Editing 79-11-B2 (section)

=== Transcript ===
A favorite pastime of academicians is to categorize and label what they see as significant
trends or movements in American life. Sometimes, however, these labels are misleading or
premature. Still, Dr. Peter Steinfels makes an admirable attempt to characterize a political
and intellectual group called "neoconservatives" in a new book of that title. One reason
that this label has gained such quick acceptance among political observers is that many
"neoconservatives" welcome the title. They don't mind being called conservatives as long as
you tack the "neo" on the front of it!

Who are the "neoconservatives" and what do they stand for? Dr. Steinfels tosses out
quite a few names, such as Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Irving Kristal, Daniel Bell,
Daniel Boorstin, the late Alexander Bickel, Senator Henry Jackson, Zbigniew Brzezinski and
many others. Steinfels claims that unlike other political labels, "neoconservatism" does
signify a specific set of beliefs. Steinfels lists what "neoconservatives" believe. To
begin with, he says, they are not hostile to the idea of the welfare state, but they are
critical of the Great Society version of it. Second, they respect the market economy as
the best way to allocate resources, though they are willing to interfere when they feel it
is necessary. "Neoconservatives" distrust the so-called "counter-culture" of the 1960's
and emphasize a return to traditional values of religion and the family. "Neoconservatives"
are also highly critical of post-Vietnam war isolationism. They are suspicious of "detente"
and advocate a strong national defense.

Dr. Steinfels emphasizes the strong belief of the "neoconservatives" that the concept
of social stability must be reaffirmed. Many "neoconservatives" could be described as New
Deal Democrats who became disillusioned with American society and politics during the 1960's.
They deplored what they saw as a decline of morality accompanied by a decline of
institutions such as religion, the family and government. They are a pragmatic group, more
interested in keeping the machinery of society working in an orderly way, rather than in
any particular ideology.

Steinfels does a good job defining the beliefs of "neoconservatives" and tracing their
political and social backgrounds. He treats the group objectively, even though he reveals
his own liberal perspective in the book's first paragraph when he makes this nebulous
assertion: If "neoconservatism" should prevail, it "threatens to ... diminish the promise
of American democracy." I suspect that Dr. Steinfels and other liberals take comfort in the
growth of "neoconservatism"--a conservatism that does not rock the welfare state boat or
question, basically, the role of government in our lives. He is quick to declare
"neoconservatism" as: "the serious and intellectual conservatism America has lacked." Well,
that's a curious assertion. I'm sure that William Buckley, Bill Simon, Nobel Prize winner
Milton Friedman and many others would be quite surprised to learn that their more traditional
brand of conservatism is not 'serious and intellectual.' The author does not acknowledge
the contribution of these leading conservative thinkers to the politcal dialogue. A discussion
of the interesting relationship between standard conservatism and "neoconservatism" is sorely
lacking.

But despite this reservation, Peter Steinfels' book is a respectable attempt to define
what has become a potent political and intellectual force--"neoconservatism."

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">