they never address the issues he raised.nToday’s spokesmen for both the leftnand the right have a vested interest innkeeping Nock out of the public eye.nThere is a modest attempt under waynto resuscitate the Old Right with anstrong emphasis on a libertarian viewnof foreign policy. This effort is certainlynworthwhile, not least because itnannoys the managerial elite, who prefernattacks from populist quarters. Asnfor the “little conserva-tives” whoncouldn’t wait to become part of thenestablishment, they should be carefulnabout the intellectual sources theynstrip-mine in their endless quest fornself-justification. These people nonlonger care about Doing the RightnThing. They want to win, careless ofnthe result. Should they happen acrossnThe State of the Union or Our Enemy,nthe State, they might take a moment tonreflect that the “Our” in the latter titlendoesn’t refer to everyone who callsnhimself a conservative.nBrad Linaweaver is author of Moonnof Ice, winner of the PrometheusnAward given annually by thenLibertarian Futurist Society. He is anregular speaker at the Albert JaynNock Forum.nThenAnti-Americansnby William R. HawkinsnAnti-Americanism: Critiques atnHome and Abroad, 1965-1990nby Paul HollandernNew York: Oxford University Press;n515 pp., $35.00nThis latest installment in Paul Hollander’snseries of exposes of leftliberalnthinking has a broader perspectiventhan his previous work. His firstnbook. Political Pilgrims, and subsequentnwritings focused on the affinitynof Western liberals for communistnstates vis-a-vis the United States. Now,nwith the Cold War over and communismndiscredited, the real motive ofnthese people is starkly visible: it was notnso much a love for the communist blocnas it was hatred for the United Statesn36/CHRONICLESnthat drove the left, which embracednMarxism because it seemed to pose thenmost serious challenge to America.nThe failure of the Marxist system doesnnot in any way lessen hostility to thenAmerican one; it only leads to a widernsearch for new alternatives that mightnprove more effective in deposing thenUnited States as the leader of Westernncivilization. “Anti-Americanism” is thenmost accurate description of an ideologynthat is concerned far more withnwhat it opposes than what it supports.nHere is the key to the many contradictionsnobservable in leftist writings onnparticular issues. Leftists loudly proclaimnthe priority of the communitynover the individual, branding privatenproperty as antisocial and conspicuousnconsumption as harmful to the environment.nYet when the question isnAIDS testing to protect public health,nmeasures to apprehend and confinencriminals (Jonathan Kozol deploresn”prison cells for those — too few —nwho will not break”), the duty ofncitizens to provide for the commonndefense, or even the use of socialnpressure against deviate behavior, leftistsnbecome extreme libertarians. Thenelement of consistency that runsnthrough all these positions is the championingnof anything that is at odds withnmainstream society. The bulk of Hollander’snbook deals with statements byna wide variety of leftists who loathenevery aspect of American life. Thisnmakes Hollander’s book a great referencenwork, even though it is organizednmainly by source (Church, HighernEducation, Media, Western Europe,netc.) rather than by topic.nHollander is less satisfying when hentries to explain why radicals feel as theyndo: the counterculture seems simplyntoo alien to him. The central leftistnindictment from which subsidiary onesnderive he terms “inauthenticity.”n”American society,” he writes, “asnexperienced by the critics is permeatednby falsehood, hypocrisy, pretense.nNothing is genuine, original orntrustworthy . . . there is a substantialngap between the way things are supposednto be and the way they really are,na discrepancy between ideals and reality,ntheories and practices, inspirationsnand achievements.” Hollander quotesnChristopher Lasch as saying, “the moralnbottom had fallen out of our culture,”na diagnosis for which he hasnnnsympathy. “I can understand that thenopenness, the freedoms and the moralethicalnfree-for-all characteristic ofnAmerican society and culture can bentroublesome and burdensome …nlacking in solid structures and necessarynlimitations.” The left has madengood use of this insight in its campaignnto subvert the churches, and manynconservatives echo the indictment (thenright also being a dissident movement).nThe left places the endre blame onncapitalism, which it takes as a synonymnfor modernity, and many critics on thenright also fault modern capitalism as itnis defended by libertarians, who notnonly claim preeminence for “the market”nover all other aspects of life butnpreach a basic incompatibility betweenneconomic calculation and “irrational”nfeelings of morality or loyalty. Suchnapologists condone homosexuality onnthe ground that the average householdnincome of childless sodomite couples isnabove the national average and thusnshould be regarded as an importantnsource of consumer spending. Meanwhile,nindustries vital to the long-termngrowth and security of the UnitednStates are transferred overseas (ornallowed to die in favor of foreignnsources) by a managerial elite that hasnsimply shrugged off every noHon of annadonal identity.nConservatives, however, know thatnprivate enterprise predates the developmentnof the rootless laissez-faire philosophy.nThe puritan, bourgeois, andnpatriohc virtues are not only compatiblenwith, but essential to, the long-runnsurvival of capitalist systems, just asncapitalism is essential to the materialnprogress of virtuous sociedes. It is thentraditional values that provide thenframework that prevents capitalismnfrom shaking itself to pieces. Conservativesnthus advocate a matrix of values tonstrengthen society, such as those associatednwith economic nationalism.nLeftists understand these connectionsntoo. As feminist Andrea Dworkin says,n”the destruction of the middle-classnlifestyle is crucial. . . . We want to destroynpatriarchal power at its source, thenfamily and its most hideous form, thennation-state.”nIt is the radical view itself, however,nthat is endrely “inauthentic”: a visionnin which nothing is clear except thatnUtopia must be fundamentally differentnfrom any society that has ever existedn