Gloomy Conservativesrnby Donald Devinern”A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk.”rn—Franklin D. RooseveltrnThe Conservative Movement,rnRevised Editionrnhy Paul GottfriedrnNew York: Twayne Publishers;rn214 pp., $26.95rnThis is a very disturbing book, concludingrnthat “America will one dayrnbe ‘one with Nineveh and Tyre,'” andrnthat the general principles of conservatismrnwill only reappear “when circumstancesrnfavorable to civilization return.”rnThe remnant, or paleoconservatives, arern”without real hope” of political or culturalrnpower, their only function beingrnto express “iconoclastic exuberance” overrnunpopular causes in a spirit “far morernNietzschean than neo-Thomistic.” Thisrngloomy conservatism is the fruit of arnmovement whose magnificent developmentrn(described in five brilliant chapters)rnwas arrested and finally destroyedrnby a force Paul Gottfried calls “neoconservatism,”rnwhose chief concerns are forrnthe money and power that flow from arnconnection with the political establishmentrnof Washington, D.C. Gottfried’srnneoconservatives are not just the Democratic,rnCold War liberal intellectuals whornshifted right in the late 1960’s; they includernmost of the writers for NationalrnReview, the staff of the Heritage Foundation,rnand indeed most leaders and intellectualsrncommonly identified as “conservative.”rnThis revised edition of The ConservativernMovement is actually two books.rnThe first five chapters, following thernoriginal edition (coauthored with ThomasrnFleming), display even more thoroughrnresearch and still keener scholarly insightrnthis time around. The last two chaptersrnby Professor Gottfried alone are new,rnand read much more like investigativernDonald Devine is a columnist andrnadjunct scholar at the Heritage Foundationrnand author of five books, mostrnrecently Reagan’s Terrible Swift Sword:rnReforming and Controlling thernFederal Bureaucracy (Jameson Books).rnjournalism than academic analysis.rnThey are also responsible for the differencernbetween the mild optimism of thernfirst edition and the deep pessimism ofrnthe second.rnEarly chapters describe the developmentrnof the conservative movementrnfrom its “neither organized nor coherent”rnorigins during the New Dealrnthrough its consolidation by William F.rnBuckley, Jr., Frank Meyer, and NationalrnReview in the 50’s, the Goldwater movementrnin the 60’s, the academic conservatismrnof the 60’s and 70’s, the intellectualrnrevolt of the neoconservatives, andrnthe populist revolt of the New Right.rnGottfried’s narrative is indispensable tornan understanding of conservatism, evenrnif one can quibble with some of the details,rnand very useful for anyone wishingrnto understand the movement thatrnculminated in the election of RonaldrnReagan.rnI grew up in the ferment that was “thernmovement” around National Review inrnthe 1950’s and attended St. John’s University,rnwhich Professor Gottfried identifiesrnas a center of conservative activity.rnAfter having rejected some of the stridentrnearly rhetoric of the magazine I wasrnbrought by Meyer to the fold, won byrnboth his philosophy and his activism.rnMeyer’s “synthesis of ideas that includedrnabsolute truths and personal liberty”rnseemed the right equation and did indeedrnbecome what Gottfried calls “thernvital center of the conservative culture ofrnthe 1950’s.” While documenting therndominance of fusionism within the intellectualrnconservative movement, Gottfriedrnproperly chides its partisan, populist,rndefiant tone, its exclusionismrn(Meyer denounced George Wallace), itsrnactivism (“almost all of National Review’srnstaff participated in political campaigns”),rnand its optimistic convictionrnthat “things could be set right.”rnPaul Gottfried argues convincinglyrnthat neoconservatives and others in theirrnembrace cooperate with one another inrnfunding projects, in getting jobs, in publishingrneach other’s books, and in controllingrninstitutions; he also shows somernpeople to have made a lot of money.rnBut the important question to ask aboutrnWashington conservatives is surely “Havernthey kept the principles of the movementrnand tried to advance them givenrntheir opportunities?” not “Have they receivedrnlucrative grants?” Detailing wherernthey went wrong on policy is much morernworthy of scholarly analysis than investigatingrntheir bank accounts.rnAs for the wisdom of conservatives involvingrnthemselves with the Washingtonrnpolicymaking community, the problemrnis certainly a vexed one. Do yournpreach truth from an ivory tower and letrnthe country go reeling to the left, or dornyou try to guide it rightwards at the expensernof principle? There is a great dangerrnin the latter course, and it is possiblernthat Washington conservatives have indeedrngone too far. The Heritage Foundation,rnin pressing its “empowerment”rntheme, is often close to the line but, inrnmy view at least, generally avoids crossingrnit. Still it is helpful—if not always pleasantrn—to have someone like ProfessorrnGottfried around to chide us, thoughrnAUGUST 1993/37rnrnrn