Principles and Heresies

As the established order comes under radical attack on a broad front, two apparently opposite conservative reactions are emerging. On the one hand, there are those who quite correctly see the origin of the new radicalism in the systematic liberal corrosion of the Western tradition and anticipate with pleasure the prospect of the sowers of the wind reaping the whirlwind. Such conservatives presumably believe that when liberalism has been thus swept away by radicalism, conservatism not radicalism will be the eventual victor.

On the other hand, there are those conservatives who believe that the radical attack is so threatening to the very survival of ordered existence that common cause must be made with all liberal forces who are willing to resist the radical onslaught. Those who hold this view, however, too often forget that their common interest with established liberalism is based on totally differing prepossessions. Conservatives are concerned with the preservation of the structure and fabric of civilization, even though that civilization is deeply corroded by decades of liberal influence. Those liberals who are available allies in resistance to radicalism and anarchy are defending first of all their power and influence; to the degree that they are defenders of civilization, it is only in the corroded form they have created. Indeed, it is the corrosion, not the civilization, to which their fealty is given. And the pathos of their condition —the condition of those liberals, for example, who are honestly fighting to preserve the universities—is that, in large part, it is the corrosive principle for which they stand that has brought into being the radicalism which has turned upon them.

FS

About the Author

Frank S. Meyer

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

Featured Tags

As the established order comes under radical attack on a broad front, two apparently opposite conservative reactions are emerging. On the one hand, there are those who quite correctly see the origin of the new radicalism in the systematic liberal corrosion of the Western tradition and anticipate with pleasure the prospect of the sowers of the wind reaping the whirlwind. Such conservatives presumably believe that when liberalism has been thus swept away by radicalism, conservatism not radicalism will be the eventual victor.

On the other hand, there are those conservatives who believe that the radical attack is so threatening to the very survival of ordered existence that common cause must be made with all liberal forces who are willing to resist the radical onslaught. Those who hold this view, however, too often forget that their common interest with established liberalism is based on totally differing prepossessions. Conservatives are concerned with the preservation of the structure and fabric of civilization, even though that civilization is deeply corroded by decades of liberal influence. Those liberals who are available allies in resistance to radicalism and anarchy are defending first of all their power and influence; to the degree that they are defenders of civilization, it is only in the corroded form they have created. Indeed, it is the corrosion, not the civilization, to which their fealty is given. And the pathos of their condition —the condition of those liberals, for example, who are honestly fighting to preserve the universities—is that, in large part, it is the corrosive principle for which they stand that has brought into being the radicalism which has turned upon them.