requests to see Xosenko throughnBanon again, and-Nosenko refused. Innthe August 26 issue of The New Republic.nEpstein offers further assertionsnand arguments in response to attacksnon his original review. His defense ofnthe driver’s license/traffic ticket chargenis an exercise in the absurd. Epsteinndoes seem to have uncovered an apparentnerror in Mr. Shevchenko’snchronology, but this error, admitted tonby Shevchenko in a press conference,nhardly proves Epstein’s theories of-anKGB-and-CIA plotnEpstein’s first book in 1966 was onnthe Warren Commission. His 1978nbook on Oswald, which he plugs in hisnlatest review, attempted to show that anSoviet defector, Yuri Nosenko, was innrealitv a mole sent bv the Soviets tonken. In the years that followed, thenACLU actually expelled some of itsncommunist leaders and collaboratednwith the FBI in an effort to keepnothers from creeping in.nAfter liberalism turned radical innthe 1960’s and 1970’s, however,nthis animus’ against communismnbecatne not merely an anachronismnbut an embarrassment to thenACLU, which now deplores allnsuch “Red-baiting.” Lost in thenshifting sands of liberalism were annumber of other previous ACLUnstands. In 1982,. the ACLU officiallyndeclined to buy all of its suppliesnfrom union suppliers. (Union products,nit turns out, are expensive.)nBut v’hile the blue-collar workersnfended for themselves, the .ACLUnwas bus’ discovering previously unheardnof “civil rights” for pinkcollarn(female and gay) and minorityncitizens. Equality before the lawnwent by the boards in favor ofngovernment-mandated economicnequality, while the 14th Amendmentnswallowed the Bill of Rightsnwhole. Having previously arguednstrenuously against racial advancementnby quotas, suddenly thenACLU will not hear of doing withoutnthem. And while pressing fornrigorous affirmative action standardsneverywhere else, the ACLUngrants itself a waiver because it isn”unable to find a minority candidate.”nNeoconservatism received anconvince the U.S. that the Sovietsn’.vere not in’olved in the assassmationnof John Kennedy. Nosenko. 21 yearsnlater, is presumably biding his timenafter accomplishing his first mission. Itnmust be a big mission because sincenhis defection in 1964, Nosenko hasnidentified KGB and GRU agents andnoperations throughout the world. Thenimplication in the original review fornThe New Republic is that Shevchenkonhas now been properly installed tondisseminate Soviet disinformation.nEpstein writes that Georg’ Arbatov,nhead of the Soviet Institute of the U.S.nand Canada, “could- now claim thatnone of his former colleagues was anregular commentator ‘in place’ onnABC.” A reasQfiable and .charitablenperson would conclude Epstein is anbig boost when the Skokie case—asn.aron Wildavsky explains in annexcellent preface—7helped to “clearnthe decks of those who were attachednto the deprived of the past,nlike Jews, and to reattach those whoncould identify with the wave of thenfuture deprived.”nJewish intellectuals were not thenonly ones alienated by the ACLU’snnew initiatives. The solicitude fornthe rights of pornographers andncriminals coupled with callous disregardnfor mere victims outragednthe millions who applauded whennEdwin Meese labeled the ACLU an”criminal’s lobby.” Many othersnmarveled at the eagerness withnwhich the ACLU embraced Roe v.nWade—a ruling without constitutionalnfoundations. Increasingly,nDonohue observes, the ACLU hasnsupported legal intrusion into economicnmatters while stepping up itsnattacb upon all legal, ethical, butnnnprofessional conspiracymonger. .-Vncynic might conclude he may be annagent of Soviet disinformation. Thencharitable interpretation of The NewnRepublic is that the decision to publishnEpstein is a shameless grab at publicity.nBut wasn’t this practice of recklesslynsmearing people as Soviet agents generallyndiscredited 30 years ago—alongnwith a certain junior Senator fromnWisconsin?nStill, Epstein may have his reasonsnto “juice up” his own research onnNosenko, Shevchenko. and others. Henis under contract to write a book onndisinformation for, you guessed it, MichaelnKorda, editor of Simon andnSchuster. ccnespecially religious restraints uponnpersonal behavior. The Union hasngone so far as to spy on Henry Hydenand to demand access to his mail innorder to “convict” him of beingnillicitly influenced by religion in hisnanti-abortion attitudes. But thisndouble standard is nothing new fornan organization that wanted to denynRichard Nixon all Fifth Amendmentnrights during his impeachmentnprocedures and worked hardnto censor a 1938 attack by H.L.nMencken. It sometimes seems tonoutsiders that the ACLU regardsnhypocrisy not as the 11th Commandment,nbut as the only Commandment.nDonohue warns thatnthe ACLU’s assault upon all normativencodes, upon family, neighborhood,ncommunity, and churchn— in short upon everything betweennthe autonomous individualnand the engorged State-r-will producenunforeseen consequences. AnHobbesian state of nature invariablynproduces something like a Hobbesiannmonarchy: “Despotism awaitsnthe fully liberated individual, freednfrom custom, social convention,nand tradition.” Maybe Donohue isnbeing too charitable in saying thatnthe probable results of ACLU policynare unintended. The ACLU’s onceadorednportraits of “Uncle Joe” maynnot have been destroyed; they maynjust be in the basement in temporarvnstorage. ccnNOVEMBER 1385/ Vn