nated from the Republican contest, hendeclared himself to be an independentncandidate for the presidency. At thatnmoment, he became the polls’ pol: sympatheticnpollsters working for televisionnand giant liberal press outfits began tonconstruct questions like: “Would younvote for John Anderson on a crisp, sunnynNovember day, when you had nothingnbetter to do and knew nothing aboutnhim?” Whatever percentage of thenpolled answered that they didn’t give andamn if only the weather was good, thennetworks and liberal press organs proclaimednAnderson’s growing appeal tonthe electorate. It slowly began to looknas if Mr. Anderson were not an independent,nbut the candidate of the NetworknParty. NBC has so obviously decidednthat he must be president that wenbegin to wonder about that company’snstake in it: will we be ruled by NBC ifnMr. Anderson wins?nAs of now, there’s little doubt thatnMr. Anderson is a media creation rathernthan a genuine political occurrence. Thenmechanism of creating him is identicalnto the method of fabricating a best seller:nwhatever the value of a book, a demandncan be created for it; then follows thenclaim that the book is extraordinarynbecause the public buys it, which meansnpeople want it. Then the media beginnfrantically to report on the wishes ofnthe public, thus increasing the demandn—and so goes the magic circle. If itnlater becomes clear that the book wasnobjectionable, the media wash theirnhands of it in a familiar way: it’s notntheir fault that the public wants badnbooks; they only communicate the public’snpenchant as news.nThe so-called “Anderson difference,”nwith which the media work to createnhis image, is as simple as it is suspicious.nMr. Anderson is presented tonAmerica as the only “man of ideas” innthe field of candidates, as the only “issue-oriented”ncandidate. Both assumptionsnare shrewd and patently false, andnboth have proved to be sure-fire winnersnin the age of tube politics. Everythingnis an issue and everybody has ideas aboutnthe society, the state, power, making anliving, our system, other systems, who’sngood to us in the world and who is not.nHowever, what the liberal media havenperemptorily decreed is that only certainnissues are issues, and only certain ideasnare ideas—everything else is denouncednas political carcinogens. Thus, feminismnis an issue, jobs are not. If someone isnproabortion, he or she is “issue-oriented”;nif someone talks about pocketbookneconomics or what our children arenlearning in school these days—he or shenis not. If one says that we should embracenthe Soviets, and assure them thatnwhatever they do to us is all right withnus—one is a man (woman) of ideas, butnone who ponders whether or not suchnsentimentality is good for our healthnis a simpleton. As it turned out, then”issue-oriented” and “idea” cachet conferrednon Mr. Anderson by the mediantriggered a Pavlovian reaction amongncertain segments of American society—nthe idealistic university youth, for instance,nall those wealthy kids at Yalenand Princeton who begin to salivatenwhenever they hear about someone whonis embarking on a modern Robin Hoodntrip to take from the rich and give tonthe social workers, who wants to imposena 50^ gasoline tax, who upholds busingnin spite of the fuel conservation henpreaches, and who supposedly is both andevout Christian and a thoughtful intellectual.nAnother segment that immediatelyncanonized Mr. Anderson werenthose whom The New Republic callsn”quiche-eaters,” whom Mr. Nixon callsn”trendies,” and whom we call the be-nj The Rockford College Institute is jnI well along in the process of separationn from Rockford College. It will operatenI as a nonprofit, tax-exempt corpora-n tion known as the Rockford Institute. jnJ It will carry on the same activities, jnpublish the same periodicals and meetnthe subscription, research and other ncommitments of the predecessor in- Institution. InA formal notice will be mailed as jnsoon as the new status is effective. ninnnhavioral left. Village Voice, the ideologicalnoracle of New York penthouses,nendorsed Mr. Anderson’s presence earlynin the presidential sweepstakes; Mr.nStewart Mott, dean of the Manhattannradical chic, immediately came up withncampaign money; California movie tycoons,nunionized by Cesar Chavez, instantlynrecognized in Mr. Andersonntheir savior. Mr. Anderson reciprocatednin a jiffy: a prim Republican with tepidlynconservative manners, he immediatelynoffered his wholehearted support fornthe re-election of Senators McGovern,nChurch, Culver and company, who havenalways been the darlings of “quicheeaters”nand crusading students. Recently,nhe gave an interview to Playboynmagazine.nIt’s hard to predict what impact thisncombined constituency will have on Mr.nAnderson’s fate. Yet history teachesnus that children’s crusades, from thenMiddle Ages to Senator McCarthy’s,nare routinely routed, while the alliancenbetween the ugly beautiful people andnrabidly leftist politicians ends, as a rule,nin a political caricature.nWhy did such a power as the liberalnpress hand-pick Mr. Anderson to be thenPresident of the United States? Beforenwe can come up with an unequivocalnanswer, diverse and multiple factorsnmust be reviewed.nFirst, Mr. Anderson seems to be annideal media candidate. He has no ideologicalnprogram whatsoever, at leastnnot one that could be erected upon ornextracted from any coherence of moralnand philosophical principles. Instead,nhe has propositions. