3;2.0r6-
8
~ ;L3
~
Mira Costa College
Radical, liberal, moderate, conservative, and reactionary are among the
.
most commonly used political terms. Each has a precise meaning in political science, and this meaning mayor may not conform to the definition used in ordinary conversation. Since these terms are frequently used in political discussions, the beginning student should understand their"precise meanings. Note, however, that these terms have no value in themselves. Each has a specific meaning, but no label is necessarily good or bad in itself. Actually, any valid explanation of political terms must include consideration of two basic concepts: change and values. In this chapter we will first study the concept of change. Then we will discuss
.
the meanings of the most common political terms and their relationship to the concept of intent or political values.
Before proceeding, however, we should arrange the terms radical,
liberal, moderate, conservative, and reactionary along a continuum in order to gain a pictorial perspective on them. The linear diagram used in
Figure 1-1 is helpful in many ways. However, we will soon find that its value is limited and that we must use a different diagram in order to gain a fuller understanding of these terms.
When they are arrayed from left to right in this fashion, we can see
Left I Radical I
Liberal
I
Moderate Canservative Reactionary
I I I Right

2
The Spectrum of Political Attitudes certain relationships among the terms with which we are concerned. For instance, the radical is at the far left of the spectrum and the reactionary is at the opposite extreme. This tells us something important.
In politics the term radical means an extremist of the left but not of the right.1 In everyday conversation, on the other hand, the term radical is usually used to refer to an extremist at either end of the spectrum. Sadly, even some political scientists use the term incorrectly in unguarded moments. Such will not be the case in this book. The term radical will be used only to indicate the far left of the political spectrum.
CHANGE
People at each point on the political spectrum have an attitude toward change in the existing political system (the
.
of each group toward change,we will be taking a large step toward understanding what the terms
Be careful to note, however, that change is only one of the concepts with which we must deal in defining these terms, and that our definition will
we have
of various groups.
and we must actually learn four things about it. First we must determine the direction in which the proposed change would carry the society. Put differently, is the change progressive or retrogressive? At this point the reader should be on guard.
no
of these concepts. Our society generally has a favorable bias toward progress. But in fact, progress is not necessarily good or bad. It has no intrinsic value
a
something new and different. Conversely, retrogressive change refers to a return to a policy or institution that has been used by that society in
of a
pulsory public medical-insurance program, or "socialized medicine" if you
a
be a
ward the government's role in the field of public health. On the other hand, one might favor returning the present U.S. Postal Service to its previous status within the President's cabinet. Such a position would clearly be retrogressive in this society.
A quick glance at the political spectrum represented in Figure 1-1
1 The terms left and right come to us from the French political tradition.
Those who generally supported the policies of the monarch were seated to his right.
and those who proposed changes in the system were seated to his left.
The Spectrum of Political Attitudes 3 might lead one to assume that the watershed between progressive and retrogressive change may be found in the moderate sector. This is not the case. Actually it lies between the conservative and reactionary sectors, and the line between these two sectors can be taken to represent no change at all, or continuation of the status quo. (See Figure 1-2.)
As Figure 1-2 shows, each sector, from conservative leftward to radical, is interested in a change from the status quo to something that the society has not yet experienced.
Only the reactionary wants a change from the status quo to something that existed previously.
At this point some people might protest that they consider them-
they would prefer
institution to the present one. Does this make them reactionaries? Yes, it does-in relation to that particular ~ssue. Although they might correctly consider themselves to be conservative as a general rule, they-like most of us-will find themselves at several different places on the spec-
to a
of
consistent in our views, nor is there any particular reason to be so. Indeed, upon careful scrutiny most people will find it difficult to place
on
will range over two or even three sectors on the spectrum. Typically,
a general
selves supporting liberal policies more frequently than any other position
we
selves as liberals.
is the depth of a
to a major or a minor adjustment in the society? Would it modify or replace an institution that is fundamental to the society as it now exists? If so, what is the likelihood that the proposed change will cause unforeseeable and uncontrollable
a
a
from college would undoubtedly inconvenience and annoy some students.
But such a policy change would probably have almost no disruptive effect on the society as a whole. On the other hand, if a state were to
Progressive
Change ~
I
Radical
I
Liberal
Moderate
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
Conservative
~
Reactionary
.
I
Retrogressive
Change
Status QUo/
Figure 1-2

4 The Spectrum of Political Attitudes greatly reduce its funding of the college system the impact of such a policy would be enormous, changing thousands and perhaps millions of lives and eventually affecting the society as a whole. Further, although it is possible to anticipate some of the consequences of such a policy change, it is impossible to accurately predict all, or even most, of the subsequent changes, problems, or benefits that might result from such an action. As a general rule, the more basic the change, the more unpredictable, disruptive, and uncontrollable its effects will be.
Once again, as with the direction of change, the watershed for the depth of change is at the line between conservative and reactionary, or at the "status quo" point on the spectrum. The farther people find tbemselves from the status quo, the more dissatisfied they are with the existing order and the more intense their desire for change. (See Figure 1-3.)
Individuals in the areas labeled A are extremely dissatisfied with the existing system and propose changes that would strike at the foundations of the society. In short, such a change would revolutionize the society.
People in the areas labeled B basically support the existing system but see many problems in it. They propose changes that would significantly modify the society but would leave its foundations intact. Those in area
C are basically content with the society as it is and would support only superficial changes.
The third aspect of change that we must consider is the speed at which people want it to occur. Obviously. the more upset people are with the status quo, the more impatient they are likely to be and, therefore, the more rapidly they would like to see the existing order modified.
Hence, although it cannot be claimed that there is an absolute correspondence between the depth of change people desire and the speed at which they would like to see modification occur, it is possible to argue that there is often a general correspondence between the two. That is, because both attitudes relate to a common factor (the status quo), the intensity with which people feel alienated from the existing system
Extreme
ChanQe
Figure 1-3
Radical
.A
Liberal
Status Quo
Superficial Change
I
I
I i
I
I
I Moderate I Conservative!
Reactionary I
..
Extreme
Change
B C B .A
The Spectrum of Political Attitudes 5 usually corresponds with the depth and rapidity of the change they desire.
