today.”rnBut nowhere in his book does Mr.rnBuchanan support the labor union hierarchyrnthat Mr. Bartley so fears. What herndoes support are the interests of Americanrnworkers (which the unions sometimesrnmake noises about representing)rnagainst those of both foreign competitorsrnand domestic free trade ideologues andrnthe corporate elites, foreign and domestic,rnthat sponsor them. The distinctionrnbetween supporting unions and supportingrnthe interests of their members sailsrnquite happily past Mr. Bartley’s head.rnMoreover, Mr. Bartley’s characterizationrnof the “conservative coalition” bearsrnlittle resemblance to what that movementrnactually thought and advocated.rnIt’s true that the coalition was supportivernof free trade, but trade policy was neverrnmuch of an issue for it at all. It’s also truernthat the coalition was generally internahonalist,rnbut mainly because of its anticommunism,rnseeing in the Soviet Unionrna global menace that ultimately threatenedrnAmerican national security. Thernold “conservative coalition” never supportedrnthe kind of mindless and bellicoserninternationalism that Mr. Bartley andrnmost neoconservatives advocate: a perpetualrncrusade to carry the torch ofrn”American democracy” to every nookrnand cranny of the planet (complete, onernmight add, with the much-dreaded laborrnunions that Mr. Bartley’s neoconservativernsocial-democrat allies admire).rnNor does Mr. Bardey understand conservatismrntoday. “In our time,” he writes,rn”smaller government is the essence ofrnwhat we call conservatism.” That is simplyrnnot true. Conservahsm is a defensernof a particular way of communal lifern(what Mr. Buchanan calls “a moral communityrn[that] must share values higherrnthan economic interest”), and while thernleviathan state today is certainly one ofrnthe main enemies of the American wayrnof life, it is not the only enemy, nor isrndenying the state the authorit}’ to performrnits legitimate functions an effectivernmeans of conserving our way of life. Restrictionsrnon immigration and protectionrnof national economic interests are governmentalrnmeasures that can help conser’rne the national way of life. Moreover,rnthe test of what is and is not “big [i.e., illegitimate]rngovernment” in the Americanrnway of life is not the ideology of classicalrnliberalism or “anarcho-capitalism”rnbut the U.S. Constitution, which explicitiyrnauthorizes federal regulation of foreignrncommerce and implicitly authorizesrnimmigration control. Neither actionrnlies beyond the legitimate scope ofrnthe federal government, and thereforernneither constitutes “big government.”rnYet despite Mr. Bartiey’s historical illiteracy,rnhis tactic is a clever one. Previousrnattacks on Pat Buchanan camernmainly from neoconservatives who neverrnvoiced any interest in the ideal of “standingrnathwart history and yelling stop” butrnwho denounced him precisely becausernhe was too much a conservative of thernold school. But by associating himselfrnwith the old conservatism, Mr. Bartley isrntrying to deny that label to Buchananrnand indeed to claim that Buchanan himselfrnis the defector. While the neoconsrnattack Buchanan for being “too far to thernright,” Mr. Bartley attacks him for havingrnnothing to do with the right.rnBut this dog won’t hunt. Quite asidernfrom his misunderstanding of what thernold “conservative coalition” believed,rnMr. Bartiey’s rhetoric and beliefs betiayrnhis allegiances, which, in a word, are tornliberalism. It is no accident that Mr.rnBartley’s editorial page (and most “mainstream”rnconservatives) in the last severalrnyears have devoted themselves to defendingrnvirtually every major trade and foreignrnpolicy proposal advanced by thernClinton administration. The Journalrn(and for that matter. National Review)rnhas supported Clinton on NAFTA, thernWorld Trade Organization, and sendingrnAmerican troops to Somalia, Haiti, andrnBosnia. Thev support Bill Clinton todayrnon NATO expansion, and Mr. Bartleyrnhas pushed for an immigration policy allrnbut indistinguishable from that of Clinton,rnTed Kennedy, and the NationalrnLawyers Guild. Yet here he squats,rnsquealing that the real traitor to conservatismrnis Pat Buchanan.rnAs for where Mr. Bartley stands, hernmakes his posture entirely clear. DenouncingrnMr. Buchanan’s “thumpingrnthe drum for a kind of tiibal solidarity inrnthe name of ‘sovereignty,'” he writes:rn”We globalists view this as a rejection ofrnmodernity. Mr. Buchanan proposes tornstand athwart not only the march ofrnCommunism, but also powerful trendsrndriven by the information revolution….rnAttempts to dam up change bear heawrncosts.” In short, after affirming the needrnfor conservatives to stand athwart historyrnand cry “stop,” Mr. Bartley proceeds tornexcommunicate Mr. Buchanan forrnstanding athwart history and (eek!) “rejectingrnmodernit)’.” Is it surprising thatrnMr. Bartiev’s flawed account of the oldrn”conservative coalition” convenientlyrnomitted Russell Kirk, M.E. Bradford,rnRichard Weaver, and other conservativernthinkers whose ideas centered preciselyrnon the rejection of modernity? He doesrntry to conscript Whittaker Chambers,rnbut Chambers was perhaps the most radicallyrnanti-modernist of all.rnThat it is a fairly conventional liberalismrnto which Mr. Bartley subscribes andrnwhich he has confused with conservatismrnis clear not only in his rejection ofrnthe nation-state and its “tribal solidarity'”rnand in his affirmation of political andrncultural universalism, but also from hisrnreliance on the very code words and epithetsrnby which the left has always soughtrnto deny legitimacy to the right. Buchananrnis aligned with “reactionary forces”;rnhistorical trends of which Mr. Bartiey approvesrnare irresistible; any ideas thatrnquestion their irresistibility are simplyrndismissed with sneers as irrationalismrnand the product of ignorance. This isrnprecisely the way that Arthur Schlesingerrnand John Kenneth Galbraith used tornwrite about William F. Buckley. If wernhear their voices echoed in Mr. Bartiey’srnmouth, that is no accident.rnOn one matter, Mr. Bartiey is partlyrnright. The New Nationalism that Mr.rnBuchanan advocates is not identical tornthe old conservatism, for the very clearrnreason that the anti-communism of thernold conservatism is now irrelevant. It isrnirrelevant not because communism hasrnceased to flourish, but because it is nornlonger located in the Soviet Union.rnCommunism does indeed flourish, inrnthe premises and assumptions that Mr.rnBartley and his neoconservative allies atrnthe journal and National Review harbor,rnand the utopianism and universalismrnthat creep out of those premises and assumptionsrnare indistinguishable fromrnwhat that great free-trader Karl Marxrnhimself believed was the inevitable futurernof mankind. When the nation-staternis abolished and “we globalists” have excommunicatedrnevers’one who resists thernmarch of the New World Order that hasrnreplaced it, we will see whether Mr.rnBuchanan might have had a point afterrnall. Until then, those American conservativesrnwho still reject modernity andrnwant to conserve their nation and its wayrnof life can find no better reason for rejectingrnwhat the modern “conservativerncoalition” now offers than what Mr. Bartleyrnand National Review have revealedrnabout where the mainstream in whichrnthev swim will carrv us. -ern38/CHRONICLESrnrnrn