Critics at Worknby William H. NoltenNeoconservative Criticism:nNorman Podhoretz, KennethnS. Lynn and Joseph Epsteinnby Mark Royden WinchellnBoston: Twayne Publishers;n175 pp., $22.9SnJust what is “neoconservative criticism”?nWhat gives it any particularnessence or distinguishes it from othernbrands being bartered in bookstores andnnewsstands throughout the Republic?nThe wiseacre might answer that it is thenkind of criticism practiced by neoconservatives,nand thus leave us where wenbegan—that is, in the dark. Which isnjust about where we find ourselves afternturning the final page of ProfessornIN THE MARCH ISSUEnRoger Scrutonnon Robert BorknPeter Currannon Art CollegesnJames de Candolenon Muslim SchoolingnAntony Wagnernon The Hereditary PrinciplenR.A.I. Mundaynon Arms and LibertynWinchell’s sometimes amusing, if notnvery enlightening, study of the phenomenonn(assuming there is such anthing). The three critics chosen as exemplarsnof neoconservative crit. may, ornmay not, relish the pigeonhole theynhave been asked to occupy, but nevernmind: they are treated tenderly, at timesnalmost lovingly, and hence will notnthink of calling their lawyers. If none ofnthe trio has the heft and beam of a greatncritic or editor, all have raised considerablendust in the literary arena, and theynhave made some imprint on the NationalnLetters.nBut there is still that neoconservativentag that bothers me, as it apparentlynbothers Winchell, who tries—not verynsuccessfully—to pin it down in his firstnchapter, and then waves at it again innthe final two or three pages of the book.nEariy on we are informed that neocon­nservative intellectuals “are recent convertsnto laissez-faire economics and havenbeen cultural traditionalists from thencradle,” and that their conversion to then(political) right is attributable to thenideological “struggle between pro-nCommunist and anti-Communist intellectualsnduring the middle decades ofnthis century.” Which may help ournunderstanding a little but surely notnmuch. At least we are spared hearingnabout the political pilgrimage of thenanti-anticommunists. But we do hearnsomething of how neoconservativesn(who, in some way, resemble currentnliberals) differ from paleoconservativesn— mainly regarding how those two subspeciesnview the Founding Fathers ofnour “liberal democratic traditions.” Innfact, one critic, called upon for aid innthe “defining” process, suggests thatnneoconservatives might better be la-nTht^nSaMmrynReuieivnThe quarterly magazine of conservative thoughtnTHESAUSBURY REVIEWn33, Canonbury Park South, London Nl 2JWnPlease open my one year’s subscription.nI enclose a cheque for £15, $35 surface mail: $45 airmailnpayable to The Salisbury ReviewnNAME:nADDRESS:.nPublished quarterly in September,nDecember, March and June.nEditor: Roger ScrutonnnnJUNE 1991/37n