Prisoners of PassionnWe read recently with speechless awenthat, after a late-niglit showng of aii Xrateclnmovie had so aroused one prisonerntliat he sexually assaulted his cellmate,nthe authorities of Wisconsin’s WaupunnCorrectional Facility banned the furthernuse of such films at the institution. Wenwere, and still are, uncertain whethernpornographic movies should be induelcdnin the entertainment fare for young criminalsnforcibly isolated from society in anprison: the practice seems tantamount tondriving lambs into a jungle full of starv-ingntigers and then w-ondering why there’snnot a bone left. However, the announcednban has aroused feelings of deep sadnessnamong American Civil liberties Unionnlawyers, who are “quite concerned aboutnthe apparent infi-ingement of die inmates’nFirst Amendment rights” and are thereforenthreatening litigation to reverse thendecision. Corrections Administrator ElmernCady has not yet yielded to this pressure.ndeveloped in a social-democratic directionnif not for Western errors, provocations,nand interventions. Eventually, thensame will be claimed for Nicaragua.nThe critic also paints a vivid picture ofnthe carnage of war. The most pessimisticnscenario is presented: the next war willnbe unlimited; there will be no victors;ncivilization itself will end. There will benvirtually no hope of survival, and the livingnwill envy the dead. A modified renditionnof this nuclear prediction can benused to undermine support for a conventionalnwar. It involves presenting thenbattlefield without heroics—the streamnof widows, fatherless children, thenwounded, the dead. It involves focusingnon the atrocities and barbarities thatncharacterize all wars. Peace (like humannrights endorsed abstractly by all) becomesnthe new obsession. The context,nterms, and ramifications are irrelevant.nThe obsession with peace and the fear ofnLIBERAL CULTURE Hnthougli, because he is “concerned for tliensafety of Waupun stall; as well as inmates.”nWe envision a solution which couldnsatisfy the passions of all concerned:nprison officials could provide all interestedninmates witli blue films; the ACLUncould provide concerned lawyers asncellmates. Dnnuclear war seldom lead to demands fornreintroduction of the draft and a strengtheningnof conventional forces. War is annabsolute evil and peace is the panacea.nThe interest served by this scenario goesnunnoticed.nOne problem that contributes to thenvacuum of understanding of defensenpolicies is ignorance. How can the laymannbegin to determine which missilesnfill which need; the relative merits ofnground, air, and submarine missHes; thenideal location of missUes; or how muchnis enough? How can he determine if nuclearnwar can be limited or evaluate thencase for and against civil defense? Similarly,nhow can the layman divine the realnobjective of the adversary state or thenreality of its threat to the domestic interests?nThe layman can, however, note anconsistency and continuity in the rhetoricnof persons who portray the domesticnU.S. in the most disparaging terms,nnnpresent totalitarianism sympathetically,ncontend that defense needs are minimal,nand blame the U.S. disproportionatelynfor international conflict.nKobert Scheer, ex-editor of the muckraking/fampartenand coauthor of one ofnthe many Cuban travelogues, presentsnthe typical peace polemic. It describesnthe U.S. as dominated by aging cold warriorsnwho have shifted policy from anconcern with preventing nuclear war tona preoccupation with fighting and winning.nThe adversary is presented as rational,nflexible, and open to compromise.nThe expected picture of nuclear conflagrationnand the contempt for civil defensenis rendered.nHistory provides many disreputablenexamples of regime destabilization. Thesenshould not obscure the fact that therenare some political systems that need tonbe destabilized, that are so lacking in anynpretense of justice that the just man hasnlittle alternative to resistance. To abjurentotaUy and always the tools of destabflizationnis to aid the forces of oppression.nChristian orthodoxy can be interpretednas sanctioning the just revolt, but a prerequisitenmust be concern for ramification:nWill greater good than evil resultnfrom the exercise? And this is where thencontemporary world sufiers. So oftennthe crusade proclaimed against an authoritariannregime ushers in a more oppressiventotalitarian regime. Concerningnthe domestic American scene, it is obviousnthat to espouse liberal reform is notnnecessarily to contribute to system overload.nPersons can favor human rights, affirmativenaction, liberalized immigration,nsocial services, or progressive educationnwithout undermining the system. Onencan demonstrate concern for nuclearnproliferation without defanging the nationalndefense. It is the context, the timing,nand the degree of the demand, itsnstyle and its probable ramifications whichnare significant. EspeciaUy important isnfinding that balance so appreciated bynthe ancient Greeks. For even the naive,nweU-intentioned person can contributento the destabilization syndrome. DnHi^^l?nAugust 1983n