,nand Chapter Four analyzes the failurenof four notable political campaigns thatnhave been launched from the Rightn^ ti ‘-_.n,;nce the rorsina ot the first New Dealncoalition bv FDR in 1932 (viz.. thenLandon, Tait. Goldwater. and Reaganncampaigns). The moral of this storynis that there are two things wrong withncontemporarv American conservatism:n”First, the American conser’ativenmovement has tailed to understandnand relate to the aspirations of thenmaiontv of men. Second, the AmericannRight has clung to an imagerynthat may have been appealing in then1890s. but frightens the contemporarynckizenn,’.’nChapter Five shows that a majority ofnAmericans are, so to speak, latent conservatives.nA review of the relevantnsurvey data leads Rabbi Schiller to thenfollowing conclusions:nIn the forthcoming issue of Chronicles of Culture:n: The Oldest Conflictn”Writing about writers is a genre itself, and great andnmediocre novelists have availed themselves of it becausen”It affords so much opportunity for airnlessness qua freedomnin-the storytelling That something poignant and artisticnwill emerge from a book about a writer is an assumptionnoften made quite without reason.”nfrom “Unintended Sadness andnUnspeakable Confusion”n;’, ,. •!• by Edward J. Walshn”One of our favorite pastimes in Moscow was discussingnhow quickly human beings everywhere take for grantednday new reality as something inevitable, natural, usual.nFor example, we were sure that once the Soviet regime hadnbeen established in the United States, in no time at alln”‘ Americaris would just be puzzled that someone could .seenin it something unusual, avoidable or even interesting.”nf . • rv • -”,* … r from “xhe Berlin Wall: To Ben•ay. ^3rsL;r.( -if .uc-«= -l-^CinflwJ-? sL.”-jiT-;i’;f’y •* – »«? Vn*nifj”'”itw& «t jD’C^P*- oJ titonej- ifjjio ‘” ” also:n- -” —‘”‘^_ — Opinions & “Views—Commendables—In Focusn’ “- ‘- /Taken for Granied”n^^’ -•^’ .„. by Lev Navrozovn.., < ,. , _rr*& < 1 .T*. — <= •n”fA4?5ftp«.v,?U>.-^Wasteof Money—The American Scene “» .rr-n• Screen^Iiiberal Culture ••” — ••’n-Journalism—Polemics & Exchanges ” -^”-znnn… – • , . –11 – .—>J?- ” ~’ -‘ .: : . ,rjt.–‘n-ic<,n!(• ^-iiT 1n