Principles and Heresies

In the last issue of NATIONAL REVIEW (Dec. 16.) Professor Donald Atwell Zoll directed our attention to that aspect of twentieth-century liberalism which leaves it helpless before the anarchic onslaught of the New Left: its apparent “death-wish,” operatively manifested in what has been elsewhere described as a decline of the will to govern. The potential outcome of this confrontation between nerveless liberalism and revolutionary nihilism could indeed be as disastrous as he warns. And he is certainly correct when he insists that the restoration and preservation of order is the outstanding political issue of our present crisis.

But—all this accepted—Professor Zoll’s further conclusions seem to go against the grain of traditional American institutions, to be unacceptable to the conservative spirit, and indeed to be based upon what is only a partial understanding of the liberalism which has brought us to our present pass. It is a little hard to pin down these further conclusions of his because they are not specific and in general can be derived mainly from tone and metaphor. One or two quotations from his article, however, may help clarity:

FS

About the Author

Frank S. Meyer

Frank S. Meyer was a senior editor of National Review.

Featured Tags

In the last issue of NATIONAL REVIEW (Dec. 16.) Professor Donald Atwell Zoll directed our attention to that aspect of twentieth-century liberalism which leaves it helpless before the anarchic onslaught of the New Left: its apparent “death-wish,” operatively manifested in what has been elsewhere described as a decline of the will to govern. The potential outcome of this confrontation between nerveless liberalism and revolutionary nihilism could indeed be as disastrous as he warns. And he is certainly correct when he insists that the restoration and preservation of order is the outstanding political issue of our present crisis.

But—all this accepted—Professor Zoll’s further conclusions seem to go against the grain of traditional American institutions, to be unacceptable to the conservative spirit, and indeed to be based upon what is only a partial understanding of the liberalism which has brought us to our present pass. It is a little hard to pin down these further conclusions of his because they are not specific and in general can be derived mainly from tone and metaphor. One or two quotations from his article, however, may help clarity: