20 / CHRONICLESnand all the other shibboleths of liberalismnare predicated on the illusion ofnman as an autonomous being capablenof isolating himself from society and itsnpast and of reshaping social arrangementsnto suit his “rights,” his preferences,nand his fantasies.nNisbet’s work on the conservativenroots and meaning of sociology hasnbeen one of the most important intellectualnachievements of our time, for itnhas helped to move American “conservatism”naway from its infantile libertarianndrift toward a truer and morenserious vision of American society as anfunctional counterpart to the Europeannsocieties that early conservativesndefended. If the superficial view—thatnthe absence in America of monarchy,naristocracy, and feudalism rendersnBurke and his ideas irrelevant—is nownbeing rejected, we owe to Nisbet anmore profound understanding of hownconservative ideas of tradition and authoritynwere formed and how theynapply to our own national and culturalnexperience.nDespite our great debt, some problemsnarise from any historicism that isntaken in isolation from other currentsnof thought. To Nisbet, and to many ofnthe conservative thinkers he discusses,nthere is no transhistorical core tonhuman nature by which historicalnchange may be measured. There is, tonbe sure, an inheritance received fromnthe past that is organic and functional,nfrom which men receive their moralnbeliefs and character, and change maynbe judged by the degree to which itnconforms to or departs from this inheritance.nOnce a destabilization occurs,nhowever, it is not at all clear to whatnextent Nisbet’s conservatism allows fornits correction. Innovation, whatever itsndamage, is simply incorporated intonthe continuing flow of history andneventually is assimilated into a newnstable arrangement. “History for thenconservative,” Nisbet writes,nhas been very much the kindnof force that natural selection isnfor the biological evolutionist.nNo individual has ever lived,nnor could possibly be, says thenevolutionist, with the powers ofndecision which could bring intonbeing the species. It is thenoperation of processes ofnselection through chance,nthrough historical trial andnerror, which alone makesnpossible the biological world.nThere is ingrained innevolutionary selection anwisdom astronomically superiornto any wisdom imagined in anman. Efforts of breeders to donmore than work with thesennatural processes of change andndevelopment are manifestlynfarcical.nA purely historicist conservatismnshares one weakness with all evolutionaryntheory: It does not appear tonallow for any standard outside of history,nand it threatens to collapse into annenvironmentalist and relativist theorynthat views human beings as the malleablenartifacts of their social and historicalnsurroundings. It permits neither anreactionary nor a restorationist tactic,nmuch less a revolutionary effort. LikenOld Man River, a given social ordernjust keeps rollin’ along, and whatevernobstacles to the flow it encounters arensoon rolling along with it.nWhat do conservatives do whenntheir society becomes fragmented andnloses continuity with the past, when itsnleadership and many of its citizensncease to believe in or understand thencentral moral standards that have definednit, or when legitimate authoritiesnand institutions are usurped by forcesnthat seek the subversion of the socialnand political fabric? Nisbet rejects thenrestorationist strategy proposed by thenMoral Majority and similar New Rightngroups preoccupied with issues of publicnmorality:nFrom the traditionalnconservative’s point of view it isnfatuous to use the family—asnthe evangelical crusadersnregularly do—as thenjustification for their tirelessncrusades to ban abortionncategorically, to bring thenDepartment of Justice in onnevery Baby Doe, to mandate bynconstitution the imposition ofn”voluntary” prayers in thenpublic schools, and so on.nFrom Burke on it has been anconservative precept and ansociological principle sincenAuguste Comte that the surestnway of weakening the family,nor any vital social group, is fornnnthe government to assume, andnthen monopolize, the family’snhistoric function.nNisbet is quite correct on the absurditynof using the government to restore thenfamily, and the “crusaders” have theirnshare of flaws—narrow-mindedness,nzealotry, no small amount of dishonesty,nand considerable incompetence.nHowever, what the adherents of thenNew Right understood is that the centralnmoral standards by which Americannsociety has always lived and whichnthey took to be absolutely, transhistoricallyntrue, are endangered by the legalizationnand popularization of abortionnand infanticide and by the usurpationnof legitimate political and educationalnauthority by a militant secularism.nWhat made them interesting was annapparent willingness to use politicalnpower as a bulwark against furthernerosion and subversion.nTheir effort may well be futile ornmisguided; the standard itself mayneven be obsolescent or false; but it isnbecause they adhere to some suchnstandard that they are able to offernresistance to the “astronomically superiornwisdom” that would otherwisenlead them and their historical order tonextinction. One would rather spendneternity (or an afternoon, for that matter)nin the company of Robert Nisbet,nbut the reactionary populists of thenNew Right have a legitimate and importantnplace in American politics.nNisbet’s school of conservatism andnhis functionalist defense of traditionnand authority are valuable both innthemselves and for the defense of institutionsnthat are still intact, but purenhistoricism—and it is not clear hownfar Nisbet himself is willing to go—isnof limited value in a society faced withnvast historical discontinuities and anradicalized, alienated elite committednto transforming the society. Read innconjunction with Nisbet, Paul Gottfried’snnew monograph will serve tonbroaden our perspective on the philosophicalnlegacy of classical conservatism.nIt is Gottfried’s thesis that several ofnthe major figures of the Americannconservative intellectual movementnsince World War II were significantlyninfluenced by G.W.F. Hegel. He specificallynexamines the thought of WillnHerberg and Eric Voegelin, Karl Witt-n