Political science history and development

¶ … conservative intellectual movement, but also the role of William Buckley and William Rusher in the blossoming of the youth conservative movement

Talk about structure of paper, who not strictly chronologically placed (ie hayek before the rest) - in this order for thematic purposes, to enhance the genuiness of the paper (branches of the movement brought up in order of importance to youth conservative revolt) For instance, Hayek had perhaps the greatest impact on the effects of the movement - Buckley and Rusher. These individuals, their beliefs, their principles were extremely influential in better understanding the origins, history, and leaders of American conservatism.

Momentous events shape the psyche of an individual as the person matures. A child grows up in poverty vows to never be like his parents, and keeps this inner vow to become a millionaire. A young woman experiences sexual trauma as a teen, and chooses a career that builds self-esteem, and self-defense skills in young women so they will never have to be victimized as she was. In the same way, significant national political and economic events shape the psyche of a nation. The generation which survived the great depression was a generation with the greatest amount of personal savings at retirement. Our nation's 'greatest generation,' those men and women who fought and won World War II returned home with the lessons of personal responsibility and self-reliance forged into their character, and set about to build the greatest economy and period of economic and social advancement the world has every experiences.

This same experience is true in the life cycle, and psyche of a nation. Some events are pushed upon the nation by outside forces, by events created within the nation, and some events are deliberately orchestrated in order to take advantage of existing social currents, to harness the energy of social change for personal, or political gain. Such is the case of the rise of liberalism in the early part of the 20th century.

Social response to political changes can be slow to develop, and gain acceptance. This scenario can be most clearly seen in the rise of intellectual conservatism during the 1940's and 50's. To clearly understand the movement, its tenets, and why the battle between conservative and liberal political theories still rages today, it is necessary to understand the environment from which they rose, the primary tenets and, how these facets work themselves out practically in the social, and political system of our country.

The Social Environment Preceding Conservatism

In 1945 no articulate, coordinated, self-consciously conservative intellectual force existed in the United States. There were, at most, scattered voices of protest, profoundly pessimistic about the future of their country. Gradually during the first postwar decade these voices multiplied, acquired an audience, and began to generate an intellectual movement. (Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement). In 1950, Lionel Trilling, one of America's leading intellectuals, made his famous remark that "In the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition. For it is the plain fact that there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation."

Yet, by the mid-1950's the conservative intellectual movement began to gain momentum. The social and political implications caused by the end of World War II and the beginnings of the Cold War - primarily a strong anti-communist sentiment - would be essential in providing the some of the framework for the development of the conservative intellectual movement. But before discussing those who were at the center of this movement, the social and political environment of the nation must be evaluated.

The liberal influence of the day had its genesis in the New Deal Policy of the Roosevelt administration. The nation was in the midst of the great depression. Between 1929 and 1932, farm income dropped by 50%. Industry was operating at half its former rate, and in 1932 alone, 3200 businesses failed, along with 1500 banks, wiping out the life savings of millions of Americans. The New Deal promise of a better future was carried to the public with the promise of "A Chicken in every pot." The New Deal targeted three major reforms to bring to the American populace. His administration promised

Relief for those hardest hit by the depression

Recovery for the nations economy

Reform, political, economic, and social, to prevent another depression.

It was under President Roosveelt that the first 100 days of a new administration became the benchmark of an adminstrations effectiveness, for in the first 100 days, the democratic president, together with his democratic congress, passed 9 major economic, regulatory, and social reform that directed moneys to the hardest hit Americans. However, because the private sector of the economy was operation only at 1/2 capacity, this money flowed directly through the governments hands to the people. This shift in both policy and practice, set the stage for the rise of liberalism in America over the next 15 -18 years.

The country needed the safety net which the New Deal began to create. It needed an influx of capital to rebuild factories, roads, bridges, and infrastructure. The Federal Emergency Relief Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Tennessee Valley Authority Act, and the National Industrial Recovery act released millions of dollars, started the process of rebuilding in motion, and creating jobs across the nation. The country also needed confidence that, as it began to rebuild, a similar stock market collapse would not send the nation spiraling again. The other 5 emergency acts passed directly and indirectly created protections against the precarious financial practices which has caused the depression.

