Advance

President Kennedy has been elected, he is moving ahead with extraordinary and somewhat unexpected competence, delighting his supporters and reassuring many who were once more skeptical. The party he defeated either fades into Gettysburg with its former chief or troubles itself with busy squabbles about the leadership of its National Committee.

The Republicans of post-election days suffer painfully from the experience of a loss far more significant than the extremely close election returns indicate. They have none of the energy and charm of their opponents in office, and the cohesion of the campaign is no longer with them. If they follow Senator Goldwater they want to "obstruct" the programs of the now Administration; if they are more cautious they content themselves with Senator Dirksen's wish to "modify" them.

Yet some are unhappy with both ideas: Senators Case, Cooper and Javits, Representative Lindsay, Governor Rockefeller. It is not a very large group, but it has its disciples, among whom are the students who edit Advance, a "Journal of Political Thought." Volume One, Number One has just arrived at the newsstands, at a moment that ought to be very appropriate for such a magazine to appear, but happens not to be. This is the worst of times to begin attacking liberal orthodoxy, for Kennedy's glamor has not yet worn off and the attack is as a result utterly unconvincing.

The 27 pages of the first issue contain no fewer than six vague but hopeful editorials and articles about strategy for "progressive, liberal Republicans," a term that the magazine struggles for countless inches of type to define but never quite succeeds. According to the publisher (Bruce K. Chapman '62) what American needs to a "new political philosophy" as the ideology of a new Republican Party. He concedes, in a passage of gross understatement, that the philosophy is not "fully articulated," but adds cheerfully that if enough people care it soon will be.

Presumably the authors of Advance (who include in this number Senator Case writing on "Course for the GOP") do care: "We are not the party of today," they say, "Let us be the party of tomorrow." But to cite their review of Henry C. Wallich's The Cost of Freedom, "nowhere" do they, "provide a definite measure of response to modern problems. Although [they] stress the importance of change and creativity, [they] fail to specify or elaborate." Why do they feel so sharply the necessity for their movement? Because liberalism is inadequate, doctrinaire, stultifying, and "monolithic." They worry that "solutions should by default take the form of the gradual but relentless authoritarianism of the left."

I have not the least idea what "gradual and relentless authoritarianism" is, but in any case it has far more the air of a conservative slogan than of a clear, analytic position. In other words, Advance's categorizations won't do; the magazine is fat with the standard phraseology of the men they profess to reject. It is not so harsh as that of the National Review, but it is all here: "reckless spending," "aggrandisement of federal power," and even "Big government." And there is also an original Dowling carton: "Labor Leaders" and "Liberal Experimenters" and "Spenders" sit grinning in a horseless cart while a wretched little man named "Taxpayers" looks on be-wildered.

"An Election in New York--Lessons for the Future" provides a fairly satisfactory explanation of why Nixon lost New York, but draws no particular conclusions from it. Still, it is a worthwhile effort, and from the point of view of editors who regard Rockefeller and Lindsay as two of their biggest cheeses, no doubt a necessary one. A "Profile" of Lindsay, incidentally, turns out to be less a study than a celebration of him. Senator Case's suggestion that liberal Republicans form a shadow cabinet makes rather interesting copy.

Two contributions to Advance have nothing whatever to do with U.S. politics, and they are the better for it. One is a chapter from Henry Kissinger's new book (The Necessity for Choice), a clear, well-reasoned analysis of "The Stakes in Germany." The place to deal with the article is actually not here but in a review of the entire book, but George F. Gilder's "A Test Ban--The Possibilities for Arms Control" certainly ought to be mentioned. It is by far the most sensible synthesis of arguments and proposals for and against banning nuclear tests that I have yet found; it is rational, responsible, solid, and pleasantly original in its conclusions.

If this "progressive Republicanism" is a synonym for sound thought about international affairs, Advance could profit much from publishing more of it. It can scarcely, however, continue to call its odd political foam either vigorous or dynamic; there is no vigor in it, and therefore still no easily acceptable excuse for Advance's existence.