Short Viewsn(continued from page 11)nsplendid contempt for political idealism, in fact for everynvirtue known to ethical science. When the Baudelaire ofnrock begins to pound the pulpit, then—to borrow one of hisnlines—“the absurd courts the vulgar.”nHuman beings simply cannot think on a global scale.nLawrence Kohlberg, who is responsible for a famous outiinenof ethical development, recently conceded that his level sixn(universal conscience) is only to be met with in an occasionalnsaint like Mother Teresa. The rest of us are lucky if wencan follow orders and, occasionally, be civil to our nextdoornneighbor. “Easy to be hard” was the 60’s rock answernto all of this earing about people, “easy to say no”—a sillynsong but a solid point.nInternationalism encourages long views, which is supposednto be a good thing. I am not so sure that a broadnperspective is so good an idea. There is a wonderful scene innThe Third Man where Harry Lyme takes his friend up in anFerris wheel to explain why he sold rotten penicillin to anchildren’s household. From up there, he explained, peoplenlooked like ants. What difference did it make if a few ofnthem got stepped on? Jesus, it will be remembered, wasnoffered a similar Weltanschauung by the tempter who tooknhim up into a high place and showed him all the kingdomsnof the world. “Take short views, hope for the best, and trustnin God” was Sydney Smith’s famous credo. I can think ofnmany worse.nIn the forthcoming issue of Chronicles:nPersonal Fireworksn”The achievement of an A in a course on death must benan indication that one has mastered and so, by implication,nhas triumphed over the subject matter. If life is anproblem to be solved, then death, the inescapable solution,nis a problem to be defused of problemality, so thatnone will be able to live without dread with the fact ofndeath in the same way that one lives without joy with thenexperience of life.”n—from “The Novel and the Imperial Self”nby John W. Aldridgen^85^nALSOnJohn Sisk discovers the missing links between drugs,npornography, and HollywoodnJanet Barlow says “good night” to Merry Sunshine fathersn24 I CHRONICLESnFred Chappell finds gold in the Romantic visionnRobert Nisbet looks at the history of historynnnThe more we think about all mankind, the worse we shallntreat our children, our neighbors, our friends, and even ournallies. Charity and benevolence are not like some chemicalnherbicide that can be manufactured and sprayed everywherento rid the world of chickweed and dandelions. Theynare seeds which must be planted, tended, watered, and—nwhen the fruit is ripe—plucked and shared with hungrynneighbors and passersby. Attempt to sow them from ancropdusting plane and they become a nuisance.nWhenever anyone ventures to complain about the erosionnof national identity, he is sure to be told that thenmodern age is an internationalist era of Satellite Communication,nUNESCO, and multinational businesses. We arenalready living in McLuhan’s “global village,” and there isnno point in kicking against the pricks. Maybe so. But in thenmidst of all these transnational embraces, it is possible tondetect counterindications: the flare-up of nationalismnamong Scots, Welsh, Bretons, and Basques; the persistencenof tribalism as the basic motivation of Third World politics;nand finally the emergence of the multinational company asna nation claiming the allegiance of its managers. Territorialnloyalties remain very strong; if they are attacked or stretchedntoo far, they have a way of snapping back at the oddest timesnand in the strangest ways. Internationalism has, in the past,nflown under many flags: the pax romana, the Holy RomannEmpire, liberty-equality-fraternity, Pan-Slavism, and Communism.nAll of them became, whatever their origin, anpretext for territorial expansion.nIt is difficult for the diverse strands of the Americannpopulation to think in national terms. Some Texas schoolsnon the Rio Grande celebrate Cinco de Mayo as the majornpatriotic holiday of the year, and many Southerners stillnhave difficulty working up much enthusiasm for Lincoln’snbirthday. With all the divisions in American life, you mightnthink we would be devoting our best eflbrts to unifying thennation, but no. The debate over aid to the Nicaraguanncontras occupied the attention of President and Congressnfor a good part of the past 12 months. To listen to somenconservatives, destroying the Sandinistas is more importantnthan reducing unemployment or refurbishing the nationalnparks. The left takes the same view of South Africa. Somenblack political leaders like to speak out on behalf of NelsonnMandela or the affronted Angolans as if it were Americansnwhose liberties were at risk. Meanwhile, conservativesncontinue to fawn over Jonas Savimbi as if they knewnanything about him—other than who trained him (thenCommunist Chinese) and who ghostwrites his articles.nGreek Americans egg us on to damage our relations withnTurkey—an important strategic ally; Hispanic leaders agitatenfor bilingualism.nEven more divisive than ethnic irredentism is the ideologicalnfuror. The concept of global democracy would benamusing in a pathetic sort of way if its exponents did notnhave so much influence on public policy. Going alphabeticallyndown the roster of the United Nations, a Boy Scoutnwould have trouble finding two democracies close enoughnto rub together for a fire. South Africa is to be condemnednnot because it is failing to deal successfully with thensituation in which it finds itself, not because it is in ourninterest to slough off a potential embarrassment, but becausenit is not democratic enough. If the democratizers haven