stream, it is necessary to clearly identifynwhat is the enemy. . . . And for me, thenmain enemy is not communism, but liberalism.nI think liberalism is very similarnto Marxism, but the problem is that it isnmore viable than communism, andntherefore it is more dangerous.nQ: You identify yourself as part of thenNew Right intellectual movement innEurope. Does this imply that it is also anpolitical movement?nA: Not at all. It is a movement of discussionngroups and not of politics. Itsnpurpose is to change values, to deal withnideas. A party is hunting voters, so [it]nhas to sell values. And I think the mainnconcern of the New Right as an intellectualnmovement is that ideas are notnto be sold out.nQ: If New Right intellectuals likenyourself were to become completely involvednin politics, would they lose contactnwith the New Right as an intellectualnmovement? Is that happening herenin Austria?nA: I would not say so. I see this asnprevalent with the French New Right.nHere in Austria, there is a kind of intellectualnvacuum within the national-liberalnFreedom Party, the FreiheitlichenPartei. The New Right has some possibilitynof filling this vacuum, and I thinknthis is an important role. But it is notnthe future of an intellectual movementnto be merely involved in party politics.nQ: This experience of intellectualsnjumping into practical politics too readilyncan result in a certain cynicism if youn”have your fingers burned,” and it leadsnone to withdraw and never enter politicsnagain. The result is that one cannnever influence the direction of politics.nA: We [in Austria] are doing politics,nbut we are doing it with another style.nWe are doing it intellectually. Not bynorganizing masses, but by producingnideas. This is what is called “metapolitics.”nQ: And what form does this disseminationnof ideas take?nA: Practically speaking, it means publishingnnewspapers, magazines, books.nWriting articles. Yes, if people fail tonread it, then they won’t be influenced.nQ: Is this the first stage of raising thenconsciousness about the ideas of thenmovement or is this a continuing stage?nIs this step one, to create a viable politicalnimpact, or is it the only stage?nA: Perhaps it is only stage one. Youncould say it’s a long-term project. Wenare dealing with ideas and possiblyn44/CHRONICLESnsometime in the future a political movementnwill be able to use them, and tonrealize and achieve some of them, butnthis is not our problem as New Right intellectuals.nThis is a different self-concept,nI believe, from what I might callnthe politically active ideologue. This isnthe more traditional way in which intellectualsnbecame involved in politics. Tonhave to put both feet in, or both feetnout. We are trying to find a new way innwhich to maintain our autonomy, yetnstill have the potential to influence.nQ: Let me indicate another danger.nI would make the analogy between newnideas and giving birth to a child. As anparent, you may try to instill the bestnvalues in the child, but once they go outninto the world, you do not have any control.nIs it possible that if the New Rightngives birth to new ideas, these childrennwill go out into the world without younknowing what mischief and trouble theynmight get into?nA: I think this interpretation is correct,nbut it is not our duty to bring ideasninto the world and then leave themnalone in a room. They must be enteredninto a social discourse and perhaps evennold left or old right intellectuals may usenthem in a sense that we wouldn’t. Sonyou must always correct your ideas eachnstep of the way.nQ: Of course, there is always the questionnof perception. You were bringingnup the question of what I call the “necessarynevil” of marketing. Is there a marketingnproblem that the New Right mustndeal with in order not to fall into traditionaln”errors” and lose its capacity tongrow?nA: The New Right is not a massnmovement. It is a recent movementnand, of course, we have to sell our ideas.nSo we have to produce newspapers,nmagazines. First these magazines try tonreach the political class, the intellectualnclass.nQ: Is that equivalent to the term “targetnaudience”?nA: Of course, but it is different fromncountry to country. For example, I thinknthe Italian and French New Right werenable to have very good discussions withnthe left intellectuals. Open discussionsnwith a very high standard. In Germanynthis is really not possible, because of thenantifascist content of the society. Butnit is becoming better. So from the rightnof the political spectrum, we are steppingnover the boundary to the center.nSlowly, but we are doing it. At first, ournnnideas were only heard on the right, ofncourse. On the old right. Now theynhave begun to break into the nationalliberalnand the national-conservativengroups. This is mainly with the intellectuals,nnot with the masses. But it is anstep forward.nQ: Now from the other side, how doesnthe party see you and the movement?nWhat is their perception?nA: In general I think the party hasntried to attract as many voters and “fans”nas possible. They are interested in havingn”think tanks.” But a part of the partynwill not like our ideas, so it is sometimesna struggle to coexist in the party.nThis is another reason why I am againstnthe concept of parties. They may usenour ideas, but we shouldn’t be the “fans”nof a certain party. We should see thenwhole society, and we should be critical.nWe should be able to say what isnright and what is wrong. Our ideas havento be oriented to reality, not on the sidenof a party. A [political] party is alwaysnseparate.nQ: You seem to be saying that thenpractical side of a social movement hasnits expression in a political movement.nIs there some special form of organizationnthat makes the Freiheitliche Parteinmore viable, more effective?nA: I think it’s several main principles.nFirst of all, its political leader must havenrapport with the various streams withinnthe party, integration secours. Whilenthere are important core ideas of thenparty, the content is not as importantnas the modernity of the style.nQ: Can you give me a good workingnexample of a recent question in Austriannpolicy where there was a difference innthe effectiveness of what would be callednin the United States “marketing” strategy?nA: Yes, for example, the Freedom Party’snleader is a person of content. Hisncharacter is youthful and dynamic, andnthe [techniques of persuasion] are quitenmodern. This bears on the problem, ofncourse, of American mass culture in Europenor in Austria. In my own interviewnwith party leader Haider, he describednhis style of the FPO as the most Americanizednof all Austrian parties. It isntreating politics no longer as only somethingnthat deals largely with ideology,nbut also as a thing of free time, of fun.nWhen you go to some party meetings—nnot all, but some party meetings—theynnow are shows. People want to have funnand bread, and from the party they getn