At the time of this writing, the ethnicnsolidarity and loyalty of a minority—12npercent of the population, to be exactn— is producing a national binge ofnemotional hysteria on behalf of a mannwhom one participant called “a dreamnfor the human people,” but who is innfact the terrorist deputy leader of anCommunist political party bent on destroyingna civilization dating from then17th century and replacing it with anmonolithic totalitarian government institutednupon strictly racial principles.nAlso at this time, a U.S. Cabinet officialnwas booed and otherwise harassed innSan Francisco by an organized groupnrepresenting a highly oral minoritynwhose differences from the majoritynhave to do with the sensual pleasurenthey derive from releasing gerbils andnother foreign bodies into their (excretivendeleted). Days later, their behavior wasnrecognized and rewarded by the nationalngovernment in Washington, whennjoint congressional conferees on a civilnrights bill decided that it should benillegal to permit businesses in all 50nstates and the District of Columbia notnto employ as food handlers people whonengage in such practices.nIt is true that, since the 1960’s, allnkinds of associational, interstitial, mediative,nand even centrifugal groups haveneither arisen or declared themselves innthe United States; it is also true that thenLIBERAL ARTSnNO JOINT CUSTODY?!nA divorcing Bellevue, Kentucky, couplenhas reached an agreement on custodynand support payments for their six-yearoldnson but couldn’t agree on who getsnto keep their boat. Circuit Judge MurielnRobinson ruled in June that the husband,nMichael Wayne Blair, can keepnthe boat, motor, and trailer, but that hisnwife. Donna Lynne Blair, can use it onenweekend a month.nThe attorneys agreed that DonnanBlair should get the boat during thenhours frequently used for child visitationnin divorce cases: 6 p.m. Friday to 6 p.m.nSunday.n—from The Sunday Tennessean,nJune 3, 1990n38/CHRONICLESnAmerican State, acting from Washington,nhas done its damnedest to co-optnthem all to its leviathan purpose andnthat, for the most part, it has succeedednin doing so. Robert Nisbet is certainlyncorrect in deploring the fatalism ofnWestern intellectuals, who believe thatnwhatever is truly “modern” is also inevitable.nOn the other hand, history doesnacquire a momentum of its own. Thatnmomentum has been slacked, at leastnfor the short term, in Eastern Europe.nMeanwhile, in the U.S., my tax bill isnabout to go up in order to keep brightnthose thousand points of light, all ofnthem held in careful orbit so that, likenTelestars, they may be in sweet andnunbroken communication with the giganticnmonitoring station on CapitolnHill.nChilton Williamson, ]r. is the seniorneditor for books at Chronicles.nGiving andnGiving Innby Donald DevinenPatterns of CorporatenPhilanthropy: Ideas, Advocacy, andnthe Corporationnby James T. BennettnWashington, D.C.: Capital ResearchnCenter; 322 pp., $50.00nMy first reaction to reading thisnbook is, what has all the controversynbeen about? Patterns is an empiricalnstudy of corporate giving to publicninterest — as opposed to traditionalnhealth and welfare — charities. Mr.nBennett has shown great ingenuity innconstructing a paradigm of such givingnthat he does not claim to be formallynrepresentative, but that is neverthelessnvery serviceable, and certainly the bestnstudy of the subject ever attempted.nThe results of the survey show thatnAmerican corporations — unsurprisingly—ndistribute their public interestnphilanthropic grants rather evenly betweennconservative, centrist, and liberalngroups. But, although the number ofngrants are spread out, the larger onesntend to be directed toward the left endnof the political spectrum; hence thencontroversy.nnnYearly, liberal groups receive aboutn$11.7 million from business, comparednto $11.3 million for centrist groups andnonly $3.2 million for conservativenones. When center groups leaning leftnand right are analyzed, liberals arenfound to have almost twice the financialnsupport from the corporate woridnas do conservatives. James Bennettnfinds it strange that businesses shouldnoffer greater assistance to groups thatnare critical of the capitalist marketplacenthan to those organizations that supportnit. Corporate charitable decisionmakers,nwith one eye on their stockholders,nhave howled in response thatnthey are not guilty of supporting theirnenemies. But Mr. Bennett’s data arenirrefutable.nOn second thought, who should bensurprised that businessmen who sellnrope to their hangman might also bengiving it to him? Lenin did not knownmuch about economics, but no onenhas denied he was politically perceptive.nFor that matter, long before himnAdam Smith observed that businessmennwere not necessarily friends of thenmarket. Indeed, the greatest social analystnof the early 20th century, JosephnSchumpeter, predicted that largencorporation executives would becomenimpatient with the discipline of thenmarket and make cause with thengovernment’s bureaucrats to give thencoup de grace to faltering capitalismnunder the welfare state.nWhy might business support theirnenemies? First, as Smith noted, to donso might well be in their short-termninterest. Poor market judgment cannalways be remedied by a governmentnsubsidy. (Lee lacocca is called a greatnbusinessman for getting a governmentsupportednloan to save a falteringnChrysler. Even yours truly could makena great comeback if someone gave himn$3 billion.) Second, businessmen findnthat supporting left-leaning causes cannhelp to establish them as part of thenchic set, putting them in a betternposition perhaps to acquire an eighteen-year-oldnartist for a fifth wife.nThird, leaning left gets good pressnfrom a sympathetic media. Finally, asnSchumpeter noted, businessmen arentrained temperamentally not to makenwaves; they will “not say boo to angoose,” as he put it. When’the leftnplays its political version of trick-ortreat,nmost corporations give the one ton