penetrate the right on the grounds of intellectual consistency.nAs a result, many conservatives have forgotten that theynwere the enemies of Rousseau and Paine before they werenenemies of Marx.nThese distortions took effect in the U.S. mainly as anresult of the “New Deal-Great Society” era, interpretednprimarily as an economic victory for socialism in America.nDuring the decades when “conservative” was an unpopularnterm, many observers claimed—all too often correctiy—nthat 20th-century conservatives were really only 19thcenturynliberals. Everyone was a liberal at heart, and then”spirit” of 1776 inspired every speaker. Republicans startednquoting Jefferson as often as did Democrats. The onlynquestion remaining seemed the proper interpretation ofnliberalism.nToday, “conservatism” has returned from exile and thenliberals are the ones looking for something new to callnthemselves. Modern liberalism has proved itself unfit tonrule, but is modern conservatism fit to rule in its place? Tonthe extent that modern conservatism is dominated bynclassical liberal ideas, the answer is no. Whatever utility thenHow the United States Leeches OffnIts Traditional FamiliesnAmerica has increasingly saddled its most productivenand stable citizens – traditional families -with a grosslyndisproportionate share of the costs of social programs.nPrograms that intact families neither want nor need.nIn an eye-opening report, CHRONICLES AssociatenEditor Bryce Christensen argues that the intact familiesnshould be relieved of paying the social costs imposed onnthem by broken, childless, and non-traditionalnfamilies.nFor your copy, return your accompanying couponntoday and we will send you a FREE copy of the “ThenSensual School,” a look at the growing national debatenover the use of “school-based clinics” to reduce thenrates of adolescent pregnancy.nD Yes, send me Bryce Christensen’s specialnreport, The Family as America’s “CaptivenNation.” Enclosed is my check for $2.00 (includesnpostage and handling.).nAlso send me a FREE copy of “The SensualnSchool.”nNamenAddressn12 / CHRONICLESnCity StatenMail to:nThe Rockford Institute,n934 N. Main St.,nRockford, IL 61103nZipnnnclassical view once had as a voice of dissent, it has nownoutiived its usefulness. And as a philosophy of governmentnits record is one of failure.nClassical liberalism is most closely identified with 19thcenturynEngland, an England at the height of its power withna global Empire, industrial prosperity, and a culture thatneven today continues to elicit admiration and emulation innthe former American colonies. Yet, the England of Millnand Bentham, Cobden and Gladstone slid quickly intondecline; as its industry faltered in the face of American andnGerman competition, the Empire fragmented and collapsed.nClassical liberalism better explains England’s fallnthan it does its rise. This should not be surprising. Liberalnideas can gain ground only when a society has becomenoverconfident. Traditional values and institutions suddenlynappear as restraints rather than supports. Yet when a societynbelieves that success is natural—the result of an “invisiblenhand” that renders the old creeds of discipline, selfsacrifice,nand order obsolete—it is heading for a disaster.nWhen a ship is sinking, we hear the cry “Every man fornhimself!” As believers in a rampant individualism, thenliberals seemed willing to smash the rudder and flood thenhold in their efforts to provoke such a reaction.nThe liberal view is characterized by a belief that allnchange is progress. It tells us not to worry if an industryndeclines or if standards of conduct or morality decline or ifnthe power of the nation itself declines. By definition, it allnmust be for the best. Why bother with thought or analysis?nThose who question the consequences of such developmentsnare reactionary alarmists or mere protectors ofnendangered special interests.nEngland’s wealth and power were built on principlesnquite different from those espoused by the classical liberals.nLiberals (and later socialists) constantly denounced thenprinciples defended by Burke and Disraeli, Coleridge andnSalisbury, Kipling and Cunningham. England remained innthe ranks of the Great Powers through the first part of thisncentury only because some aristocrats, military officers, andnstatesmen still preserved some conservative principles. Butnclassical liberalism ate away at the cultural and economicnfoundations for these principles. It was conservatism, notnliberalism, which gave a society of rising material abundancena bourgeois rather than libertine character. Ofncourse, the actual period of liberal rule was short, just longnenough to undermine conservative institutions withoutnreplacing them. Conservatism and socialism each havenpositive theories of government, but liberalism has only annegative theory.nThe void created by liberalism was filled by socialism, asnthe line between liberalism and socialism blurred duringnthe 19th century. The essence of liberalism was to transformnsociety, to “liberate” it from prescription, prejudice,nand superstition and the conservative institutions of churchnand state. Once a movement takes a revolutionary aim, it isndifficult to stop. That classical liberalism was an emptynphilosophy was felt by many of its adherents who, unable tonturn back, plunged ahead into socialism. The progressionnfrom liberation to totalitarianism was part of Rousseau’snthought. Even the great liberal himself, J.S. Mill, fellnunder the influence of a feminist-socialist wife. Today, thendemocratic left remains a coalition, socialist in economicsn