Always and eeryvhere, even among the braestnpeoples, the majority are spiritual cowards. . . .nGovernment by suffrage, however, is possible onlynwhen the conictions of men have ceased to benital to them. As long as there is a minoritynwhich would rather die than continue in a lie,nthere is a further court from which there is nonappeal. When ten men are so earnest on one sidendrat they will sooner be killed than gie va}-,nand twenty are earnest enough on the other to castntheir votes for it, hut will not risk their skins,nthe ten will gie the law to the twenty.nConserati”es have failed to grasp that central lesson ofnhistory. They fail to grasp what Marxists well know: thatnnations are not moved by economics, but by beliefs, bynfaith, by isions. The fact that the commissars createnpoverty is beside the point. The point is that they propagatena new faith, and that belief in omnipotent government hasnenabled the rise of a new class of oerlords, in only twongenerations, over half the world.nMarxists hae penetrated seminaries and pulpits throughoutnthe West, to teach a new faith. While that process wasnunderway, conseraties concentrated on economic matters,non cutting social programs, and succeeded in earningnreputations for heartlessness and greed. Conseraties havenconcentrated on grooming attractie candidates for electivenoffice—and the results are the gutiess wonders of thenRepublican Party. Meanwhile, the reoIution rolls on.nWhile the conseraties cannot agree on what they want tonconsere, the left has aehieed the power to block thenPresident’s legislatie agenda and to focus public outrage onnSouth Africa—an ally from whom we obtain essentialnstrategic minerals — for iolating political rights. Meanwhile,nthe left muffles discussion of political oppression innthe So’iet Union, China, and the rest of Black Africa.nThe rise of the Moral Majority does not make thenleft-wing evangelicals, the sanctuar}’ puppets, the peacenmarchers, the anti-weapons, anti-energy protesters vanish.nOn the contrary, the ranks of the left swell. What Rushdoonynhas called the politics of guilt and pity are in thensaddle. The politics of race and ethnicity dominate, and thenpower of our major religions to bring together people of allnraces and ethnicity is ignored — even denied. Teachers innour public (and private) schools promote a revolutionarynparadigm. That it has failed to improve the situation of thenpeople anywhere cannot be discussed.nWhere is the conserative paradigm? What is it thatnconseraties want to conserve? Their money? Their securit}n? Their standing in the community? Their hold on publicnoffice?nGranted, the reolution today has what it lacked innearlier centuries: an international organization, a center ofninspiration, funding, and support; it is armed with the mostnmodern weapons and keyed into terrorism in all its aspects.nBut the Reformation successfully fought against a greatninternational power with far fewer tools. The Reformationnhad a faith. Its thinkers, writers, preachers, soldiers, fighters,nfamilies dreamed of a better world. What do we want?nTo be safe? To live with half the arguments of the left? Tontalk about money, budgets, deficits, and taxes, a la Necker,nthe last finance minister of Louis XV? The re’olution hasnits spokesmen and apologists throughout our churches,nuniversities, political parties, theater, stage, screen, andnsociet}—and we are not even indignant that no one on thenother side is gien a hearing. I am reminded of whatnMacaulay said about Oliver Goldsmith. “He didn’t seem tonresent insult,” he observed. “But a man who has no sense ofnjustice about himself is not likely to have one for others.”nThe same can be said about nations.nBookstores bulge with Marxist and liberal writings, whilenconser’ative writers struggle with low budgets, fewnoutiets, scanty reviews. I am told that conservatives generallyndo not read much; do not buy many books — and prefernthose that are short, simple, and obvious. How, then, cannwe win an.intellectual war? We comfort ourselves with thenideas of Edmund Burke but forget how much John Wesleynand George Whitefield helped turn the English-speakingnworld against revolution. How can we win without analyzingnrevolutionary thought and without devising the meansnnot only to retard the spread of such thought, but to stop it?nTo do this we must be more realistic, more honest, andnmuch braer. Our leaders will have to elevate their sightsnand look to the traditionalists in our midst. For if a third ofnthe Old Believers could create the opening through whichnthe Bolsheviks flowed, a third of our Old Believers canncreate the dam bv which our Bolsheviks can be bottled, ccnnnJULY 1985/23n