Until this time, the American people, and country had grown strong because of individualism, individual freedom, and ingenuity. The American culture was known as the land of opportunity not because of what the government would give out, but because of the freedom the government allowed its citizens to pursue. But now, the quiet whispering of government, which went on behind the public proclaimation of a better future, was the realization that the Democratic party which had authored this New Deal for the American people, had created the vehicle for their continuing power. The Democratic party, and Roosevelt's brain trust of advisors, knew that they could maintain their power if they could get an increasing percentage of the population to look to government for their opportunity, instead of relying on themselves. When the population trusts the government to provide for its needs, the population is not likely to vote that government out of power. The slow march of increasing government involvement into the lives of its citizens had begun, and did so unimpeded until the Conservative school of thought rose to public attention under William F. Buckley and William Rusher in the early 1950's.

The 1950's were characterized by strong anti-communist sentiment and the convergence of parties and the electorate on the center. The men who had fought and won World War II had returned home with a somewhat homogeneous political outlook. War was hell and home was heaven. Now was their time to build a great home, and future. They had experienced the personal triumph that could be had through individual courage, and personal effort. Perhaps it was this strong sense of personal responsibility, and opportunity that flipped the switch in the national consciousness to question the purpose of a government which wanted to be increasingly involved in their lives. These years would mark a political watershed in the United States.

In 1952, Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson commented, "The strange alchemy of the time has somehow converted the Democrats into the truly conservative party of this country - the party dedicated to conserving all that is best, and building solidly and safely on these foundations." Further, as sociologist Daniel Bell points out, the left virtually disappeared during the 1950's and the "socialist and the communist parties dwindled to insignificant factions (Oakley, America's Country in the 50's)." The dissolution of the Left would mark the emergence of a "conservative consensus," also known as the new conservatism.

Also possible was that the men and women who had experienced WWII had seen the effects of a government which became the most powerful social, political, and economic force in a nation. Did the face of Nazi Germany allow these men and women to "see into the future" of a governments natural tendancy to become corrupt when it amasses too much power for itself? If so, these warnings were strikingly similar to the writings of the founding fathers of the nation, who pledged their lives and fortunes to throw off the tyrannical efforts of an over-reaching government in order to restore freedom to their own lives. As students in the 21st century, we may never know the answer to this question, but it may not be coincidence that the rise of conservatism began when a large group of citizens returned to the country who has personally experienced what an overly powerful government could do to the face of a continent.

William Buckley's main contribution to the conservative intellectual movement was God and Man at Yale - a "godsend" for conservatives in America. This work was "a manifesto, akin in impact to what C. Wright Mill's The Power of Elite was for left-wing students." Buckley, in attacking the "atheism and collectivism" in his religion and economic courses at Yale, drew national attention to the conservative intellectual movement of the 1950's.

William Rusher played a similar role in the development of the conservative intellectual movement. As publisher of National Review and first president of Harvard's Young President's Club, Rusher was further able to bring attention to the principles of the conservative movement. However, in contrast with Buckley, who had been deeply rooted in conservative ideals since childhood, Rusher claimed that, "the atmosphere of the Cold War and particularly the Korean War brought about his transformation to staunch anti-communism."

The emergence and rise of the conservative movement of the 1950's, in combination with the emphasized roles of William F. Buckley and William Rusher begs a fundamental question: What compelled young intellectuals - Buckley and Rusher - to "represent the first wave of youth revolt in favor of conservative principles, anti-communism, and growing state power (Cadres for Conservatism, Schneider)" in American during the 1950's? In addition, what triggered this movement and what were its effects?

Defining Conservatism and Liberalism

Having evaluated thee social setting of the 1930's through 1950's, it is necessary to define liberalism and conservatism in context before further examining the causes and effects of the conservative intellectual movement.

Liberalism signified the broad series of reformist, interventionist, collectivist, and redistributionist impulses, to be implemented within the free-enterprise system, and managed by the federal government, that were associated with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.

Conservatism can be defined by the shared belief that The individual has strong innate desires to favor his own interests, and the individual is the one best able to work toward his own best interests. Policies that strengthen the individual in the pursuit of his goals are in the best interest of the individual, and the society which relies on the individual for it's collective identity. A corillary to this is that strong families provide a reliable and lasting form of social insurance, and policies that support strong families are policies that support the society. Policies that erode the strength or necessity of family bonds will ultimately weaken the society.

Under this broad definition, there were three groups which articulated the conservative position: the "classical liberals" or "libertarians," those associated with the "new conservatism" or "traditionalism," and finally a militant, evangelistic anti-Communism group. Each group dealt with its own particular aspect of ideals behind conservatism, which were individualism, traditionalism and anti-communism. Each of these groups found their strength in that they were speaking against a particular trend in the American culture that a significant number of citizens opposed.

The "classical liberals" were most concerned with "resisting the threat of the ever expanding State to liberty, private enterprise, and individualism. These conservatives correctly identified the underlying motivation of the federal government's expanding its roll in the private sector. Those politicians in power wanted to stay in power, and were slowly training the citizenry like Pavlog's dogs, to jump to the government's feeding trough every time the bell of personal need rang. These conservatives correctly identified that the inevitable result of such policies would be a burgeoning government, and a populous that could no longer be self-reliant.

Those associated with "new conservatism" "urged a return to traditional religious and ethical absolutes." The social changes of the American landscape during the economic expansion of the 50's put new strains on the family. The industrial revolution had shifted the focus of family life out of the home, to the work place, and groups of friends that existed apart from home. With these changed came relaxed religious views, and the idea that my right and wrong may not be yours, and neither may be absolute. While it is customary for the adults in the family to be calling for maintaining the traditional religious and ethical values, the young conservatives caught the attention of many because they articulated this same cause, as a means for social strength, and economic advancement.

The third group was most concerned the Soviet threat.

This group was obviously influenced by the war, and the ongoing articulated Cold War. Each of these groups had a particular impact on initiating or establishing the intellectual framework for the conservative intellectual movement of the 1950's.

The Specific Arguments of Conservatism

The beliefs and works of a particular group of intellectuals - Friedrich Hayek, Richard Weaver, Russell Kirk, and Albert J. Nock - were essential in sowing the intellectual seeds of the conservative movement that developed in the 1950's. These individuals, each representing a different wing of the conservative movement, had a profound impact on establishing the groundwork for William Buckley and William Rusher.

Traditionalist Richard Weaver

Among the three strands of conservatism that emerged from World War II, the traditionalist branch of the conservative intellectual movement represented "a return to traditional religious ethical absolutes and a rejection of "relativism" which had allegedly corroded Western values and produced an intolerable vacuum that was filled by demonic ideologies (introduction, xvi, Nash)." In particular, Richard Weaver and Russell Kirk served as influential figures in fostering the development of the conservative intellectual movement in America during the 1950's.

As an undergraduate at the University of Kentucky in 1927, Richard M. Weaver became convinced that "the future was with science, liberalism, and equalitarianism... (Nash, 38)." By his graduation in 1932, he had joined Norman Thomas' Socialist Party of America. However, by the early 1940's Weaver's beliefs and his works would become a foundation for the traditional branch of the conservative movement - "I began to perceive that many traditional positions in our world had suffered not so much because of inherent defect as because of stupidity, ineptness, and intellectual sloth of those who for one reason or another were presumed to have their defense in charge (Nash, 38)." By 1939, in the mind of Weaver, liberalism had lost its meaning.

In 1948, Richard Weaver released Ideas Have Consequences - referred to during its time as the "the fons et origo [source and origin] of the contemporary American conservative movement (page 39 Nash)." As George Nash points out, "The subject of Weaver's book was nothing less than the dissolution of the West (Nash, 38)."

Weavers book addressed, and attacked much of the public policy that had become law in the post New Deal economy. Weaver states, "The denial of everything transcending experience, means inevitably... The denial of truth. With the denial of objective truth there is no escape from the relativism of "man is the measure of all things."

Richard Weaver, in illustrating, had provided the basis for the principles behind traditional conservative movement. Weaver insisted that policy ideas in the political and social realm were tied to, and ultimately affected moral and ethical principals. When social and political policies were made which violated man's innate moral rights, the result was the abrogation of truth itself. Therefore, the solution was to return to an unchanging view of moral and ethical truth, and let public policy decisions be made in light of these unchanging maxims.

