breast-beating, self-examination, andrntortured analysis lead to exactly . . . nothing.rnThings are so unchanged, in fact,rnthat the major media are confoundedrnand befuddled, virtually struck dumbrnby the simple idea that the ends do notrnjustify the means. And as the majorrnmedia finally begin to grasp, dimly, thatrnthe public is real serious about thisrnends/means business (no, you are not exemptrnbecause of your holy journalisticrncalling), journalists are again getting defensivernand resentful and mightily impatientrnwith their consumers’ stupidity. Sornwe are back where we started, and it isrnthe logic of vanity that has brought usrnhere: Why struggle with humility whenrnit’s so much more fun to be a knowit-rnall?rnToday, the public character of eliternjournalists is marked by the temperamentrnof movie stars, the double-talkrnof politicians, and the grandiosity ofrnlawyers. Their primary function seemsrnto be the contribution of themselves tornthe nation’s stock of divas, weenies, andrnnarcissists. And since they do all thisrnwhile disdaining the ordinary American,rnone wonders how they will keep arnstraight face when, any day now, they beginrnpontificating on PBS about their “responsibilityrnto the public.” But maybe arndose of James Collins’s realism is in orderrnhere. Perhaps it is only in films thatrnadversity, or anything else, makes thernordinary journalist noble and merciful.rnJanet Scott Barlow writes fromrnCincinnati.rnPHILOSOPHYrnFrederickrnWilhelmsen, R.I.Rrnby Thomas MolnarrnFrederick Wilhelmsen (1923-1996)rnis still revered in Catholic circles ofrnthe Hispanic world, where he is praisedrnas a friend and a scholar and a kind ofrnhonorary Spaniard, and to crown it all,rnan incarnation of Don Quixote. Thernlatter title has been awarded to him in arnnoble sense: fighting impossible battles,rnfollowing his own road, assuming thatrnpeople are better than they appear. Onernof the times we met (1958) was in hisrntemporary home while teaching inrnSpain. No question that it was his naturalrnenvironment: Avila, a walled city ofrnmarvelous beauty which was in harmonyrnwith Fritz Wilhelmsen’s own innerrnworld. I understood why Avila was hisrnchosen habitat: traces of St. Teresa, butrnalso the good wine, the strong sun, therncentral stage of Castille, the heart ofrnSpain.rnIt was not our first encounter. Threernyears before, we had met at the Universityrnof Santa Clara, in California. I wasrnteaching at Sacred Heart in San Francisco.rnThese were times just before therningathering of conservatives aroundrnNational Review, Modern Age, Triumph;rncontroversy and reaction to liberalismrnwere in the air; it was natural that Fritzrnand I should meet, and it may have beenrnthe idea of Mother Casey, who was myrnunforgettable dean at Lone Mountain.rnShe knew that we were two nonconformistrnsouls, somewhat lost on our respectiverncampuses. Indeed, after half anrnhour we knew we thought alike on mostrnessential issues. Soon after, Erik vonrnKuchnelt-Leddihn came to lecture tornSacred Heart, and confided to me hisrnsecret hope concerning the imminentrncareer of “four young men.” They werernRussell Kirk, Wilhelmsen, John Lukacs,rnand me. Wc were to have “outstandingrncareers,” not in competition but underrnthe common Catholic spiritual stimulus.rnYoung Turks of sorts.rnWilhelmsen and I were to see eachrnother a good number of times, especiallyrnconsidering our coeditorship of Triumph.rnThe two of us formed at the Washingtonrneditorial meetings a kind of “radical”rnsection. Example: before launching thernjournal (still under the name Future,rnagreed on in a nearby bar), Fritz and I favoredrna tough editorial policy, a demandingrntone vis-a-vis the bishops. When Irnsent back from Brazil the text of my explosiverninterview with Dom Helder Camara,rnbishop of Reeife/Olinda, BrentrnBozell as boss decided against publishingrnit. Fritz and I voted for it.rnOther meetings were occasioned byrnlectures and conferences, from Maliburnto Philadelphia, where Fritz wouldrnwarmly embrace me, rather like an accomplice,rnas if he and I possessed a specialrnsecret, not to be shared with others.rnPart of the secret was that our group ofrntwo represented the European branch ofrnCatholic conservatism in America, althoughrnwe diverged on several matters:rnFritz “represented” Spain; I, France. Hernbelieved in the restoration of right-wingrnmonarchy; I saw its futility. He believedrnin marches, uniforms, and other spectaculars;rnI favored the slow rhythm of intellectualrnadvance.rnThese were, however, externals. Morernimportant was our moderate admirationrnfor Eric Voegelin’s magnum opus,rnpointing out (in Modern Age) its basicrnHegelian derailment. Our articles (nornconspiracy!) criticized this great thinkerrnfor not finding a sufficient ontologyrnunder the “symbolizations” of religiousrnthought. I think Wilhelmsen, too, sawrnVoegelin as a German philosopher in thernline of Mister Eekhart, not as a restorer ofrnontology. And we agreed that, whateverrnVoegelin’s merits, he was by no means arn”conservative.” Not that this matteredrnwith us; I do not reveal much of a secretrnif I confess that both Fritz and I becamernover the years “men of the right” ratherrnthan conservatives with the correctrnDNA. In fact, this may have been thern”secret” that we harbored: our differentlyrnnuanced but firmly held convictionrnthat conservatism was an ideology of thernstatus quo, and, in the American context,rntoo pragmatic and libertarian to firernthe imagination. Hence Wilhelmsen’srnspiritual and aesthetic relocation.rnFritz was also called a man of the Renaissance,rnbut I go one step further andrnsee him as a late-Medieval man, trying tornbe a Thomist at the Medici court in Florence.rnI believe he would have loved thatrnrole: the surrounding beauty and therngreat intellectual adventure. It is anrnopen question whether he would havernchosen Savonarola as a “role model,”rnsomething out of the question on anrnAmerican campus. Hence his choice ofrnSpain as a spiritual point of arrival.rnHence also, not the Medici court, but severernand dry Castille, and not sensuousrnMichelangelo, but El Greco. And DonrnQuixote and Goya. Not a bad solutionrnfor Frederick Wilhelmsen’s irrepressiblernromanticism, a romanticism tempered,rnhowever, by Thomist discipline. He mayrnhave wanted to rebuild Avila in Texas andrncombine McLuhan’s technology with arnnew and lively Christendom. At times,rnunrealized dreams are the best a manrncan leave behind.rnThomas Molnar’s PhilosophicalrnGrounds was recently released byrnTransaction Publishers as Archetypesrnof Thought.rn48/CHRONICLESrnrnrn