some who produce the material needsnthat she will share with others. Gilder,nin his several studies ot modern society,nhas acknowledged that true wealth dependsnupon more than material riches.nDespite their common threads.nMother Teresa and George Gilder arencut from very different cloth. PresidentnReagan speaks easily and publicly thenlanguage of supply-side economics,nmuch of which has been coined bynGeorge Gilder. The President has alsonbeen an advocate of Mother Teresa’snconcerns, and his Department of Healthnand Human Services honored her at anWhite House luncheon on June 4.nPresident Reagan campaigned on antheme of national renewal, and has aifirmednthat his administration has onenagenda, rather than separable social.neconomic and international concerns.nOn June 4. President Reagan spokenfrom the White House on economicnmatters. When Mother Teresa departednafter lunch that day. the gaggle of WhitenHouse reporters who asked the Presidentnthe topics of luncheon discussion werentold simply. “We listened.” If the Reagannadministration is to achieve its agendanfor national renewal, its leading communicatornmust reassert its public voicenon matters beyond money. The renewalnof a free society requires a bold and continuousnaffirmation of the simplenstrength of the truth that looks beyondneconomics and into the souls of peoplen••.vho would be free. There we can findnthe truth that will sustain our future. DnTHE AMERICAN PROSCENIUMnBifurcationnThroughout April and May the debatenraged over the candidacy of ErnestnLefever as the State Department’snspokesman for human rights. The battle,nif not the war. has apparently beennwon by the assorted forces of the liberalnleft and the expeditious political operatorsnwho are so popular in the Washington.nD.C. social-conscience industry.nTo be sure. Mr. Lefever defended himselfnwithout dexterity and perhaps evennwith a certain maladroitness. which maynhave precipitated his defeat. Yet thenepisode has bared some complex aspectsnof a problem which is not going to fadenaway with Mr. Lefever’s withdrawal andnPresident Reagan’s miniblunder.nFrom the outset the debate that unfoldednbefore the public resembled ancatch-as-catch-can tournament. In then18th century, when human rights constitutednthe hub of spiritual advancementnand the very core of social andnpolitical progress, the term came to bendefined quite precisely and the notionnwas clear and functional. Its theoristsnand political philosophers in France.nEngland and America grounded it firmlyn4()inChronicles of Culturenin the idea of natural law and naturalnrights: they linked it to an elaborate systemnof social duties, civic obligations andnmoral responsibilities—which is not exactlynwhat the American left have innmind today when they speak about humannrights. What they have in mind isnan assemblage of privileges which arento be heaped upon their constituents accordingnto their ideological prescription.nSuch notions inevitablv end in sociopoliticalnsloganeering, thus furthering thenobjectives of liberal and radical policiesnthat are often in obvious disregard of anynstandard of political honesty and fairness.nThe noble concept of human rights becamenhopelessly bifurcated in the leftliberalnorientation of President Carter’snadministration—which amply demonstratednthe liberal hypocrisy and selectivendouble standards in the domain ofnhuman rights.nCertain principles of human rightsnas devised by the reigning liberal institutionsnover the last several decades—nthe Warren Supreme Court, for examplen— are viewed by European democraciesnas childish ravings about the notion ofnjustice. Many Americans have long suspectednthat the contemporary versionnnnof human risjhts-especially as it hasnbeen warpea by liberal manipulation —nis not what serves our societv best. Thisnfeeling might have piaved a big role innMr. Reagan’s victory: plenty ot peoplenexpect him to clarity the notion ot humannrights and put it to respectable usenas one ot the main ingredients ot ournnational and ideological heritage.nUnfortunately, this has not happenednin a satisfactory manner. Mr. Reagan,nhis conceptualists and his advisers havencome no more than halfway in establishingntheir own doctrine, especially wherforeignnpolicy is involved. What theynhave done is commendable: the declarationnthat communism, as an ideology andna source or political power, is the primarynenemy of and threat to the Americannconcept of human rights is correctnand welcome. But to assume that the distinctionnbetween a totalitarian regimenand an authoritarian one—very accuratenin terms of political science —shouldnbe based on strategic and tactical pr- ;nties strikes us as unfinished, risky a..jnin need of careful elaboration. If Americanhas an historical mission, then wenmust not try to reduce history to a momentaryncircumstance: any Presidentnwho strives to achieve great goals cannotnignore this simple truth. The differentiationnof freedoms in various countriesncannot be summarized in obtusencatch-phrases if we are to remain thenworld’s pillar of liberty: the degrees ointhat freedom have to be measured scrupulously,narticulated accordingly andndealt with meticulously. Our credibilitynin proclaiming communism evil will benseriously damaged if we refuse to assertnfirmly that Argentinian neofascism is andanger to Western civilization (even ifnit is a scourgelike reaction to the bestialitynof leftist terrorists like the Monteneros).nWe. the American conservatives,ncannot afford the unintentional humornof Secretary Haig. who—when asked byna liberal senator what we have in commonnwith Argentina—answered: “God.'”nWe doubt that the majority of AmericannChristians would agree that the conceptnof “God” is the same in every humann