One example of this elongated attachment between social and moral rights was Weaver's defense of man's role to own, and defend private property - "the last remaining metaphysical right (Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences)"

Weaver mirrored Hayek's portrayal of private property as the "last refuge from the encroaching state (Nash, 41)." Weaver's "metaphysical right" is the same as Hayek's "last refuge"? Richard Weaver and Friedrich Hayek - in proposing similar criticisms to the ideals of the Left, namely the growing role of the state - perceived the same phenomenon, that "the decline of the West as a result of the triumph of pernicious ideas (Nash, 55)."

Richard Weaver's Ideas Have Consequences, in questioning the fundamental values of Western society, brought much controversy to the traditionalism. Weaver had launched a credible and justified attack on liberal ideals, while providing legitimacy and credibility to traditionalists. He also bolstered the strength of the conservative intellectual cause. Among those who praised Weaver's work, Willmoore Kendall, a conservative Yale political scientist, nominated him for "the capitaincy of the Anti-Liberal team (page 41, Nash)," while anti-naturalist philosopher Eliseo Vivas labeled Richard Weaver "an inspired naturalist."

However, liberals from the Chicago University Press met Weaver's work with much displeasure - it was labeled "a pompous fraud, essentially evil, and notorious (Nash, 42)."

Despite the negative acclaim brought about by his work, Weaver's piece served as perhaps one of the most influential works in conservative literature during the 1940's. Not only had Weaver dared to defy the obvious liberal ideological dominance of the time in braving to write Ideas Have Consequences, but he was able to catapult the conservative intellectual movement into the national spotlight. Credibility and a newfound sense of legitimacy had been established within the traditionalist wing of the conservative intellectual movement.

Traditionalist Russell Kirk

Another influential figure in the traditionalist branch of the conservative intellectual movement was Russell Kirk. Like Richard Weaver, the beliefs and works of Russell Kirk - primarily, The Conservative Mind - would stand out as a building block for new-age conservatism and the rise of the youth conservative movement. Russell Kirk was influential in triggering the conservative intellectual movement through his ardent disgust of "conscription, military inefficiency, government bureaucracy, paternalism, and socialist economics." In a country growing tired of war, his words were key in capturing the mind of the American public (Nash, 71). As George Nash states, Kirk "denounced liberal globaloney and feared that America was doomed to live in a collectivist economy (page 71, Nash)."

Russell Kirk had made his disapproval with New Deal policies a focal point of his conservative philosophy. A former draftee of the army during World War II, Kirk accused Roosevelt and other New Dealers of prolonging the war solely for the purpose of "maintaining scarcity and enhancing prosperity (Nash, 71)."

Kirk reveals his conservatism in his first published article in 1941, "We must have slow but democratic decisions, sound local government, diffusion of property owning, taxation as direct as possible, preservation of civil liberties, payment of debts by the generation incurring them, prevention of the rise of class antipathies, a stable and extensive agriculture, as little governing by the government as practicable, and above all, stimulation of self-reliance (Nash, 70)." Russell Kirk was beginning to articulate the Midwestern "individualist" conservatism of Robert Taft that would again surface with William Buckley and William Rusher

Despite the earlier works of Russell Kirk, he would make a lasting impression on American politics and the conservative intellectual movement in his 1953 publication of his highly influential/potent work, The Conservative Mind. Kirk's work not only chronicled the thinking behind the last 150 years of the intellectual Right (Nash, 73), but it had launched an open attack on all ideologies within the Left - most notably liberalism, collectivism, pragmatism, and socialism. In his "cri de coeur" for conservatism, Russell Kirk had utilized "six cannons," each detailing the essence of his conservative philosophy:

The belief that a divine intent rules society as well as personal conscience.

Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of traditional life.

The conviction of society that requires orders and classes.

The view that property ownership and freedom are inseparably interconnected faith in prescriptive tradition

The belief that innovation and change are not to be held as ends in themselves but rather as a means to maintain as much as possible the continuity of social order (Kirk, The Conservative Mind, page 8).

Kirk held the persuasion that "property and freedom are inseparably connected, and that economic leveling is not economic progress... (The Conservative Mind, Kirk)."

Kirk's most prominent attacks, post 1789 on social order, were meliorism, "the perfectibility of man and the illimitable progress of society, contempt for tradition, political leveling, and economic leveling (The Conservative Mind)." Among these attacks, Kirk's views fit with Weaver's in siding with meliorism and contempt for tradition - two focal points of the traditional branch of the conservative intellectual movement.