The last factor we must consider regarding the concept of change is the method by which it occurs. Political change can take place in a multitude of ways: officially or unofficially; legally, illegally, or extralegally; peacefully or violently. It is tempting for some people to conclude that those who would use violence to gain their political objectives are extremists. This, however, is not necessarily the case. True, violence is a major tool of certain extremist political groups. But violence is used by people at practically every point on the political spectrum. The death penalty, property expropriation, and warfare itself are examples of forms of violence supported by people distributed all along the political continuum.
Thus it is unwise to jump to, conclusions about the methods others use to accomplish their political goals.
It is possible, however, to make some generalizations about the methods employed for political change. For example, the farther we are from the status quo on the political spectrum, the more likely we are to find ourselves in opposition to the laws of the society. This is so because the law is a form of communication that sets forth the purposes, goals, and structure of the society. People who are opposed to those purposes, goals, or structure will necessarily be at odds with the law. Hence, it is usually easier for conservatives to be law abiding and patriotic, since they are satisfied with the system. Radicals, liberals, or reactionaries, by contrast, find it much more difficult to abide willingly by all the laws or to wave the flag as enthusiastically as their conservative counterparts.
Put differently, 'a person living in a comfortable suburban neighborhood might find it harder to understand why the capitalist system should be modified through social reform than a person living in an urban ghetto.
Nevertheless one should not assume from this discussion that conservatives would never violate the law to gain their political objectives. It sometimes happens that even those who control the laws of a society may not benefit from them at a given time. In such circumstances it is not unlikely that an otherwise upstanding "pillar of society" would ignore or even violate the law. Examples include the incredible career of the
"law-and-order man," Richard M. Nixon; the refusal of corporations to comply with legislated health and safety requirements; and landlords painting their homes in the suburbs and writing off the cost as maintenance for their rental properties in the central city. Thus it should be clear that the methods people use to achieve political change are complex. It is inaccurate to conclude that certain methods are the monopoly of a single sector of the political spectrum. It is usually safe to say, however, that those who identify least with the existing order are most apt to resort to illegal and perhaps violent means to bring about change.

6 The Spectrum of Political Attitudes
With the preceding general guide in mind, let us now turn to a consideration of each term on the political spectrum to determine the specific attitude of each group toward the concept of political change.
Radical
The term radical is the most misunderstood of the five we are considering here. As explained earlier, it is often mistakenly used to refer to extremists on both the right and the left. Another common misunderstanding about this term is the belief that the radical is necessarily violent. Not all radicals are violent.
In general terms, a radical may be defined as a person who is extremely dissatisfied with the society as it is and therefore is impatient with less than extreme proposals for changing it. Hence, all radicals would favor an immediate and fundamental change in the society. In other words, all radicals favor revolutionary change. The criteria that distinguish one radical from another most clearly are the methods they would use to bring about a particular change. To illustrate this distinction, the radical sector has been divided into four sections in Figure
1-4.
Note that these divisions are not intended to imply that there are only four different kinds of radicals. Rather, they are intended simply to point out the differences in degree among radicals.
Section A is, of course, the most extreme radical position.
Individuals this far out on the political spectrum are extremely dissatisfied with the existing order and are probably greatly frustrated by it. Therefore they propose not only that the system be immediately changed at its foundations but that it be changed by violent means. They believe that the society is so corrupt, so bad, so perverted that only fire will cleanse it.
They argue that if change were to occur by any method short of violence, the reformers would have to compromise with the very people who are corrupting the present system, and that such a compromise would infect the new system with the same evils that made the previous one unacceptable. Hence, one must "burn [the system] down and rebuild on its ashes." Clearly some members of the Students for a Democratic Society
(SDS), from whom the preceding quotation was taken, were in this
Figure 1-4
Radical
I AI B Ic I D1
Liberal Moderate
I
Conservative Reactionary
II
Status Quo
I
The Spectrum of Political Attitudes category between 1966 and 1969. Marxists who insist that violence between socialists and capitalists is inevitable also fall into this category.
Sections Band C are variations on the same theme. People in these sections are displeased and frustrated by the existing system. Yet since their position on the spectrum is slightly less distant from the status quo, one can expect that the intensity of their frustration, impatience, and extremism is somewhat tempered. Each group proposes basic change in the society and argues that the change must occur immediately, but they differ with the people in section A, and with each other, over the need for violence. People in section B argue that although violence is not essential to meaningful change, it is probably necessary. Because the change they propose is so disruptive of the status quo, those in section B believe that anyone who supports the exjsting order "would rather fight than switch." Yet the people in section B do not insist that violence is the only way of bringing about meaningful change; they simply believe that it is the most likely way.
Those who find themselves in section C of the radical sector are very reluctant to use violence as a method of bringing about change. They would use it only as a last resort. In other words, they are also frustrated with the system, and they also propose fundamental and immediate change, but violence is to be used only if change is impossible by any other means. If, however, they were asked to choose between change with violence and no change without violence, they would opt for the former.
People in section D of the radical sector are not usually classified as radicals by the casual observer. But, after careful consideration one must conclude that no other logical designation can be made for people of this persuasion. These people, like other radicals, propose fundamental and immediate change in the society, but they refuse to use violence to accomplish their political objectives. Excellent examples of this kind of attitude can be found in the careers of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. Both leaders organized great social movements demanding immediate and profound change in their societies, yet each refused to use violence to reach his goals, even after he had suffered violence at the hands of supporters of the status quo.
It is appropriate at this point to clarify the term violence as it is used in this book. It is often argued that violating a law or disrupting the normal course of events by using techniques of passive resistance such as sit-down strikes or parading without a permit are forms of violence.
We will not include such actions in our definition of violence; rather, we will use the term violence in a narrow sense. That is, violence means doing injury or damage to people or property. With this understanding, let us underscore a point made earlier. Many casual observers not only equate radicalism with extremism at either end of the political spectrum

8
The Spectrum of Political Attitudes but also assume that all radicals are violent. This assumption is definitely not the case. Considering the current values of most societies, refusal to fight for one's country constitutes an abrupt break with the norm and is therefore a radical position, but it is obviously not a violent one.
Having established that people can be radical without relying on violence, we confront an apparent contradiction.
Earlier we said that all radicals favor revolution.
Yet if some radicals are pacifists, how can all radicals be revolutionary? The answer can easily be found by clearing up another common misunderstanding.
People normally believe that all revolutions are violent. But this is not so at all. Violence is not inherent in revolution. Many revolutions are accompanied by violence, but many are not. The term revolution means a profound or fundamental change in a social, economic, cultural, or political system that occurs in a relatively brief period. Hence, while the American, French, and Russian revolutions were violent transformations of the political order of those countries, the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, and the Jacksonian Revolution all represented fundamental changes in society. Thus they qualify as revolutions even though they were essentially peaceful.
