bad, are at the bottom of the Americannconstitutional ethos, we risk petty animositiesninstead of an enriching discourse.nAH lexical badinage notwithstanding,none emerges from reading Mr.nNisbet with the feeling that the exactnessnand seemliness of his thinking and argumentnare sam reproche, but that somethingnis wanting. That “something” wasnpresent and is still discernible in thenminds, words, and opinions of Montesquieunand Voltaire; at that time and asnphilosophical divagation, it engenderednand lastingly shaped human and communalnstances and predilections (prejudices?),nfor better or worse. When readingnMr. Nisbet one feels, sadly, that henappears to have voluntarily renouncednsuch influence at the very outset of hisnendeavors. Granted, he’s correct in mostnof his condemnations; Jean-Jacquesnshould, long since, have been fitted withna black hat and grilled severely for all thendisfigurations he inflicted on the Westemnpsyche and its propensities. But thenspirit of Rousseau still lives in seedy,nradic-liberal editorial offices in San Francisconand New York City, while thosenperfectly accurate sages whom Mr.nNisbet invokes are just preserved in andelicious and aromatic brine and havenaged remarkably well; unfortunately,nno one dares market their intellectualngourmandism for mass consumption.nThe vicissitudes of history and sociotechnologicalnmetamorphoses notwithstanding,nsomething eluded thosensages, and Mr. Nisbet offers them littlensupport other than a lot of graceful,njudicious tristesse.nWe now have three centuries ofnmodem civilization behind us, each ofnwhich has taught the Western man a litde.nThe 18th century taught him aboutnthinking, its complexities, traps, andnhumiliations. The 19th century taughtnhim self-evaluation and all its vanities,nmalaises, and disgraces. The 20th centuryntaught, and is still teaching, him selfdestmctionnand all its follies, abominations,nand masochisms. To my mind, wencan still preserve afew vestiges of human-nness and dignity. We owe a good deal tonthe Age of Reason—regardless of its sins,nits gratuitous bestialities in France, itsnsucccssfiil assaults upon those religiousnsources of normative ethics that hadnserved so well for so long. ProfessornNisbet is fully and admirably aware thatnthe conservative persuasion is—todaynmore than ever—a sophisticated systemnof impulses and preferences, intellectualnscents and literary pleasures. His merit,ntherefore, lies in his valiant attempt tonrevive a priceless tradition: philosophy asnthe source of ideologies which, in turn,nmay (sooner or later) become calls fornpolitical action and social improvement.nIn an era when ideologies originate innemotions, or rather passions, that consistnmostly of primitive crudity and are saturatednwith derangement, Mr. Nisbet’snundertaking is laudable. That he composesnthis exertion in the lucid form of andictionary suflEiised with the ambition ofnbeing a very refined primer is glorious.nBut does Mr. Nisbet reach his most genuinengoal, that is, does he affect thenminds of his contemporaries.” I, for one,nhave no unequivocal answer. Some remarkablenrudiments of this book are innits tonal key, and I have always believednthat the promise of influence lies in thatnelement rather than in dialecticalnacumen or the juggling of statistics. Thenbook is written with the marvelousnmodesty of a learned and patient explicatornwho is meek and humble in the facenof the enormity of human experiencenand knowledge. But humility, venerablenas it is, does not inflame minds^ofncourse, the time when philosophy infusednanxieties and agitation into souls isnlong gone. Yet—and here is the crux—itnseems as if that’s precisely what mankindnseems to yearn for these days.nThus, Mr. Nisbet reveals himself to bena master diagnostician. His dissection ofnuniversal anomie, his observations onn”shame” and “shameless” cultures deservento be sympathetically vulgarized bynTime magazine and, even at that price,ntransmitted to the collective consciousness—ifnsuch a thing actually exists. Fatnchance that anything resembling such annntransmission will occur, and that’s what Inmourn. So it appears that, if salvation isnin diagnoses (which I doubt), we are in anmore clement aura of expectations. In anwonderful chapter on environmentalism,nwhich can be read as a minitreatisenon the instant rewards of militancy, Mr.nNisbet touches on something simple andncrucial, but he stops short of creating angrand synthesis. He correctly notes thatnthe ecological, environmental, and preservationistnmovements have emerged asnfixtures of the political left. He then proceedsnto explain why that is so, and whynindustrial capitalism, one of the mostnmomentous crucibles of Western civilizationalnsuccess, has become a helplessnvillain. But one is left with a sense thatnthis fine, well-documented point needsnmore elaboration, a more engage posture.nIn the face of Mr. Nisbet’s impeccablenreasoning, one begins to feel thatnAmerican conservatism is a sort of misnomer,nthat its most basic propellant isnnot that of conserving but of expandingn—in the largest intellectual designationnof the verb. Modem American conservatism’snessence is dynamism, and itsnprecious novelty (no paradox intended)nlies in the current freshness of its ideasnpertaining to the particulars of socialnreality and human endeavors. It somehownstands in contradiction to its ownnappellation. Its ethos is suffused withnmany hues of creative and functional activism;nits temper is optimistic, tolerant,neven cheerful, friendly to controversynand debate, confident and at ease withnits own fabric of convictions. It seems tonbe yearning for a protracted and constmctivendrive to repair and improve thenWestern civilizational reality that wasndamaged by the nihilism that crept innunder the disguise of liberal progressivenhumanism. This kind of conservatism,nthe name notwithstanding, seems tonwant to explain the world and human existencenin terms of potentialities andnpossibilities that have been mauled bynUtopian zealotry, but which nevertheless—songoes the modern conservativencredo—can still be galvanized through anrational reorganization of our commonnApril 1983n