Russell Kirk in writing The Conservative Mind, offered "a full-scale challenge to modernity (Page 73, Nash)" The Conservative Mind, published nearly half a decade after Russell Kirk's Ideas Have Consequences, registered a similar large impact on the American political intellectual community. Robert Nisbet a well-respected conservative intellectual commented, "No book could have been better timed for the edification of conservative American intellectuals... Kirk had broken the cake of the intellectual opposition to the conservative tradition in the United States (Nash, 74)." However, not only had Kirk's work more firmly established conservative ideals in the intellectual community, but it had penetrated American mainstream society in the meanwhile.

The highly influential New York Times and Time magazine took immediate notice of the work. When the book review editor of the New York Times had been unwilling to review Kirk's work, they called on a former associate to review the book, ex-Communist Whittaker Chambers, for advice. Chambers frankly stated - "The Conservative Mind was the most important book of the twentieth century (Nash, 74)." In addition, the entire book section of the July, 6, 1953 edition of Time had been dedicated to The Conservative Mind.

The traditionalists, along with conservatives alike, experienced an amazing resurgence. An element of legitimacy and credibility were established within the conservative cause - no longer could John Stuart Mill's jibe of the "stupid party" stand (Nahs, 75). Russell Kirk had advanced the conservative cause on two sides - he established intellectually formidable ancestry for conservatives and he built the proper framework for future movements of the conservative cause. As George Nash states, " Like Friedrich Hayek, Russell Kirk had made it respectable again to be a man of the Right. The Conservative Mind had decisively catalyzed a self-conscious, unabashedly conservative movement. In the words of Henry Regenry, Russell Kirk had given an amorphous, scattered opposition to liberalism and identity (Nash, 75)."

EFFECTS roughly (11-13 pages)

Immediate effects Emerging from these three groups would be a new generation of conservative young people to bring about the quest for philosophical order - William Buckley, William Rusher, and Marvin Leebman. These individuals were responsible - through the publication of the Weekly Review, and other periodicals - William Buckley's God and Man at Yale, as well as the formation of youth conservative groups Schneider's YAF or Young Republicans - for adding legitimacy and credibility to conservatism at during a time of need. THE ROLE OF RUSHER AND BUCKLEY, THEIR IMPORTANCE

Long-term effects

CAUSES

Anti-communists, James Burnham, Alger Hiss, Chamber's Witness

The "intellectual roots of anti-Communist conservatism, like so much else in the intellectual traditions of the American Right since 1945, lie in responses Traditionalists classified classical liberal policies - collectivist policies and the large presence of the government - in American politics during the 1930's as an era of "philosophical nihilism, totalitarianism, and the disturbing emergence of the mass man (Nash, 86). However, these policies had the greatest impact on a significant group of ex-Communists that would emerge as the second branch of the conservative intellectual movement.

Traditionalists had responded to the... Of the 1930's with... while the libertarians responded with their values which preached of individualism and religion. Perhaps the most influential figure that would emerge from this group would be James Burnham.

From the ashes and destruction of World War II, two global powers had emerged - the Soviet Union and the United States. The United States stood as the symbol of democracy in the Western world, while the Soviet Union represented the base of socialism distinct from communism? On the Eurasian landmass. The attack that Weaver and Hayek - stipulating that all collectivism was "inherently totalitarian" - had waged on the Left would surface in American politics during the 1950's.

The sheer presence and advancement of the conservative movement could be measured by the "pilgrimage from Left to Right after World War II (Schneider, 11)." Perhaps one of the most significant cases of this "pilgrimage" was the departure of the Leftist intellectual, James Burnham to the Right following World War II. During the 1930's and early 1940's Burnham had been active in publicizing his views as a "Trotskyite Leftist" in New Editorial. In his work Burnham was adamant in defending the "progressive workers' state," that had to be "defended at all costs (Nash, 81)." In addition to publishing articles expressing his support for the progress of the Soviet Regime, Burnham was also active in the organization of Communist unions in Detroit.