To review, then, radicals are extremists at the left of the political spectrum. They are very frustrated by and dissatisfied with the existing political system. Consequently they propose fundamental changes in that system, and they insist that those changes be carried out immediately; both these characteristics make their proposals "revolutionary." While most radicals have very little confidence in or support for existing law, only some of them wiII actually use violence to achieve their political goals.
Liberal
Since the liberal sector is closer to the status quo point on the continuum than the radical category, the liberal is significantly less discontented with the existing society than the radical. Indeed, the liberal supports the basic features of that society. However, liberals are quick to recognize weaknesses in the society and therefore are anxious to reform the system. In general terms, liberals are not nearly as frustrated with the society as radicals, but they are impatient with its deficiencies, as they see them, and therefore favor raPid and relatively far-reaching, progressive changes in the society.
One of the most fundamental differences between the radical and the liberal is the attitude of each toward the law. Since radicals are basically opposed to the political system that governs them, they are apt to see the law as one way in which those who control the society maintain their control. Hence, radicals find it hard to respect the law. Liberals, on
The Spectrum of Political Attitudes the other hand, generalIy respect the concept of the law, and although they may want to change certain specifics of the law, they usuaIly wiII not violate it. Instead, they wiII try to change the law through legal procedures. Liberals seek change in the system by several important means,
9
A slight exception to the foregoing should be considered here. One of the drawbacks of the diagrams presented earlier is the fact that the lines between radical, liberal, moderate, and so forth are clear and well defined. In reality, however, the distinctions between the sectors are vague. For example, in many ways a person at the extreme right of the radical sector and a person at the far left of the liberal sector will have more in common with each other than, they would with people at the opposite end of their own sector. Accordingly, it should come as no surprise to find that people at the far left of the liberal sector will sometimes resort to techniques used by those at the far right of the radical sector. These liberals might very welI violate certain laws to achieve their goals. It would not be particularly surprising to see a liberal violate the
Jim Crow laws of Alabama to further the cause of integration, or to lie down in front of a train carrying munitions to a California port to demonstrate opposition to the Indochina war. But these exceptions do not represent the major thrust of liberal thinking. Most liberals would reject violation of the law as a legitimate way of changing the political order.
Liberalism is one of the intelIectual by-products of the development of the scientific method. During the medieval era people looked heavenward for divine relief from their wretched earthly existence. Faith in human potential, as welI as esteem for humankind in general, was very low. Gradually, however, inquisitive people such as Copernicus, GaIileo, and Bacon made discoveries that revolutionized our attitudes toward ourselves and our function in life. Through use of the scientific method people began to make improvements in their material existence, and in doing so they began to develop confidence in their ability to solve many problems that they had previously borne with little complaint.
It was not long before people began to conclude that if technological problems could be solved through the use of human reason, the same could be done with social and political problems.
This speculation led to the philosophy of liberalism.
Optimism about people's ability to solve their problems is the keynote of liberalism.
It stems from a fundamental faith in human reason. Hence, the liberal is apt to apply reason to every problem and to be confident that this wiII lead to a positive solution. It is this wiIIingness to "trifle" with "tried and true" social institutions that causes the conservative such anxiety about

10 The Spectrum of Political Attitudes the liberal. Nothing is sacred to the liberal. Anything can be changed for the better.
Change has remained the major tool of liberalism throughout its long history. Consequently its specific objectives have been revised from time to time. What was once desirable to liberals may be unacceptable to them today, so that the exact meaning of liberalism has evolved over the years. For example, the original or classical liberals, as we will see in more detail in Chapter 3, believed that all human beings were equal by nat-
ural law (i.e., certain rules of nature governing human conduct that could be discovered through the use of human reason).
They also believed that government was oppressive if it was given too much power; therefore the less government the better. In addition, private property was held in high esteem. Indeed, the classical liberals believed that property was a natural right, to be protected from government confiscation at all cost.
Contemporary liberals, as will be seen in Chapter 4, still uphold several of the notions developed by their classical predecessors. They are still optimistic about our ability to improve life through human reason.
Change, therefore, is still a major tool of the liberal. Human equality is another concept that the liberal continues to support, but the basis for the assumption of equality has changed. Few, if any, liberals still believe in the concept of natural law. Instead, the contemporary liberal is more likely to argue that although there are a wide variety of differences among individuals, we are all equal in our humanity and therefore are all entitled to fundamentally equal treatment. In addition, contemporary liberals prefer to use government as a tool to help improve the conditions of human life, rather than insisting that government stay out of people's affairs. Moreover, finding that some people have used their control of property to unfair advantage over less fortunate individuals, contemporary liberals temper their belief in the individual's right to accumulate property with concern for the happiness of the society as a whole.
Two difficulties have traditionally plagued the liberal, whether classical or contemporary.
The most consistent problem encountered by liberals (and radicals, for that matter is inability to unify. Liberals have difficulty enough agreeing on what aspects of society are wrong and need to be changed. But this is not their principal dispute. Large numbers of people on the left can, albeit after considerable debate, agree on what areas need reform. Where they often cannot agree is on the specific changes that are necessary. Since liberals and radicals propose to change the status quo to something that has not been tried before in their society, a great variety of alternatives are possible. There are as many possible solutions to a given problem as there are leftists. (The people on the right, as you will see, do not suffer from this problem to the same
The Spectrum of Political Attitudes
11 degree.)
be relatively short-lived, and the various factions soon lapse into internal squabbling.
For this reason leftist movements tend not to last long.
The second difficulty experienced by liberals is the knowledge that the modifications they suggest could fail to improve the society. Because liberals propose something new and different, they can never be completely sure of success. Indeed, their plan could backfire and leave the society in a worse position than before. Responsible liberals, it would appear, must be very cautious about what they propose as improvements in the society, and they must be prepared to admit failure if the consequences warrant it.
To review, liberals are fairly dissatisfied with particular aspects of the system but support its fundamental characteristics. Accordingly, they propose rapid change that is far-reaching but less than revolutionary.
They are optimistic about our ability to improve ourselves and will experiment with a society's institutions to achieve that goal. They believe that people are rational and that they are basically equal. Today they believe that people should use government to increase their happiness.
Thus they favor government regulation of the accumulation and use of private property.
