of the personality of each child, arnthousand different schools mightrnbe considered an excellent idea.rn”Not many years ago,” the great manrncontinued,rna considerable body of opinion inrnthis country . . . thought that whatrnhappened to children was a matterrnfor the parents to decide. The staternshould not come between a fatherrnand his s o n . . . . These argumentsrnwould sound archaic today.rnConant’s concern was to consolidaternand homogenize the American publicrnschool system in the interest of more easilyrnproducing generations of properlyrntrained and regimented Cold War menrnand women—as Russell Kirk, for one,rnclearly perceived, writing in 1958 thatrnbehind “the abolition of rural schools”rnlay the intent of “breaking down regionalrnand vocational distinctions and producingrn’integrated’ Americans.” Todav, thernrationale for consolidation is making uprnto the global economy rather than facingrndown the Soviet Union. The program,rnof course, remains the same.rnWoman suffrage is unique amongrnthe causes discussed in this bookrnfor being the single one the author approvesrnof, while holding nonetheless thatrnthe anti-suffragists’ opposition was healthy,rninsightful, and valuable, in the long as inrnthe short run. The sanctity of the homernwas under siege then as now, “and wiiilernvoting ladies are not the problem [today],rnIda Tarbell, Ruth Wliitney Lyman, andrnthe Sisters left a trail, long-since overgrown,rnthat might just lead us in a morernhumane direction.” Ruth Lyman, arnMassachusetts lady, identifiedrn[t]he fundamental difference [as]rnthis—that the suffragist (like the socialist)rnpersists in regarding the individualrnas the unit of society,rnwhile the anti-suffragist insists thatrnit is the family.. .. Anti-suffrage isrnfounded upon the conception ofrnco-operation between the sexes.rnMen and women must be regardedrnas partners, not competitors;rnand the family, to be preser’ed as arnunit must be represented as havingrnone political head.rnAnd Emma Goldman —Red Emma, thernanarchist—opined thatrnWoman, essentially a purist, is naturallyrnbigoted and relentless in herrneffort to make others as good as shernthinks they ought to be. Thus, inrnIdaho .. . prostitution and gamblingrnhave been prohibited. In thisrnregard the law must needs be ofrnfeminine gender: it always prohibits.rnSo many wrongs to right, and so littlernpower (in Bill Kauffman’s gloss)! But thernantis were encumbered, as he argues, byrntheir own commitment to benignantrnstatism, having themselves promoted therninterference of government agents inrnfamily relations—Catholic and immigrantrnfamilies particularly. And so, lackingrnthe “sturdy philosophical base of therntraditionalists or the anarchists, they simplyrncollapsed.”rnLike “the sake of the children,” “women’srnrights,” and “better education,” “goodrnroads” and a standing army as a contributionrnto “national defense” seemed incontiovertiblerngoods. For Kauffman, though,rnthe Interstate Highway System (inspiredrnby President Eisenhower’s admirationrnfor the Autobahn) stands as a monumentrn”not to capitalist or human action or mechanicalrngenius but to the LeviathanrnState, whose architects wanted a rootlessrnand hypermobile population,” whilernmaintenance of a large standingrnarmy, especially an army in whichrnmen are stationed awav from thatrnplace which they and their familiesrncall home, is a significant factor inrnthe destruction of American familyrnlife. Those who support a largernstanding army do more to underminernAmerican families than dornmost of the exotic bogeymen ofrn”family values” propaganda.rnIn both instances—massive road-buildingrnprograms and a permanent armyprogressivesrntypically defend widescalerndepredations committed against rootedness,rnregionalism, tradition, the Americanrnland, family cohesion, and socialrnmemory by appeal to the progressivernfetish of “mobilit)’,” and even “diversity”;rn”continuous relocations allowed [militaryrnchildren] a broader perspective towardrnother peoples and races and therebyrnavoid the prejudicial stereotyping thatrnwas presumed or experienced amongrnless mobile populations,” according tornone military sociologist. “But why,”rnKauffman wants to know, is mobilityrnconsidered, axiomatically, to be a goodrnthing—”Why? Wliy?” Macaulay thoughtrnfive generations are required to destroyrnthe popular recollection of previousrntimes. If he was right, then today the oldrnAmerican republic scarcely exists evenrnin memory.rnProgress and Bill Kauffman are not exactlyrngood drinking buddies in the saloonsrnof Batavia, New York. Even so, thernpoint of his book is not that no highwaysrnought ever to have been built, that femalesrnnever should have been given thernvote.rnBut there is a cost—often hidden,rnunacknowledged —to these advances,rnand though my own preferencernis for woman suffrage andrnagainst the Interstate Highway System,rnthe anti-Progress critique canrnencompass both—and can introducernus to a valuable way of thinkingrnabout and reckoning change,rneven if we judge change to be forrnthe best.rnMy sole reservation regarding WithrnGood Intentions? is the absence of arnchapter on the close-to-lost cause of thernanti-immigration movement, perhapsrnthe most critical of them all.rnBill Kauffman resembles not in thernleast the stereotypical Don Quixote ofrnpopular reference, but he is very like thatrngood knight as Unamuno understoodrnhim: less the Knight of the DolefulrnCountenance than the Knight of thernGreat Heart, the champion not of literaryrnchivair)’ but rather of the thing itself,rnof Heart that refuses to be seduced byrnMind: a voice crying in the wildernessrnwhere, “though men hear not, the wildernessrnhears, and one day it will be tiansformedrninto a resounding forest. . . . “rnKauffman, as a stalwart defender of reactionaryrnradicalism, understands thatrnwhat his countr)’ requires today is not arncounterfeit “conservative” party to opposerna supposedly “liberal” one, but arnRegressive Party to enter the lists againstrnthe existing bipartisan Pan-Progressivernbehemoth. If and when that actuallyrnhappens, we will have a political systemrntruly accountable to the American people,rnafter which—watch out! And let thernCulture War really begin. < 6rnT(7 SuSscriSe:rn(800) 877-5459rn28/CHRONICLESrnrnrn