PDF File

andt-all worked outlandish hours, with
complete dedication; all were at one time
considered 'teched.' This nation was not
founded by moderates. Washington, Adams,
Jefferson, Madison, all were radical revolutionaries.
There is something immoderate
about anything new; anything great; any invention,
any principle."
These libertarians charge that moderation
is just not exciting-it's more appropriate
for people who have finished their
lives, who see nothing new to live for, than
to Princeton tigers who used to have riotously
exciting times founding such gadfly
org:anizations as The Veterans of Future
Wars.
Where Lies the Joy?
We miss this tone of excitement as you
report on your friends, Tom. America used
to be a stimulating country to grow up in.
But where is the excitement today which
G;lretGarrett, for example, records in The
American Story? He tells about the first
breathless generation of free America. The
things which went on all were immoderate
excesses, and very exciting.
It was a time of ferment, wild enthusiasm,
huge experiments, horrible mistakes;
but the mistakes were almost always privately
made. And people felt that freedom
was good, though sometimes abused.
Some of your friends will be excited by
the joyous quality of Garrett's The American
Story. Others will say: "You can't turn
back the clock-you can't go back."
In Fuld Hall-Time Running Out?
This shows our own libertarian failure to
communicate; radical libertarians don't
want to turn back the clock; they want to
see a new revolution, not only industrial but
psychological, that is, a revolution as inventive
in the ReId of spiritual progress as
laissez-faire was in material progress.
This is the main point of my letter to you,
Tom. We need innovators desperately, now
more than ever before. Princeton's advanced
thinkers over in Fuld Hall will tell
you that; for they all believe that time is
DECEMBER 1956
running out for the human race, unless man
turns from destruction to creativity.
If time is running out, then your friends
should get off their mattresses and seek
contemporary spiritual answers. This is why
we hate to see them following Reinhold
Niebuhr. His philosophy isn't new; it's a
retreat from the Left.
Since Niebuhr claims to have reconciled
coercion with liberty I don't blame your
friends for regarding him as the philosopher
of New Conservatism. But I don't think even
Dr. Niebuhr claims this honor. I can understand
your regard for him. He is hailed as
a philosopher who aims his religious theories
at the real problems of today. No one
on our side of the street can strike a similar
pose. Naturally, your friends seek out someone
who speaks to their needs.
Yet they should be warned against labeling
Dr. Niebuhr as a conservative, if they
want the word to retain meaning. True, he
has taken the position of your friends:
power balanced by power, forgetting Lord
Acton's warning. (Naturally, this is not a
theological idea: it contradicts the power
of love.)
"We Suspect Ideas"
Niebuhr remains an "ideal" Socialist, as
opposed to a crusading Socialist-perhaps
because he isn't quite sure. He is still sure
enough to be Honorary State Chairman of
the A.D.A., and a supporter of the policies
of the New Leader, a doctrinaire Socialist
magazine. Is this the New Conservative?
I believe your friends sought out Niebuhr
because he gives a voice to their unconscious
premises, which seem to say: "We
suspect all ideas. We can't believe in anything
exciting, nor throw ourselves wholeheartedly
into anything. We don't want to
carve a home out of the wilderness. We
hope to maintain the economic system we've
inherited, but the government may have to
take over more and more of it, as life grows
more complex. Weare helpless. There is
nothing we can do against the forces of
change and environment but lie down on
our moderate mattresses."
9