Moderate
Moderates are basically satisfied with the society, although they agree that there is room for improvement and recognize several specific areas in need of modification. However, they insist that changes in the system should be made gradually and that no change should be so extreme as to disrupt the society. Because there is a bias toward moderation in our society, we must be vigilant in our study of this political label.
Moderation as a cultural predisposition, for example, has elicited biting criticism from the fascists, who maintained that democracy rewards mediocrity and discourages the unusual or excellent. Other critics argue that the moderate position tends to attract a large number of people who are unwilling or unable to commit themselves to a political position.
Instead of admitting that they are unfamiliar with a given issue, they will take what appears to be an objective stance, one that allows them "to see ,both sides."
Ironically, it is in our study of the moderate that consideration of emotion, not reason, is relevant. Most radicals, liberals, conservatives, and reactionaries are informed about issues and knowledgeable about alternative policies. They have considered the available options and have concluded that the system should be either destroyed, modified, maintained, or returned to a previous order. We must not. forget that there

12 The Spectrum of Political Attitudes are radicals who do not understand why the system injures them; they just want to "burn the damned thing down." Similarly, there are liberals who support change for its own sake rather than for the sake of clearly defined improvements.
Likewise, some conservatives oppose any change that they believe will disrupt their life, just as some reactionaries look back nostalgically to "the good old days." Many moderates also are informed about current issues and have rationally weighed the alternative policies. Yet there are many more who appear reasonable and sensible on the surface but never really take a position at all. If a person takes a definitely liberal or conservative stance, he or she is likely to be called upon to defend or at least explain it. However, people who call themselves moderates can usually satisfy their listeners by saying, "Each side has its good points." This equivocation tends to satisfy the American values of fair play and political moderation.
The reader must be careful not to overdraw what is being said here.
I do not mean to suggest that the moderate sector is the only one in which we will find people who are uninformed on current issues; far from it. Nor do I wish to suggest that all or even most moderates are ignorant on those issues, and I certainly do not wish to imply that a moderate position on an issue is valueless. I do, however, maintain that because of the basic values of American society the largest number of people who do not understand the political system, and yet are unwilling to admit it, will take a moderate position when pressed for an opinion.
To restate the definition, then, a moderate is essentially pleased with the society but realizes that some things should be changed. The changes must be gradual and shallow, however, as moderates reject disrupting a society with which they are largely satisfied.
Conservative
Conservatives are the most contented with the status quo. They are basically pleased with the system and, consequently, are not interested in a great deal of change. They will support extremely slow and very superficial alteration of the system, but will often resist even seemingly minor changes. They tend to see an intrinsic value in existing institutions and are unwilling to tamper with them, claiming that to do so might seriously damage that which tradition has perfected.
To say that conservatives are satisfied with things the way they are is certainly not to say that they are complacent. Indeed, conservatives are active not in seeking change, like their counterparts on the left, but in defending the system against those whom they believe threaten it.
Of course not all conservatives are equally resistant to change. Obviously, those who are closest to the status quo point on the spectrum are
The Spectrum of Political Attitudes 13 the least inclined to desire change. And although it seems unlikely that many people are absolutely content with the system and are opposed to any change in it whatsoever, there are people who take this position.
Each of us, however, could probably find one or two areas in which we would prefer no change at all. Still, most conservatives will accept some deviation from the status quo, be it ever so slight.
Earlier we said that because they are satisfied with the society it is usually easier for conservatives to obey the law, though on occasion even they will violate it to attain their political objectives. In fact, some conservatives are not above using the law to suit their own purposes. Vagrancy laws are a case in point. In some parts of the country the vagrancy laws have been relaxed during the harvest season. Then, when all the fruit has been harvested, these laws have been enforced once again, thus sweeping the transient'laborers off the streets and out of the sight of the "good people."
Conservatism has, of course, been a prominent political position from the beginning, but it was not until Edmund Burke (1729-1797) put pen to paper that it was given a formal philosophical base. Many people had defended conservative positions before, but no one had dealt with conservatism itself with the brilliance or thoroughness of Burke.'
Basically, conservatives are pessimistic about our ability to improve our lot through the use of reason. While they do not deny the importance of reason, they are wary of relying too heavily on it for solutions to human problems. They have less faith than the liberal that people can use reason to restrain their animalistic impulses and their emotions. As you will recall, liberals believe that people are basically good and that they can generally be trusted to do the right thing when left alone. On the other hand, conservatives mistrust human nature. They see people as relatively base and even somewhat sinister. Hence, conservatives tend to favor authoritarian controls over the individual and over the society as
.
Also, because of their mistrust of reason conservatives will often rely
2
conservatives look to religion for the answers to eternal questions, while liberals tend to seek solutions in other, more self-reliant ways. Put
2 Note: The term irrational is not intended to imply that conservatives lack the rational or intellectual prowess of their opponents.
In this book the term irra-
tional only signifies persons who see severe limitations in people's ability to solve problems through the use of reason. While reason is thought useful for certain minor tasks, conservatives look instead to elements beyond their own control such as institutions, authority, tradition, and religion for answers to the most serious difficulties.
Our society remains a product of the liberal tradition.
The philosophies

14 The Spectrum of Political Attitudes another way, liberals are more likely to be atheistic or agnostic than conservatives. It should not surprise the reader to find that most religions are basically conservative. Conservatives tend to be religious and religions tend to be conservative, and they both rely on powers beyond human reason for the answers to their problems.
To conservatives reason is of limited use in making life better. They tend to place great importance on institutions and traditions that have evolved over time. They value longevity for its own sake and resist change in social institutions.
This "stay with the winner" syndrome is supported by the belief that the justification for any institution today is, in part, the fact that it was worthwhile in the past.
Another area in which the liberal and the conservative differ is on the concept of human equality. The liberal assumes that all people are essentially equal even though they have widely diverse characteristics. To the conservative this position is more wish than fact. In the conservative's opinion the differences among people are so great in both quality and quantity as to make any claim of human equality absurdly idealistic.
There has always been great inequality among people and there always will be, and to attempt to construct a society on any other assumption is pure folly. The well-governed society is one in which people know their place. It is one in which people who are lower on the social scale recognize their superiors and willingly submit to their rule. The elite, in turn, is responsible for ruling benevolently and effectively. But nothing good will result if either group pretends that the inferior people share equal political rights with the ruling group.
