meant by “individual rights” shouldninclude the right to private ownership.nIn Austria, however, this right is severelyncurtailed: banks and heavy industrynare largely nationalized, and, no lessnimportant, radio and television arenstate-owned — both serious marksnagainst the country’s record on individualnfreedom.nThe article on “The Interrelationshipnof Freedom, Equality, and Development”nby Harmon Zeigler, a professornof politics and government at thenUniversity of Puget Sound, containsneven more peculiar claims. While concedingnthe existence of privileges innCommunist countries — contrary tonstrict Marxist ideology — Zeigler warnsnagainst being too critical of that system.nFor example, he points to the “fact”nthat income distribution in the USSRnis similar to that of industrialndemocracies — never mind the unreliabilitynof statistics in a nonmarket context,nthe deliberate distortions of datanfor political purposes, or nonmonetarynprivileges that differentiate the partynelites from the masses qualitatively asnwell as quantitatively. Zeigler, it seems,ngives the edge to the Soviets, sincenthough life there is admittedly “grim,”nstill, “nobody starves, nobody is deniednmedical attention, nobody is unemployed,nand there are no ‘street people.'”nThe most critical flaw in the survey,nhowever, is a systematic misunderstandingnof the economic dimension ofnindividual liberty. The economic aspectnof rights, in this volume, seems tonimply either economic indexes such asninfant mortality, GNP, and adult literacyn(for which a statistical table isnprovided) or, in Gastil’s words, annassessment that “a system [is] freenprimarily to the extent that the peoplen[are] actually given a choice in determiningnthe nature of their economicnsystem.” The former approach,nthrough economic indexes, tells nothingnabout legal protection for individualninitiative or private property. Thensecond definition begs the question ofnhow “the people” — taken somehownas a whole — might make such an”choice.”nPhilosophical issues aside, I feelnvaguely disappointed by a volume devotednto individual liberty that fails toninclude some sense of the subjective:nhow it feels to live without freedom.n44/CHRONiCLESnwhat tyranny is all about, and, for thatnmatter, what heroism is. A selection,nsay, from Natan Sharansky’s Fear NonEvil, or from Armando Valladares’ accountsnof his suffering, or from anynnumber of other personal stories mightnhave made the message more real andntangible. But that would have demandedna very different book.nJuliana Geran Pilon is executivendirector of the National ForumnFoundation in Washington, DC.nA Sacred SocialnOrdernby Harold O.J. BrownnTwin Powers: Politicsnand the Sacrednby Thomas S. MolnarnGrand Rapids: E£rdmans; MZ pp.n$9.95 (paper)nIn Twin Powers, Thomas Molnar,none of our age’s most imaginativenand creative thinkers, confronts us, likenHannah Arendt and Eric Voegelinnbefore him, with an analysis of ournsocial, political, and cultural situationnthat is both fascinating and frustrating:nfascinating, because it seems to explainnso much; frustrating, because it appearsnvery difficult to do anything with thenknowledge that he gives us. One is leftnwith the feeling that one has understoodnthe problem but is powerless tondo anything about it.nMolnar’s thesis, which he developsncarefully with many illustrations, is thatnpower—the political order — needs tonbe based on a vision of a sacred order ifnit is to endure and to be healthy. Hencontends that in “postmodern” Westernncivilization, we have totally lost thenconcept of a transcendent sacred ordernand have substituted for it a kind ofnimmanent sacredness based on thenindividual, an unstable situation thatnMolnar characterizes as “fragile” andnproductive of a constant state of anxietynand tension.nPublished in September 1988, TwinnPowers must have been written beforenthe 1988 presidential campaign wasnwell under way. In the aftermath ofnwhat was a personal triumph for Bush,nnnsomewhat soured by the Republicans’nlosses in Congress, as we ponder thendirection that the new administrationnwill be able to give our “stumblingngiant” of a country, Molnar providesnus with a diagnosis that sounds rathernlike irreversible arteriosclerosis. We nonlonger have a sacred vision, for we havenbeen dismantling it since the days ofnthe later Scholastics at least, and wencannot have a viable society withoutnone. This leads inexorably to a melancholynvision of America’s future, sincenit seems hardly likely that in our pluralisticnsociety we will ever be able to laynsuch a foundation afresh.nMolnar contends that until thenWestern “break” — which he assertsnhad begun long before the ProtestantnReformation — all societies have livednout of a vision of a sacred order.nNineteenth-century sociologists andnanthropologists assumed that such anreligious outlook was a projection ofnthe self-awareness of the particularncommunity, but now it is more generallynadmitted that communities do notn”deify” themselves, but somehow perceive,nby intuition or revelation, a transcendentnOther from beyond their ownnhuman boundaries. Both in Twin Powersnand its immediate predecessor, ThenPagan Temptation (Eerdmans, 1987),nMolnar emphasizes that there is anfundamental difference between thencommon human vision of the sacred,nwhich he calls “pagan,” which locatesnthe divine in this world, and the monotheisticnJewish and Christian vision,nwhich sees only God as holy andnhonors, but does not worship, thenworld as his handiwork. Both paganismnand biblical religion possess a vision ofnthe sacred, but the biblical vision is sonlean and austere, and involves so muchnpruning of man’s fertile religious imagination,nthat the process of going biblical,nso to speak, may fail to stop in timenand may go on to demolish biblicalnideas and symbols as well. Molnarnclearly wants to preserve that which isntruly sacred while ridding us of thenspurious claims to sacredness of creatednthings. Unfortunately, the campaignnto desacralize the world seems tonhave gone too far, and Molnar doesnnot think that it can be reversed.nMolnar believes that power, deprivednof any sacred sanction, is atrophyingnin the West and, having lost allnmoderation, is in a state of hypertrophyn