of the other two. The effects of the existencenof hundreds of these triocracies innthe Federal polity is that almost all Federalnlegislation and policy is pressured innthe direction fevorable to the interest ofneach triocracy singly rather than to theninterest of the nation as a whole, andnthat major change in a triocracy’s area ofninterest is very difficult to accomplish.nThis explains why even when change isnobviously necessary, it still is very difficultnto effect (why, for instance, we paynfarmers not to grow food, why studentnloans cannot be cut, and why there aren”cost plus” arrangements with defensencontractors), which in turn explains thensense of cynicism and frustration thatncharacterizes the mood of the Americannpeople today.nWhat happens when the governmentnwUl not respond to the needs of a largenenough group of citizens? A reformnmovement, or simply a “movement”nwill emerge. It can be as spastic and unplannednas a ghetto riot or as sophisticatednand deliberate as the environmentalistnmovement, and it can encompass anpopulism of the right as well as of the left.nWhat Galambos calls “highly charged,nemotional movements which [seek] extremensolutions to America’s problems”nare now a feature of our political modernity.nThere have been several such movementsnin the last 20 years—anti-VietnamnWar protests, the civil-rights movement,nfeminism, ghetto riots, the nuclear-lreezenmovement, the rise of the New Left, thenecology movement, and the tax revolt.nIn each case, a popular revolt againstngovernment policy or perceived governmentniiuction went beyond the ordinarynchannels of our representative democracynin an attempt to make its point.nWhile each of these movements maynhave attempted to lobby legislatures, influencenexecutives, or argue their casenbefore the courts, they counted mainlynon a surge of public opinion and on thenorganization of mass action for their efnfectiveness. They all relied on the media,nparticularly television, to convince thenAmerican public of something: if not thenjustice of their case, then at least the in­n181nChronicles of Culturentensity of their desire. Galambos suggestsnthat these movements are a thing of thenpast, a last menopausal fling before settlingndown to complacent middle age.nOther fects suggest the contrary, however;ngiven the lethargy of the triocraticnsystem as Galambos describes it, wenmay well see more of these movementsnin the future than we have in the recentnpast. Indeed, the impatience of wouldbenreformers has increased to the pointnwhere their critical eye has turned fromnthe specific areas of their concern to thensystem which resists reform. Their aimnhas now become one of reforming thatnsystem’s way of making decisions andnresponding to the demands of its citizens,nand what they want is essentiaUy angreat simplification. This usually meansneliminating those levels of governmentnand interests subsidiary to the Federal ornnational level, and, further, simplifyingnFederal decision-making by subordinatingnthe legislative branch to the executive.nThis is particularly true these daysnof ecologists, conservationists, and othern”little-earthers.”nCjharles Hatch Stoddard is one ofnthese, and he is worth analyzing as annexample of a new form of political extremismnwhich can be called eco-radicalism.nTypical of eco-radicals, Stoddardnbegins with a vision of ecologicalnapocalypse—^poisoned rivers, erodednfarm lands, toxic air, mounds of garbagen—^the whole bag of eco-disasters. Thenpolitical result of such a scenario, saysnnnStoddard, will be the “Invocation ofnmartial law followed by the establishmentnof a police state.” To prevent this,nwe need to start a movement, but onensuch as we have never seen before, onenthat wiU insist on necessary reforms andnwhich will change the policies of misguidedngovernment; Looking Forwardnis a catalog, as well as a caU to arms, delineatingnthe necessary reforms. Stoddardnrecommends changes in national governance,nincluding budget aUocationsnand foreign policy. There is an occasionalngood suggestion, but more generally obviousnis Stoddard’s weakness in the fecenof the totalitarian temptation. Thus, henspeaks of “antiquated theories of states’nrights, home rule, and suburban autonomy.”nIt might seem that this sentence isnmerely the result of the reformer’s frustration,nbut Stoddard reaUy means it.nTypical of eco-radicalism at its worst, henconcludes one chapter with this statement:n”In the biological world, gregariousnants and honeybees systematicaUy organizentheir clustered communities innharmony with natural ecosystems. Fornhuman settlements to survive and sustainnthemselves, they must do the same.” Nonthanks. I’d rather live in a toxic wastendump as fi-ee man than in an ecologicallynbalanced ant colony.nThis weakness toward totalitarianismnstains Stoddard’s view of American foreignnpolicy, too. In fact, both Galambosnand Stoddard think that our foreign policynshould accommodate rather thannoppose revolutionary reform movementsnin other countries. Both authorsnthink that our opposition to communismnis wrong, that it is simply an attempt tonprotect our foreign markets and is basednon a simplistic ethic that sees communismnas evil and the American way of lifenas good. What escapes both men is theirnown ethical simplism that accepts thenrationalization of socialist totalitarianismnas being nothing more than reformnmovements representing good, as opposednto the entrenched right-wing regimesnsymbolizing evil. They share thenblind spot that blots out the most fearsomenaspect of our modernity, the battlen