As Edmund Burke bluntly explained,
The occupation of a hair-dresser, or of a working tallow-chandler, cannot be a matter of honor to any person-to say nothing of a number of other more servile employments. Such description of men ought not to suffer oppression from the state; but the state suffers oppression, if such as they, either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule.
Interestingly, the present conservative position on property is very close to the classical liberal attitude toward private property. The conservative believes that private property is an inalienable right of the individual and that it is one of the important factors that distinguish upon which our civilization is based imply confidence in human rationality to grasp the complexities of life and to improve conditions using thought.
Consequently.
to be rational is usually considered a positive trait and to be irrational a negative one. These, however, are value judgments which I do not wish to ascribe to liberal and conservative camps. Indeed, no value at all is applied to the terms rational and irrational in these pages. They are only used to de.
scribe attitudes regarding the potential of human reason.
The Spectrum of Political Attitudes 15 one
nates virtually every other right. Consequently government has no legitimate power to interfere with the individual's accumulation or use of private property unless this activity causes injury, death, or the destruc-
of
cumstances. For example, conservatives have for years opposed government regulation of the coal mines, which would reduce the incidence of black lung disease, because they argue that such regulation would amount to unnecessary involvement of the government in the lives of individuals and the private affairs of the coal companies.
Of all the arguments made by conservatives to justify their position, clearly the most attractive is the promise of political order. This preference for discipline alone attracts many people who might otherwise be drawn to other parts of the political spectrum. Radicals and liberals offer change, new ideas, different institutions; but even if these were to succeed, the process of change itself would disrupt the society fora time.
As it happens, large numbers of people have very low thresholds for disorder. Thus change, even though it might be for the better in the long run, disturbs them and they resist it. They are even willing to suffer a system that is somewhat harmful to their interests rather than go
of
day lives. Order, then, is a powerful selling point for the conservative philosophy.
.
To review, conservatives are very contented with the status quo.
They tend to be suspicious of the power of human reason and are therefore pessimistic about people's ability to improve their lot through the use of reason. They respect tradition and established institutions for their own sake as well as for their social effectiveness. They favor only very slow and superficial progressive change in the status quo. They believe that the property right is among the most important rights because private property is one of the basic distinctions between unequal people. Their method and approach to social problems tends to be authoritarian and elitist, and their most prized contribution to the society is order and stability.
Reactionary
Earlier we learned that the term radical is the most misused of the five terms we are considering here because it is often applied to both the left and right extremes of the political spectrum. For the same reason,
reactionary is the most seldom used of these five terms. Nevertheless, of all the political positions discussed here only the reactionary proposes

16 The Spectrum of Political Attitudes retrogressive change. That is, reactionaries favor a policy that would return the society to a previous condition or even a former value system.
Before we go further, we should return to Figures I-I through 1-4 and note that they are distorted in one important respect. As explained earlier, the intensity of opposition to the status quo increases as one moves farther to the left or right of the status quo point on the spectrum.
The distortion in Figures 1-1 through 1-4 is in the length of the reactionary sector. In these diagrams the reactionary sector is no longer than any other sector, leading one to believe that a person at the extreme right of the reactionary sector is no more discontented with the system than a person at the leftmost point of the conservative sector. Actually nothing could be further from the truth. In point of fact, the person farthest to the right among reactionaries is just as frustrated as the person at the leftmost point of the radical sector. To be accurate in this respect, the reactionary sector should actually be extended so that it is as long as the conservative, moderate, liberal, and radical sectors combined.
(See Figure
As Figure 1-5 indicates, the intensity of feelings about the status quo and the actions proposed by people at different points on the spectrum demonstrate a huge range and an enormous variety. The reactionary sector extends from basic satisfaction with the society as it is on the far left to an extremely dissatisfied and frustrated attitude toward the status quo on the far right. While a moderate might cautiously support some gradual progressive change in the existing political order, a perso~ at the center or the left of the reactionary sector might support a mild reform that would adopt some of the policies of an earlier time. And just as the leftmost radical wants to destroy the present system and replace it with a brand-new one, the reactionary on the far right would destroy the existing system and return to former values and institutions.
While the radical would lead us to the "brave new world," the extreme reactionary would return us to the warrior state. Each position is equally revolutionary
.
The progression in method is similar to the progression in intent.
4
Radical
Progressive Change
Liberal
I
Moderate
I
I
I
1
I
Conservative!
I :
Status Quo
Figure 1-5
Retrogressive Change
Reactionary
The Spectrum of Political Attitudes 17
The closer people are to the status quo, the less impatient and frustrated they are and the more socially acceptable their methods. But just as the
Marxist at the far left insists that no change without violence is valid, so too the fascist at the extreme right argues that war is good in and of itself.
VALUES
Having dealt with the concept of change, the reader is now prepared to distinguish a radical from a liberal or a moderate. But the perceptive reader has probably begun to wonder wlJ.ether one must not know more about people than their attitudes toward change in order to understand their political attitudes.
For example, is it possible for a liberal and a reactionary to support exactly the same policy even when it proposes a basic change in the society? Yes, it is possible. The change itself is not important; what is significant is the anticipated result. Intent or expectation strikes at something much more fundamental
simply the concept of change. It leads us to an investigation of basic political values and motivations.
To illustrate this possibility, let us return to the question we asked a moment ago. In the early 1970s
a liberal
a
from Arizona. Herein lies a classic example of the old axiom that "politics makes strange bedfellows." Since Cranston and Goldwater are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, and since the policy that ended the
in a
these two senators cooperate on the proposed policy? The answer lies in the fact that each senator, though he recognized the other's point of view, had different expectations regarding the results of the policy. Senator
Cranston believed that eliminating the draft would free the young men
form
involuntary servitude. Senator Goldwater, on the other hand, favored ending the draft because it would be replaced by a professional military.
of those expectations was met by the same
on a different value. In this
Senator Cranston was concerned with the liberty of the individual while
a more professional
greater national security.
The question of political values and motivations is a complex
of this book.

