Liberalism, which today is called conservatism,nis apolitical creed. Chesterton hadnfew illusions about the temporality ofnpolitical beliels. They were things thatncould be defended, like the Cross, butnwhich it was not always the privilege ofnmen to have as they wanted them. TonChesterton the ideal of free men rulingntheir own fete was bound up with theirnpossession of property. He saw a measurenof validity in the rising Trade Unionists,nbecause he accepted the fact that innan industrial society men had possessionnonly of their time and their skills, thentwo things given them by God whichnonly death and tyranny could rend fromnthem. In his lifetime he saw the party ofnGladstone devolve into the poverty ofnLloyd George. The only despair any ofnChesterton’s biographers note in hisncareer was during the Marconi Scandal,nwhich he considered the beginning ofnthe end for English politics.nBut his despair was not so much fornthe political fete of his fellow Englishmen.nAs Musie Ward and Alzina Stone Dalenboth recount, his feelings turned blacknat the thought of his brother’s defeat.nThe climate of free debate had reachednthe point where men with the couragenof Cecil Chesterton and Hilaire Bellocncould no longer ftinction without fear ofnlibeL The thought of his brother’s ignominynat the hands of public swindlers,nCecil’s loss of courage and fece at his trial,nand his valiant death after having sacrificednhis health at Boulogne defendingnEngland in a war resulting from politicalnlack of nerve in the fece of Prussianism—nthese things made Chesterton chokenwith rage.nIt is easy to see why he would notndespair of politics, why he never becamenupset with his critics but always treatednhis enemies, even Wells, with condescendingnpraise and delight. In The EverlastingnMan Chesterton writes:nIf anybody says that philosophicnmaxims preserved through many ages,nor mythological temples frequentednby many people are things of the samenclass and category as the Church, it isnenough to answer that they are not.nHe saw that the faith of Christ truly reflectednits Divine Master, for it had diednand been reborn at least five times by hisncalculations. It had thrived under thenworst tyrannies and usually hibernatednunder benevolence. So Chesterton welcomednhis enemies, for they were wateringnthe seeds of the next resurrectionnwith thefr opprobrium.nThere is much of the personal andnpublic Chesterton in this biography, althoughnWard’s magnificent Life and hernReturn to Chesterton draw a fiiller portraitnof the man who entertained niecesnand nephews with a toy theater, sentnpaper snakes down the stafrs from hisnstudy, recited “Lepanto” for the approvalnof a child. And no one has yet found anway of explaining how such a simplensoul came to possess such a devastatingnwit, or to be able to analyze Aquinas innsuch a way that even Gilson stoodnamazed. Dale refers simply to the claimnby some that he was a Thomist by “connaturality,”nbut that “This approach curiouslyndivorces Chesterton the man fromnGuns, Butter & BlusternThomas Powers: Thinking Aboutnthe Next War; Alfred A. Knopf; NewnYork.nBenjamin I. Page: WJO Gets Whatnfrom Government; University ofnCalifornia Press; Berkeley.nby William R. HawkinsnJ.homas Powers believes that “wenhave not seen the last of the big wars,nand the next one will probably involventhe use of nuclear weapons.” He basesnhis conclusion on the feet that nationsnget what they have planned for and thatnthe superpowers have been planning forna nuclear war for nearly 40 years. HenProfessor Hawkins is tvith the economicsndepartment at Radford University.nnnhis own ‘historical figure in history.'” Andnso it should be, for Chesterton would benthe first to admit that he belonged in anmedieval age because, in such an era, allnmen would be better off than in the rabbitnwarren of modem times. Dale tries to rebuffnthe taunts of Shaw and Wells thatnChesterton was a figment of a bygone era,nbut she misses the point. Chesterton didnnot deserve pity for a seemingly unjustnattempt to discount his thought; hisnmedievalism was the calling card of hisnwhole literary enterprise: to draw mennback was the truest form of revolution.nIt still is. And if Chesterton were tonrun off in a Time Machine after Wells, itnwould not be to tug his sleeve and yanknhim back to the past, but to catapult thenboth of them into the next age after thisnhumanism breathes its last, and the nextnafter that, so that for all time men wouldnhave them available as reminders ofnwhere things really stand. But the waynChesterton looked at it, someone elsenhad akeady provided that surety withnthe mingling of water and wine. Dndoes not believe that American leaders,ncivilian or military, want war. He discoverednin interviews with bomber pilots,nweapons designers, and Pentagonnstrategists that the Strategic Afr Command’snmotto, “Peace is Our Prolession,”nis a sincerely held feith. But at some pointnthey will use thefr weapons as they havenbeen trained to do. He is less clear aboutnwhat the Soviets think. No mention isnmade of the volumes of Soviet writingsnwhich indicate that Soviet leaders considerna nuclear war to be winnable. Instead,nhe pins a few hopes on remarks bynKhrushchev to the effect that nuclearnwar would not make sense. This appealsnto Powers because he does not feel thatnany war makes sense, an idea he carriesnto extremes.nHe praises Bertrand Russell for opposingnWorld War I on the grounds thatnSeptember 1983n