¹ Walzer, , “In Defense of Equality,” Dissent, XX (Fall 1973), 399.Google Scholar

² Nisbet, , Twilight of Authority (New York: Oxford 1975), 203.Google Scholar

³ Ibid., 202. See also essay, Nisbet's, “The Fatal Ambivalence of an Idea,” Encounter, XLVII (December 1976), 10–21.Google Scholar

⁴ Tucker, , “Oil: The Issue of American Intervention,” Commentary, Vol. 59 (January 1975). 31.Google Scholar

⁵ The neoconservatives have been brilliantly analyzed in Wolin's, Sheldon essay, “The New Conservatives” New York, Review of Books, XXIII (February 5, 1976), 6–11Google Scholar, and in Michael Walzer' s essay (fn. 1). The Public Interest' s special issue, “The American Commonwealth,” No. 41 (Fall 1975), contains an assessment, by the most prominent American neoconservatives, of the problems confronting American society at this time.

⁶ Kristol, , “About Equality,” Commentary, Vol. 54 (November 1972), 42.Google Scholar

⁷ Kristol, as quoted in Chomsky, Noam, Peace in the Middle East (New York: Vintage 1974), 6.Google Scholar

⁸ Friedland, and others, The Great Detente Disaster (New York: Basic Books 1975).Google Scholar

⁹ Moynihan, , “The United States in Opposition,” Commentary, Vol. 59 (March 1975), 31–44.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Mannheim, , Ideology and Utopia (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World 1936), 229.Google Scholar

¹¹ Ibid., 230.

¹² Ibid., 235.

¹³ Tucker, , “A New International Order?” Commentary, Vol. 59 (February 1975), 43.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Hobsbawm, , The Age of Capital (New York: Scribner's 1975), 60.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Bolilding, Kenneth E., “The Shadow of the Stationary State,” Daedalus, No. 102 (Fall 1973), 98–99Google Scholar

¹⁶ Kristol (fn. 6).

¹⁷ Brzezinski, Zbigniew, “U.S. Foreign Policy: The Search for Focus,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 51 (July 1973), 726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ Bauer, , “Western Guilt and Third World Poverty,” Commentary, Vol. 61 (January 1976), 31–38Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ibid., 38.

²⁰ Hoffmann, , “No Choice, No Illusions,” Foreign Policy, No. 25 (Winter 1976–77), 120;Google Scholar emphases in original.

²¹ Carr, , The Twenty Years Crisis (New York: Harper & Row 1964), 227.Google Scholar

²² Mannheim (fn. 10), 233.

²³ Hoffmann, , “Choices,” Foreign Policy, No. 12 (Fall 1973), 16.Google Scholar

²⁴ See the Trilateral Commission' s pamphlet, “A Turning Point in North-South Economic Relations,” The Triangle Papers, No. 3 (New York: The Trilateral Commission 1974)Google Scholar

²⁵ Hoffmann (fn. 23), 6–12.

²⁶ Farer, Tom J., “The United States and the Third World,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 54 (October 1975), 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁷ Ibid., 92.

²⁸ Ibid., 93.

²⁹ Smith, Tony, “Changing Configurations of Power Since 1945,” International Organization, XXXI (Winter 1977), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁰ Ibid., 26; emphases in original.

³¹ Hoffmann (fn. 20), 99.

³² Ibid., 26–27.

³³ For a thoughtful critique along these lines, see Falk, Richard A., “Beyond Internationalism,” Foreign Policy, No. 24 (Fall 1976), 65–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁴ For one scenario that places its faith in the“deradicalization” and embourgeoisement of OPEC countries, see Hansen, Roger, “The Political Economy of North-South Relations: How Much Change?,” International Organization, XXIX (Autumn 1975), 911–47.Google Scholar As Hansen puts it (p. 939):“Why should the Shah of Iran pour funds into India and Bangladesh when he has his own empire to build, his own vision to create in his own country? Why should Venezuela and Brazil contribute funds indiscriminately to the Fourth World when they have their own (perhaps clashing) destinies to meet in a continent slowly liberated from U. S. hegemony? In other words, isn't the embourgeoisement of the Third World into the present international system a more likely outcome than a system transformation based upon a North-South relationship of major tension (at first normative and economic, then increasingly strategic-diplomatic)?”