18
The Spectrum of Political Attitudes
Still, the subject cannot be ignored. It must be dealt with, at least superficially, as a conflict between
Most people in our society have a fairly good understanding of human rights, since they
Independence and in specific terms in the Constitution of the United
Rights.
the pursuit of happiness, freedom of press, speech, and religion, habeas
corpus, and so forth. These rights and liberties were incorporated into our political tradition by the classical liberals of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
As mentioned earlier, the property right was also originally thought to be a
and David Ricardo were convinced that people could not be truly free unless they were unhindered in the accumulation and use of private property. It was not long, however, before liberals observed that the control of property by some people could be used to deny liberty to others. Hence,
to a
of rights. Today it is considered a social
but not a human or inalienable right, by liberals. Indeed, people as close to Locke's time as
Thomas Jefferson and Jean Jacques Rousseau refused to recognize property as an inalienable right. One of the most hotly debated phrases in the
of
of happiness." More conservative people than Jefferson, its author, argued that the phrase should be changed to read "life, liberty, and
of course. But later, while
a much more
of men gathered in Philadelphia to write a new constitution. In it only scant mention was made of the
people. Indeed, it was not until the Fifth Amendment was adopted that
of inalienable
that reference would read "life, liberty, and property." Clearly conservatives were in control of the country at that time. Although this subject is
a
rights to be separate and distinct from property rights.
The term property ,"ights is usually understood in the narrow sense.
is, a
long as that endeavor does not injure anyone, damage another person's property, or unnecessarily interfere with someone else's property rights.
This definition is useful for most purposes, but it is too restrictive for the distinction that follows. For our discussion the definition of property rights must be expanded to include territoriality or nationalism.
Nationalism, reduced to its simplest terms, is a kind of territoriality or
sandbox
The Spectrum of Political Attitudes 19 box, and we are expected to play in it and not to disturb other people in their sandboxes. Thus there is a possessiveness about nationalism, and a personal identity with the nation, that approaches the property ethic
smaller
As Figure 1-6 indicates, those toward the left on the political spectrum tend to give the greatest emPhasis to human rights and those
toward the right tend to emphasize property rights. The watershed for this particular concept rests in the center of the moderate sector. As in the
of
of
to the right or left one goes on the spectrum.
Be careful to note that only at the farthest extremes of the spectrum do people insist that only one right exists and that the other should be totally excluded. At any other point along the spectrum it is simply a question of giving one right more weight than another, and the balance becomes increasingly one-sided as one travels out to either end of the continuum.
For example, if one were to ask a liberal whether a person has the right to refuse to sell a piece of property to a black, he or she would certainly say, "No! As long as the black has the money to buy the property, the seller has no right to refuse to sell." Notice that liberals are not unappreciative of the property right. Clearly they insist that the prospective buyer have the amount of money asked by the seller. With that condition satisfied, however, the liberal would require that the sale be completed. In this case the liberal's position is predicated on the assump-
a
the black is basically equal to any other person. The emphasis is definitely on human rights.
On the other hand, if the same question were put to conservatives their response would be different. They would probably say that racial prejudice is unfortunate but that if property owners insist on refusing to
Progressive ~
Change
Figure 1-6
Radical Liberal
Emphsizes Human Rights
Moderate
Conversative
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Reactionary
~ Retrogressive
Change
Status Quo
Emphasizes Property Rights

20 The Spectrum of Political Attitudes sell their property to a particular person on the basis of racial prejudice they have every right to do so. Why? Because it is their property. Here the conservative recognizes the conflict between the human and property rights, but the property right obviously supersedes the human right. The conservative may even argue that the property right is one of the human rights. Even if that were the case, close scrutiny of the conservative's attitude toward various human rights would show the conservative insisting that the property right dominates all other rights.
Let us put another question to the same test. Should you be able to shoot a person who is breaking into your home? The conservative would say yes, if that is the only way you have of defending your property.
The liberal would argue that no piece of property is worth a human life; therefore one does not have the right to shoot a burglar (unless, of course, the life of the owner is threatened)
.
As already mentioned, the balance between human and property rights becomes increasingly one-sided as one moves toward the ends of the political spectrum until, at the farthest extremes, one side insists toat there is no property right and the other totally denies human rights. On the far left, Karl Marx (to be analyzed in Chapter 6) said very little about his expectations for communism. The one specific prediction he did make, however, was that the utopia would be democratic, allowing absolutely no private property or inequality.
Benito Mussolini, at the opposite extreme, insisted that people had no justification, no rights, no reason for being that was not bound up with the nation-state. Indeed, the individual's only function was to produce for the good of the state,
.and anyone who failed to do so could be liquidated.
To further dramatize the. differences between left and right, let us consider the various goals that arise from their respective values.
The left is rooted in rationalism, the right in irrationalism. Marx, after all, was a product of the scientific method and the Industrial
Revolution.
His theories are often called "scientific socialism," as opposed to the "utopian socialism" of a previous era. Conversely, Mussolini rejected rationalism.
"Feel, don't think!" is one of the famous slogans with which he appealed to the emotions of his audience. It was
Mussolini who called the masses "the herd." Both he and Adolf Hitler held up intellectualism and objective science to public ridicule and scorn.
The left is inclined toward egalitarianism while the right is unabashedly elitist. Socialism is generally thought to be a leftist economic theory. One of its main goals is to reduce the gap between the haves and the have-nots in a society. A conservative cynic once commented that socialism is a process by which the haves and the have-nots are both had.
In any event socialism tends to level the society and equalize it materially.
The Spectrum of Political Attitudes 21
Marx
a
all things in common because no single person would have any single thing to himself or herself alone.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is today a conservative economic system. This was not always so. Adam Smith, who fathered modern capitalism by writing The .Wealth of Nations, was a classical liberal of the eighteenth century. Do not forget that the liberal attitude toward private property has changed and that in Smith's day the prevailing economic system was feudalism. Capitalism represented a liberal challenge to the status quo. Today, however, capitalism is the status quo;
a
servative position.
Capitalism, far from being egalitarian, is a kind of economic kingof-the-mountain philosophy.
That is, it' encourages people to compete with one another, and capitalists have no qualms about the fact that some people do not succeed. Indeed, the prevailing attitude is that capitalism offers the greatest possible amount of economic freedom. The government is discouraged from interfering with the m~rketplace, and each individual is free to succeed or fail. The only gesture toward equality is made by the relatively moderate supporters of capitalism who argue that all people ought to have an equal opportunity to succeed.
Critics of capitalism maintain that it is a system without compassion, that it is totally pruperty oriented, and that even if the moderate were sincere in the wish for equal opportunity, such an objective is clearly impossible in an economic system based on inequality.
To argue that we are all free to compete with Standard Oil, for instance, is farcical.