However, by the mid-1950's Burnham had accepted an editorship at the National Review. Burnham, as George Nash states, had become "the most influential right wing critic of liberal foreign policies after 1945." Burnham was crucial in "supplying the conservative intellectual movement with the theoretical formulation for victory in the cold war." (Nash, 91) George Burnham in speaking of his alleged "re-education" states, " Having come to know something of the gigantic ideology of Bolshevism, I knew that I was not going to be able to settle for the pigmy ideologies of Liberalism, social democracy, refurbished laissez-faire or the inverted cut - rate Bolshevism called "fascism." Through the Machiavellians I began to understand more thoroughly what I had long felt: that only by renouncing all ideology can we begin to see the world and man (Nash, 92)." Does this fit with the anti-communist branch that he was associated with?

Is this conservatism? How does this fit with rest of conservative intellectual movement?

Burnham page 88 Nash, The New Leader perhaps the most important anti-Communist magazine in the country.

The revolt of the libertarians - had perhaps the greatest impact on the youth conservative movement

Friedrich Hayek, an Austrian economist, played an important role in providing "intellectual sustenance" to the American Right in the 1940's from abroad. In his 1944 work, The Road to Serfdom, Hayek - attacking Leftist/liberal ideals, including the governmental planning of the economy (collectivism) that characterized much of Europe, and the consequential destruction of personal liberty - was able to capture the conservative sentiment in post WWII Europe? Or do you really mean that post-WWII Europe was Hayekian conservative? Of post World War II Europe. Hayek speaking of socialist economic policies commented, "Central direction of all economic activity according to a single plan leads to dictatorship (The Road to Serfdom, Hayek)" and the "suppression of freedom (The Road to Serfdom, Hayek)." As George Nash states, Hayek was able to demonstrate that "collectivism, in short - all collectivism - was inherently totalitarian; democratic socialism was illusory and unachievable (The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America, Nash)."

In paralleling the recent socialist development of Britain to the massive socialist development that had characterized Germany prior to World War II, Hayek had created a sense of fear in the spread of socialism. Hayek warned that - "It is necessary to now the state unpalatable truth that it is Germany whose fate is in some danger of repeating (Schneider, 8)."

Hayek's argument had been reinforced by the sudden change of the political climate in Britain. The British government, determined to fight the evils of socialism? With the United States less than a decade earlier, had been "turned out into the cold" - the Labour Party had assumed control of the Parliament in 1945. why does this reinforce Hayek? Historian Mortimer Smith, reflecting on the international move toward socialism following World War II, comments, "Through the cacophonous chorus of the postwar planners runs one harmonious theme: the individual must surrender more and more of his rights to the state which will in return guarantee him what is euphemistically called security."

Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, instantly receiving recognition in Europe, was influential in advancing the conservative cause in the United States. In particular, Hayek's insight so you're endorsing it here? into the perils of collectivism and the subsequent loss of liberty were relevant to American politics during the 1950's. The "central direction of economic activity" which Hayek had spoken about in The Road to Serfdom, was precisely what America had undergone in embracing President Roosevelt and the New Deal in 1945. New Deal was earlier - mid-1930s, and the extent to which the New Deal represented the "central direction of economic activity" is highly contestable historically. In many ways, it is notable the extent to which the New Deal differed in its strategy from the policies of W. Europe. New conservatives may have seen them as linked, but be clear when you are reporting the views of others and when you are reporting your own views. Not only had Friedrich Hayek's provided "intellectual sustenance" to the American Right, but he had also legitimized the development of the conservative intellectual movement in America during the 1950's. how does this "legitimize" the American conservative intellectual movement, and why did it need legitimizing? No mention of Hayek being substantively influential? Was he?

Nevertheless?, the period immediately following World War II would mark the emergence of a new conservative movement - Ellen Schneider states, "With conservative principles articulated, it was up to a new generation of conservative young people to bring about the quest for philosophical order (Schneider, 13)." Moreover, as Nash stipulates, the new anticommunist Right - composed of three groups: Hayekian individualism and antistatism, Weaver and Kirk's "new conservatism," and a group including the libertarians and traditionalists (Schneider, 12) these are not very well defined categories. Want more on these, and go beyond just restating Schneider. How would you dissect the movement?- would be responsible for the development of a unified "vital center" conservatism built around National Review (Nash, 82).