Richard Comuelle is rq)ulsed by thenschemes of liberals like Camoy, Shearer,nand Rumberger. To Cornuelle, past programsnthat have expanded the publicnsector are responsible for the continuingneconomic crisis. He defines the crisisnin both social and economic terms,nthough he devotes most of his space tonthe latter. The policies that were originallynsold as measures to increase stabilitynhave actually produced the instabilitiesnof inflation and unemployment.nThe Great Depression ushered in thenage of the economist, perhaps because itnmade it clear to all that disruptions innthe economy could create widespreadnand persistent hardship on a massiven^ , otablesnWolYfan”liut you art’ iilivady iH-coniing inipaiiL-nt.nyou’re alrcaily prcpariiiH lo ji-tiiMmnI lie whole thing, lo tlirow it in the cliisihin.nwrapped in one of those .speeialK-nuilenli.ig.s; a torrent of words issuing Iroin “ann• nterniinahle windbag’….” S(j writesnNathalie Sarraiite in Ihc I sc ofs/icccbnI f ieorge Hra/iller: Ni-w Wyvk). Hie .samensort of feeling—inipatienee, that is—isnI’ I’oked hy .’^arrautes f.’/*/W/;fA«/( C ieorgenHra/iller: New ‘I’ork ). which is iu)t soniiiueh an “autohiographieal slieeol’-lile”nas it is an “autohiographieal compilationniirmeinory-hearing words.” ,Vs .Sarraulenputs it in one passage: “Here tlie aren.igiiin. tliesi- words, thej liai-eonie lo lifen.iK^iin. just as li’ing. just as potent as the’n»ere at that nioment. siieh a long timena^o. when they penetraleil me.” Ofnourse. eliiUlliood is a lahrinili: who.n>ears later, can know if the direction, thenl.ick. the approach is the correct one.nk.iow heyond doulici’ No one. lint stillnpeople ti>. .As filmmaker l-edixico li-lliiiin••!iie .said, “It is nece.ssan’ to UTKlerstaiulne.iildhooil as the possibility oCmaintainingnan e(|iTiIihriuni between the uiiconsi;iousnand the conscioii.s. beiwivn “real”nlife and the life of memory.” Iloth ofn•”.irraiite’.s lies liae been in words. Hieniiieilium lias been good to her. In8 w^^m^m^^mmmnChronicles of Culturenscale. Thus the prevention of such disruptionsnbecame a major goal of governmentnpolicy. Voters demanded it. Withnthe classical economists in eclipse, thennew theories of Lord Keynes moved intonthe vacuum. Comuelle does a good jobnof demolishing the specifics of Keynesianntheory, particularly the notion thatnmodem capitalist economies generatenexcessive savings. Keynes, disheartenednby the depression, came to believe thatneconomic progress was at an end, thatnthere would be no new investment opportunities.nAnd this on the eve of thengreatest age of technological and industrialnadvances in human history!nKeynes converted a temporary problemninto a General Theory.nOnce the government moved intonthe relief of unemployment, the pressurento move beyond, into other formsnof hardship relief, was powerful. It wasnnot inevitable. The attempt to providenstability can be considered in the samencategory as other public goods; the ideanof redistribution to promote equality isnlogically and philosophically quite different.nKeynesian theory made it easiernto make that jump, which explains itsncontinued popularity among liberalsndespite its flaws. As Keynes himselfnasserted:nour argument leads to^vard tlie conclusionnthat in contemporary conditionsnthe growth of wealth so far fromnbeing dependent on the abstinence ofnthe rich, as is commonly supposed, isnmore likely impeded by it. One ofnthe chief social justifications of greatninequality of wealth is, therefore,nremoved.nThis gave the egalitarians an openingnwhich other methods of stabilization,nsuch as monetary policy, did not provide.nUnfortunately, Comuelle does not comenlliUy to grips with this.nComuelle proposes a retum to privateneflbrts to replace government programs.nThe idea of privatization of governmentnservice is popular in many circles,nbut it avoids the main issue. In thenlarger scheme of things, it matters litdennnwhether the garbage is picked up by antruck owned by a municipality or a privatenfirm. Liberals do not reaUy care verynmuch for services like this, anyway.nTheir thrust is towards redistribution,nnot public goods. Reagan has cut manynservices, including quite a few whichnwould normally be considered legitimatengovernment projects. But then”safety net” of welfare continues to expandnand with it all of the dangerousnconsequences.nJror the relief of hardship, Comuellenrecommends a return to private charitynand volunteer social work. The Americannpeople are the most generous in thenworld. Prior to the 1930’s, poor reliefnwas a matter of charity and local eflbrts.nYet no one can seriously maintain thatnthese eflbrts would produce the samenlevel of funding as does the current welfarenstate. Charity is meant to help thenpoor within the framework of traditionalnsociety. It is a moral act of the donor, notna right of the recipient. It does not changenthe social relationship. Redistribution isnmeant to revolutionize society in thenname of equality. Traditional distinctionsnare to be overturned and branded as unjust.nThe gulf between these two viewsnof the social order make their respectivenadvocates into deadly adversaries.nComueUe argues that governmentnpolicy disintegrates society, but the bulknof his case is still made on the economicncosts of that policy. This can be a successfulntactic, but conservatism cannnever be secure within such a limitation.nConservatives must retum to the positionnthat certain things are immune tondetermination by majority vote. Thengovernment does not have the right tonreorder people’s property, wealth, or incomenat wiU or to restmcmre society tonfit some subjective ideal. The government’snduty is to protect the right ofnpeople to be unequal, as long as thenmethods they use are not themselvesniUegal within the traditional frameworknof law. The scope of politics must benlimited if the reach of government is tonbe limited. Dn