Critics of capitalism will not advocate a system in which, by and large, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
In spite of these disputes, capitalism does tend to structure our society. Those who are successful are respected and rewarded. Those who are not are abandoned as failures. Conversely, socialism can be criticized for allowing a person to succeed only to a given point, .after which, it is argued, they are penalized by ever-increasing taxes. The tax revenues are then spent for those who will not work, or so goes the argument.
The right also favors political stratification in the society, while the left wants to equalize it. The leftist's attitude toward human equality leads directly to a democratic system. Even Marx, who proposed that immediately after the revolution the proletariat should rule by dictator-
a
utopia" in which people would have-and would need-very few restraints on their daily lives. Individual liberty would reach its peak when the state finally "withered away."
The rightist, by contrast, believing that people are somewhat ani-

22 The Spectrum of Political Attitudes malistic, unequal, and in need of guidance, tends to favor a highly stratified society in which superiors command and subordinates obey. The farther to the right we look, the more structured and authoritarian is the desired society, until at the extreme we come to Mussolini's fascism.
Mussolini saw his society as a sort of social pyramid. At the base were the masses, whose duty was to perform their functions as well as possible.
They must not fail to reach their level of greatest productivity, nor should they aspire to heights beyond their abilities. Those who underachieved, or who tried to exceed their potential, could be liquidated. At the top of the pyramid was the party and, ultimately, the leader. The leader's function was to perceive good, justice, and the right, and to rule the society accordingly. The masses were expected to obey without question because the leader was considered infallible.
Finally, the left tends toward internationalism and the right toward
nationalism. Leftists speak of all people being brothers and sisters, arguing that national boundaries are artificial and unnecessary divisions setting people against one another. Marx, for instance, asserted that national boundaries would disappear between socialist systems because
"working men have no country." Eventually the world would become a single socialist brotherhood.
Conversely, fascists exalt differences between individuals within a state and dissimilarities among states. As people are ranked according to their value within a society, they argue, so too will state dominate state, until one state rises above all others.
SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
Before we end our discussion of political attitudes, a few general observations should be made regarding the various factors influencing individuals to take particular positions on the political spectrum.
Most people almost immediately suspect that economic pressures are the primary motivation for choosing a particular political position.
This does, indeed, seem to be an important factor. The greatest percentage of wealthy people do tend to be conservative on most issues.
Conversely, the poor tend to be less opposed to basic progressive change than the rich. People who are doing fairly well in a given society usually do not want to disrupt the system. On the other hand, the poor have little to lose and much to gain from progressive change. It is tempting
But are the
The Spectrum of Political Attitudes 23 poor,
some, any less selfish?
Economics is not the only factor in the choice of a political philosophy, however. There are plenty of poor conservatives, and one can easily find rich liberals. The well-to-do are often found at the forefront of the battle over such issues as integration, consumer protection, conservation, legalized abortion, and decriminalization of marijuana use, while the poor are often indifferent to, or even resist, liberal suggestions for reform.
In fact, there is no single motivation for people's political attitudes. The list of motivations is probably as great as the number of people with political attitudes.
In the following paragraphs we will discuss only a few of the most important factors influencing people's political choices.
Age seems to be a significant factor., Generally speaking, the young are more likely to be liberal than the old. This is probably because the young have not yet experienced defeat and are therefore more willing to take chances. Moreover, the older generations have a vested interest in the status quo that the youth have not yet acquired. Young people lack not only wealth but also a sense of commitment and belonging. Fiftyyear-olds are likely to feel that they have a stake in the society, not only because they have become used to it but also because they helped create it. The youth have neither of these reasons to be committed to the system. As with all such generalizations, however, exceptions prove the
of
more liberal with age-witness Jeremy Bentham (discussed in Chapter
4) and former Chief Justice Earl Warren.
Some people are also more psychologically suited for liberalism or
a
tolerance for disorder. Many people do not, so that while they may not benefit materially from the system they resist change because they dislike disorder. On the other hand, some people seem to need almost constant change. The status quo never satisfies them simply because it is the status quo.
The keen observer might also find that the liberal category includes some people who, for some perplexing reason~ must always be on the losing side. They are constantly rising to champion causes that are doomed to failure.
Not only is it common to find ourselves at various places on the spectrum with regard to a variety of issues, but we will also find that our attitude tends to drift slightly along the spectrum as we learn more about

24 The Spectrum of Political Attitudes a given issue.
pears to be a needed change. Upon reflection, however, we may conclude that the outcome of the proposal is too uncertain. It goes without saying, of course, that the opposite is also likely to occur.
In addition, the spectrum can shift to the left or right while a person remains stationary. Ronald Reagan was a liberal New Deal Democrat in the 1930s. By the 1960s he had become a reactionary Republican, and as such he served two terms as governor of California (1967-1975).
During his first term a reporter asked him why he had left the liberals.
His answer was, "I didn't; they left me." Reagan was arguing that the things he wanted in the 1930s had been enacted and that he was satisfied with this achievement and did not want further change.
Whether
Reagan's assessment of himself was accurate is not important here; the important thing is that if we were to remain unchanged in our political attitudes for forty years while the world changed around us we might very well become reactionary after having been liberal because the status quo would have changed so much in the meantime.
It is also appropriate to point out that the political spectrum of a society bears no particular similarity to that of any other society unless the status quo is the same in both. Hence, a given policy could be conservative in one society, liberal in another, and radical in a third.
(See
Figure 1-7.)
Let us assume that the issue we are dealing with is labor strikes for public employees. In England, strikes by labor unions are common.
While they may not be completely appreciated, they are accepted by the general public as a legitimate means by which labor can pressure for an increase in benefits. This attitude even extends to public employees. Thus for a person in England to support strikes for most workers (including
Status Quo (Public Employee Strikes)
British Political Spectrum
Radical Liberal Moderate ConservativelReactionary
U.S. Political Spectrum
Radical
Chilean Politcal Spectrum
Radical
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
Status Quo
Moderate conservativelReactionary
Liberal Moderate
Status Quo
Figure1-7
The Spectrum of Political Attitudes 25 most
ive of the status quo.
In the United States, labor strikes also are fairly common and accepted; however, the question of a public employee's right to strike is far from settled. Anyone, therefore, who supported strikes for public
a
View.
In Chile, on the other hand, all strikes are illegal. Thus to support the legalization of strikes for workers would be very liberal, and to suggest the same for public employees would certainly be radical.
