servative magazine, “the intellectualsnwho pinned their hopes on movementsnon the totalitarian left and those whonlooked to the totalitarian right oftenndrew from common traditions andnfrom one another in formulating theirnradical critique of liberal democraticncapitalism. Hans Freyer and GeorgnLukacs, for example, both had their intellectualnroots in neoromanticism andnneo-Hegelianism. …”nIn light of that declaration, one wondersnwhy he writes of the “purported”nrelationship between neoconservatismnand the Enlightenment. Everywherenin his book he suggests that the Enlightenmentnprovided a fertile soil fornliberal democracy, while Freyer’s historicistncritique of the Enlightenmentn”lay behind the works of his radicalnconservative phase.” (p. 333) To bensure, he concedes that Enlightenmentncan also arrive at despotism, but henhastens to add (p. 17) that those whonrepented for carrying its ideas to extremesnexperienced little difficulty innmaking themselves over into liberalsnand social democrats. “Radical” (historical,nanti-democratic) conservativesnsuch as Freyer, on the other hand, acceptednliberal democracy grudgingly, ifnat all.nProfessor Muller writes that his bookndeals “more broadly with patterns ofnpolitical radicalization and deradicalizationnamong intellectuals on the leftnand right since the French Revolution.”nThat, surely, is a large and worthyntheme — and one all too familiar inncontemporary America. In treating it,nhe constructed a chain of reasoningnthat led to the Enlightenment andnCounter-Enlightenment. Havingnraised reasonable, if not unanswerable,nobjections to his analysis and historicalnjudgment, I regret that he has electednto make name-calling do duty as a rejoinder.nOn It’s anBlack Thing’nI was shocked at Llewellyn Rockwell’sncomplete misinterpretation (CulturalnRevolutions, March 1990) of what WilliamnRaspberry wrote. Until yournMarch issue, I had always assumed thatnwhat people wrote in your magazinenwas reasonably accurate.nAs closely as I can recall, Rockwellnquoted Raspberry accurately, but hentook the columnist’s words in an extremelynnarrow and literal sense. AsnRockwell quotes Raspberry, “A CongressionalnBlack Caucus is legitimate,”nwhile a “Congressional White Caucusnwould be unthinkable,” etc. WhatnRockwell did not understand, and whatnyou failed to check, was that Raspberrynwas writing rhetorically.nIn fact, on reading the Post my wifenand I were both amazed that a black,ngenerally liberal columnist had the sensitivitynto test the feel and sound ofnsuch absurdities, and then had the gutsnto write about his reactions. That’snexactly what Raspberry did. His list ofnincongruous statements was quitencomplete but sadly funny, the latternbecause as many of us know, realistically,na Congressional White Caucus isn”unthinkable.” Raspberry came to realizenthis, and described how he eventuallynunderstood that T-shirt slogansnsuch as “It’s a Black Thing …” maynnot, after all, be “hip, humorous, andnrace conscious in a healthy sort ofnway.”nI hope Chronicles doesn’t devolveninto another silly forum where anyonencan smear words onto a page and gainna moment’s recognition for himselfn—Robert GoransonnWoodbridge, VAnMr. Rockwell Replies:nMr. Goranson wants to shout hosannanbecause William Raspberry admitsnthere’s a racial double standard—evennif he endorses it.nMaybe people who live for too longnin the Washington Post’s delivery areanbecome inured to liberal-think. Maybenthey see nothing wrong with having anprofessional black for a columnist, anman who analyzes everything in racialnterms, and who has only one criterion:nis it good for the blacks? Any whitenwriter taking the same position wouldnlong ago have been exiled to the InsensitivitynGulag.nRaspberry approves of “the BlacknThing” mentality only for “lowprestigenout-groups” like “gays, Chicanes,n[and] blacks,” but not for “highprestigengroups.” “My own reactions,”nhe says, “vary with the social status ofnthe group touting its specialness.” Be­ncause of this double standard, he won’tntell “young blacks [to] get rid of theirn’It’s a Black Thing . . . ‘ buttons,nbadges, and sweat shirts” until thenequallennium.nIn another column (December 23,n1989), Raspberry says it might be angood thing if blacks believed that allntheir troubles were caused by a mythicalnwhite conspiracy, and acted on it.nRace hatred would be a great motivator.n(He jokes to black audiences, bynthe way, that he knows there’s nonconspiracy because whites “aren’tnsmart enough.” Imagine that turnednaround.)n”Is there a white conspiracy? Thentrouble is not with the illogic of thenquestion,” concludes Raspberry. “Thentrouble is our refusal to behave asnthough we believe the answer is yes.”nOh? William Raspberry may bensubtler than Spike Lee, but he’d thrownthe trash can through my window justnthe same.nOn ‘PostwarnOxford’nnnIn my “Postwar Oxford” (April 1989) Inintended no hint of cowardice in anynOxford dons of the time nor, rereadingnit, do I find the shadow of any suchnimputation therein. All the same, Mr.nTerrence Neal Brown’s hypersensitivityn(Polemics & Exchanges, July 1989) hasnpersuaded me to ask Oxford Today,nwhich was interested in reprinting thenpiece, not to.nI made one factual error he did notnpick up, however: Charles Williamsndied just before that period. I was up tonhim antebellum. Sorry about that.n— Geoffrey WagnernNew York CitynFor Immediate ServicenChroniclesnSUBSCRIBERSnTOLL FREE NUMBERn1-800-435-0715nILLINOIS RESIDENTSn1-800-892-0753nJUNE 1990/5n