EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, Jr.rnMANAGING EDITORrnScott P. RichertrnARTDIRKCIORrnH. Ward SterettrnGONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnKatherine Dalton, Samuel Francis,rnGeorge Garrett, Paul Gottfried,rn].0. Tate, Michael Washburn,rnClyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrnBill Kauffman, Donald Livingston,rnWilliam Mills, William Murchison,rnAndrei Navrozov, Jacob NeusnerrnFOREIGN AFFAIRS EDITORrnSrdja TrifkovicrnLEGAL AFFAIRS EDITORrnStephen B. PresserrnRELIGION EDITORrnHarold O.J. BrownrnEDI rORIAL SECRE lARYrnLeann DobbsrnPUBLISHERrnThe Rockford InstituternPUBLICATION DIRECTORrnGuy C. ReffettrnCIRCULATION MANAGERrnCindy LinkrnA publication of The Rockford Institute.rnEditorial and Advertising Offices:rn928 North Main Street, Rocltford, 11. 6110?.rnEditorial Phone: (815) 964-5054.rnAdvertising Phone: (815) 964-5813.rnSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800,rnMount Morris, IE 61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.rnU.S.A. Newsstand Distribution b’ Eastern NewsrnDistributors, Inc., One Media Wav, 12406 Rt. 250rnMilan, Ohio 4484!^9705rnCopyright © 1999 by The Rockford Institute.rnAll rights reserved.rnChronicles (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishedrnmonthly for S59.00 (foreign subscriptions add $12rnfor surface delivery, $48 for ,ir Mail) per year byrnThe Rockford Institute, 928 North Main Street,rnRockford, IE 61103-7061. Preferred periodicalrnpostage paid at Rockford, IE and additional mailingrnoffices. P0STM,’ST1<;R: Send address changesrnto Chronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris,rnIE 61054.rnThe views expressed in Chronicles are diernauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflectrndie views of The Rockford Institute or of itsrndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot bernretiimed unless accompanied by a self-addressedrnstamped envelope.rnChroniclesrnVol, 2^, No, 5 May 1999rnPrinted in llie United States of.-iLicriairnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn the Managerial StaternConsidering his kind assessment of myrnwork (“Force and Idea,” February),rnwhich is matched by my judgments ofrnhis, it may seem ungenerous to criticizernSam Francis’s treatment of my commentsrnon ideology in After Liberalism. Irnbring up our difference of opinion onlyrnfor purposes of clarification, hi most ofrnour views about the managerial state,rnparticularly about its necessarily antibourgeoisrnand relentlessly globalist character,rnthe two of us have no disagreement.rnWhat we disagree about is thernrationality, or lack thereof, of managerialrnideology. Unlike Dr. Francis, I do notrnbelieve that the managerial class is merelyrn”masking its drive [for power andrnwealth] by adopting and invoking convenientrnideologies that justify expandedrngovernment and state manipulation ofrnsocial functions.” Nor do I think thisrnelite merely feathers its nest by “denigrating,rndebunking, and delegitimizingrnthe older pre-managerial class and therninstitutions and values by which it dominated.”rnSuch an interpretation of socialrnbehavior seems reductionist and disregardsrnthe irrational sources of ideologicalrnstruggle.rnCareerists, like Bill Clinton, undoubtedlyrntrim their sails to favorable politicalrnwinds; and some fit must exist, as Paretornpoints out, between the prevailing psychologicalrnclinrate and victorious elites.rnI would go further and stress the necessityrnfor elites to make legitimizing ideologiesrnsuit their historical situation; in ourrncase, one shaped by a rotting WASPdom,rnan international managerial economy,rnthe popularity of public administration,rnand a consumerist culture.rnI am unwilling to make two assumptionsrnthat Dr. Francis treats as self-evident.rnOne, it is not clear that the politicalrnclass manipulates, without in varyingrndegrees embracing, the “ideologicalrnsymbols” tied up with its domination.rnThough it may not consistently upholdrnthese symbols and may even backsliderninto “homophobia” or “sexism,” to whateverrnextent our elite believes anything, itrnembraces its declared ideology. The factrnthat someone benefits politically from arnspecific set of beliefs does not mean thatrnthe beneficiary privately scoffs at thosernbeliefs. Eighteenth-century British vicarsrnwere certainly placeholders, butrnthere is no indication they were notrnequally Christians, even if they had personalrnreservations about one or morernof the Anglican Church’s 39 Articles.rnBourgeois Protestants may have drawnrneconomic or political advantage fromrntheir theology and confessional communities.rnBut there is no evidence that theyrnwere not (for the most part) sincerernabout the Calvinist doctrines they professed.rnTwo, I do not share Dr. Francis’s confidencernthat those now hacking away atrnWestern Christian society are mere politicalrnopportunists. Most seem genuinelyrndriven, though their passion may alsornbe helpful to the managerial elite. AlanrnDershowitz, who surely qualifies as arnsuccessful appendage of the politicalrnacademic class, does not rage against thernpresumed white gentile establishmentrnsimply because he craves wealth andrnpower. He could have both without beingrnhysterically bigoted. Like Hitler,rnDershowitz deeply hates those he attacks.rnWhile it is possible to explainrnsuch irrationality by linking it to someone’srnlong-range interest, such gropingrnfor an orderly thought-process overlooksrnthe obvious. Politics are fueled by hate,rnand rising or established elites are subjectrnto that emotion. At particular times,rnsuch a feeling may be politically useful;rnat other times, it is something to bernworked around. It will not do as an explanation,rnhowever, to equate impassioned,rnspiteful debunking with strategicrnplanning.rn—Paul GottfriedrnElizabethtown, PArnDr. Francis Replies:rnI am afraid that Paul Gottfried still doesrnnot quite take my point, which is not thatrnI think exponents of certain ideas do notrnbelieve in those ideas, but rather whyrnsome ideas and those who espouse themrnprosper at the experise of other ideas.rnRegardless of the assumptions that I mayrnor may not treat as self-evident, I thinkrnthat Dr. Gottfried is assuming that therern4/CHRONICLESrnrnrn