“Defenders of liberalism had better be conservative about human nature - or else. “
As long as the author means modern liberalism, the problem is they cannot be conservatives about human nature. If they were, they would not be liberals.
All modern liberalism is rooted in a Rosseauian view of human nature that makes almost no sense. To be realistic about human nature would require liberals to change every view they hold dear.
Neoconservatives are a product of modern liberalism, and their belief that America can "convert to world to democracy" through an evangelical foreign policy of the Wilsonian variety is a pox on the contemporary conservative movement.
Kissinger and Schultz are what is needed, to say nothing of Metternich and Macchiavelli. Unfortunately, the Neo-Realism of folks like Mearshimer and Zakaria (who has been seduced by his own press) is rather wishy-washy.
National Review
November 6th, 2000
John Derbyshire
Head of the New Class
. . . the New Class—the intellectualized, tertiary-educated, meritocratic elites of the law, academia, the media, the great foundations and government bureaucracies.
The term “new class” was first used in this precise context by Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1972, and got capital letters from Michael Novak later that same year. Some key essays on the phenomenon were gathered together in a 1979 book, The New Class? edited by the historian B. Bruce-Briggs. Anyone who seeks clarification of who the New Class are and where they come from could not do better than to track down a copy of that book (now, alas, long out of print).
The New Class has been engaged in its “long march through the institutions” for thirty years . . .
http://olimu.com/Journalism/Texts/Commentary/NewClass.htm