in pushing conservative issues and “values”rnleftward and in condemning anyrncredible right as fascist or worse. Paleoconsrnrepresent a threat to the politicalrnclass and its media allies and will thereforernbe kept out of polite discussion atrnany price. But neoconservative money,rnwhich has not been squandered, hasrncontributed to its successes. That is allrnthat I intend to prove in n ly controversialrnsixth chapter.rnI would finally note that Don’s hopernof discussing his own Taftian agendarnwith neoconservatives will go nowhere, ifrnmy analysis turns out to be correct. Whyrnshould neoconservatives, given theirrnviews, power, and proven ruthlessness,rnlisten to him at all? What possible benefitrncould they derive from turningrnagainst their own political class and fromrncalling for the dismantling of our highlyrncentralized welfare state? Why shouldrnthey embrace Don’s foreign policy, inrnthe teeth of their expressed ideologicalrnand ethnic concerns? And what will bernthe fate of this hoped-for dialogue ifrnthey decide that they don’t like Don?rnAt that point they will threaten to cutrnthe funds of movement conservativesrnwho continue to associate with Dr.rnDevine. And they will instruct their liberalrnand other friends in the media to accusernhim of anti-Semitism, which hasrnnow been defined as insensitivity to neoconservativesrnor to anyone identifiedrnwith AIPAC. Though I have no quarrelrnwith Don’s agenda, it seems improbablernthat he and the neoconservatives, orrntheir hired servants, will discuss anyrnagenda as political equals. Note howrnthe Athenian democrats, whom neoconservativesrnprofess to admire, treatedrntheir “allies.” They argued with them inrncourts and in assemblies, as long as itrntickled their vanity. But when that activityrnceased to be interesting, Periclesrnand his party had no scruples about usingrnforce. If Don would like, I couldrnsend him a list of the American victimsrnof neocon global democracy. But I’mrnsure he himself could supply his own.rn—Paul GottfriedrnElizabethtown, PArnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnTHOMAS JEFFERSON’S birthdayrnwent virtually unnoticed earlier this year,rnthe 250th anniversary of his birth. Nothingrnis more indicative of how badly wernAmericans have squandered our moralrncapital and betrayed the substance ofrnour history. We did have, of course, PresidentrnClinton’s inaugural journey fromrnMonticello, though it is hard to imaginernanything further from the true spirit ofrnJeffersonian democracy than the motleyrncrew of socialists, spoilsmen, imagernmanipulators, and foreign agents whornmake up the present leadership of thernDemocratic Party (except perhaps thernmotley crew of stockjobbers, spoilsmen,rnimage manipulators, and foreign agentsrnwho make up the leadership of the RepublicanrnParty).rnThen there was the conference onrn”Jeffersonian Legacies,” held at Mr. Jefferson’srnUniversity and since issued as arnbook and a videotape for PBS, that wasrndevoted to a motley lot of dubiouslyrnqualified Northeastern and Californiarnintellectuals preening about how muchrnwiser and more enlightened they arernabout racial matters than Mr. Jefferson.rnIn fact, Jefferson’s discussion of thernAmerican racial dilemma in Query XIVrnof Nofes on the State of Virginia says everythingrntrue that can be said about thernsubject, ethically and intellectually, asrnwill be seen a hundred years from now,rnshould there be any men and womenrnleft who are capable of Jefferson’s range,rnclarity, honesty, and detachment.rnJefferson had the most capaciousrnmind and, until his later years, the mostrnoptimistic temperament of any of thernFounders. Had he never held a publicrnoffice, his vast corpus of letters and writingsrnwould still be one of our most importantrnlegacies from that era. He was,rnon one side of his personality, a true intellectual,rnfond of ideas and speculation.rnThe dull-witted and literal-minded haverncontinually taken his statements out ofrncontext as dogmatic proposals to be enforcedrnor opposed, failing to distinguish,rnas he did himself, between Jefferson thernAmerican public man and President andrnJefferson the international man of letters.rnConservatives, in particular the heirsrnof his enemies the Federalists, have hadrna hard time with Jefferson, often findingrnin him the anticipation of all they hate.rnWhich is just the reverse of the counterfeitrncoin peddled by the leftists of thisrncentury who once made him an unrecognizablernidol (though they thankfullyrnare no longer much inclined to do so).rnIn other words, Jefferson has been erectedrnagain and again into a straw man tornworship or to execrate. He is bigger thanrnall of the trivial images that have beenrnconstructed. To rediscover him we mustrnunravel layer after layer of misrepresentationsrnpiled up by successive generationsrnof self-centered interpreters. (Forrninstance, on the slavery question, liberalrnintellectuals made him one of them, andrnthen attacked him for hypocrisy whenrnthey discovered that he wasn’t. But thisrnis silly. Jefferson was himself, easily discerniblernall along to any honest observer,rnand under no obligation to conformrnhimself to the categories of trivialrnthinkers of later generations.)rnConservatives, misled by some of thernmore unscrupulous opponents of hisrnown time, have had problems with Jefferson’srnreligion. Undoubtedly he tendedrntoward deism, as did most of the intelligentrnmen of his time to some degreernor other. But Jefferson was never an enemyrnof religion, despite the hystericalrncharges of New England preachers unhingedrnby the French Revolution andrntheir personal loss of deference. Jeffersonrnalways conducted his family lifernwithin the Anglican communion, in contrastrnto John Adams, who is invariablyrndescribed as an upholder of orthodoxyrnthough he became a Unitarian (!) notrnout of youthful folly but of a mature decision.rnJefferson the public man was in factrnthe favorite candidate of the more tolerantrnProtestant denominations and religiousrnminorities. What he opposed wasrnwhat he called “priestcraft,” by whichrnhe meant the clergy of New Englandrnhellbent on dominating the minds andrnactions of other men by force rather thanrnNOVEMBER 1993/5rnrnrn