ANARCHY
When I lecture on the subject of political attitudes I am often asked the following two questions: (l) Which side of the political spectrum is more supportive of the individual? and (2) Where does anarchy fit on the spectrum? Although it may not seem so at first, these questions are actually closely related.
Anarchy is defined in many different ways. Indeed, the most obvious characteristic of anarchy is that it defies any single definition. The most frequently heard definition of anarchy is "a system with no government," often equated with chaos. But such a definition is inaccurate and misleading. At its extreme, anarchy means no government beyond that of the individual over himself or herself. At its mildest, it simply suggests that much of the authority of the state should be eliminated.
Nevertheless individualism and anarchy remain closely related be-
of
It relies most on the individual and least on society's institutions.
Anarchy assumes that the individual will progress best if he or she is not hindered by a huge bureaucratic state, and views government as standing in the way of humankind's fullest development. To some extent we all share this attitude. Who among us has not been frustrated in an attempt to accomplish something by a bulky, impersonal bureaucracy? Which of us has not, at one time or another, felt that our society would be better off without the enormous officialdom that has such great power over our lives? As it turns out, anarchy is not the foreign idea we might have thought it to be.
But assuming that all of
spectrum will we find the anarchist? Anarchy is usually thought of as a leftist idea. This, however, is not entirely accurate. If anarchy is the purest expression of political individualism, we might expect to find it at the extreme of whichever side of the spectrum upholds the principle of in-

26 The Spectrum of Political Attitudes dividualism. And in fact, both the right and the left have a particular image of the individual; hence, each can lead to a particular brand of anarchy.
The leftist views the individual in relation to all other individuals.
Indeed, the individual cannot be effectively evaluated apart from the group. The individual's value is measured by what he or she contributes to the society as a whole. Under socialism, for example, the individual is expected to produce as much as he or she can and to share it with the whole society. The interests of the individual, it is assumed, are best served when the whole society profits. The leftist conceives of the society as an organic unit made up of individuals, each of whom pulls together for the benefit of the total society and ultimately for the individual's own best interests. As a result the leftist's focus tends to be on the group.
Everyone moves forward together. In the words of Kenneth and Patricia
Dolbeare, "Individual freedom is conceptualized as complementary rather than contradictory to the concept of community since it is believed that freedom is expressed in solidarity with other men rather than in
3
wrote, "No man is an island entire of itself, every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the maine; if a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
. . any man's death diminishes me, because I am
4
On the right of the political spectrum the individual is viewed in a much more solitary way. Society is made up of individuals, but they are not necessarily working together for a greater good. Indeed, they are often working against one another. While the socialist believes that a society should be based on the cooperation of the individuals in that society, the rightist argues that the greatest good will come from competition among the individuals in the society. Capitalism, after all, is based on the concept of competition. A fundamental conservative belief is that individuals work harder when they are producing for themselves rather than for a faceless mass. A society, therefore, will make the most progress when each individual in that society is stimulated to make the greatest effort for himself or herself personally.
So while the leftist sees the society as progressing only through cooperative and collective effort, the rightist believes that the greatest progress will be made when the individuals in the society are allowed to compete, moving forward or backward at their own pace. The right thus encourages individual productivity, but it also allows great inequality.
The left tends to reduce the material differences among individuals in
3 Kenneth M. Dolbeare and Patricia Dolbeare, American Ideologies (Chicago:
Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1976), p. 105.
4 John Donne, Devotions, XII.
The Spectrum of Political Attitudes
Anarchy
27
Moderate
Figure 1-8 the society, but it also tends to penalize those who succeed and reward those who fail. Thus, since both sides of the spectrum have attitudes toward the individual that can be taken to an extreme, either may lead to anarchy.
(See Figure 1-8.)
In Figure 1-8 the spectrum is drawn in a circle to indicate that, at least with regard to the concept of individualism, each side of the continuum will lead to the same point if carried far enough. Anarchists on the left-or social anarchists, in the tradition of Michael Bakunin, Peter
Kropotkin, Joseph Proudhon, Emma Goldmann, and Leo Tolstoyargue that the state is impeding social development.
Indeed, the state has become a tool of oppression and should be eliminated if humankind is to freely advance to its fullest potential.
At the top right of the circle we will find another type of anarchy.
While the social anarchists may have produced the greatest body of literature in support of their theory, probably the largest number of anarchists could be labeled individualist anarchists. Instead of favoring a society in which all individuals advance at a relatively equal pace, one in which the material differences between individuals are kept to a minimum, the individualist anarchist envisions a sort of social Darwinism in which the society will advance best when each individual is encouraged to achieve what he or she can. Thus the society is best served when people advance or fall back in relation to their individual contributions. This philosophy has been expressed by Henry David Thoreau,
Max Stirner, S. E. Parker, and Ayn Rand. If it is carried far enough, this particular theory can lead to complete self-reliance and a frightening exclusivity. It can become a kind of "one, true, and only meism" in which only the self counts. It isolates people more than any other theory.
As Figure 1-8 indicates, the point at which the arrows meet may be

'" c:
.s::.
U
.~
C> g a:
'poo6
S!JeM
SaAa!laa
'Mel a4~ asn II!M
28
'" c:
.s::.
U
'i:j
~
C> o ct
-
'Mela4~ a~eIO!A II!M
~s!l!Jed
'~JOsaJ~sel se aJUaIO!A
asn II!M
'Ala'!!1
S!
aJUaIO!A
S,!U!4!
'aJUaIO!A
spuewaa
'" o a:
'"
£
.....
o
;;
'"
..,
~
..
:s a.
a.
::J
VI
VI
Q)
'"
-'
a.
a.
::J
VI ....
o
...
Q) cen en
--
I
..
till u:
The Spectrum of Political Attitudes
29 labeled nihilism. Nihilism is the form of anarchism that is closest to the stereotype mentioned earlier. The most chaotic, violent, and destructive of anarchist theories, it developed in Russia during the 1860s as a result of the influence of people who were extremely frustrated politically. The
a
lustrates their tortured ideas: "What can be smashed must be smashed; whatever will stand the blow is sound, what flies into smithereens is rubbish; at any' rate, hit out right and left, no harm can or will come of it." The nihilists, it is clear, believed that their society was so rotten, so corrupt, so decayed that it was beyond repair. The only constructive act possible, in the minds of these unhappy people, was complete destruction of the society.
REVIEW
The information presented in this chapter is summarized in Figure 1-9
(facing page).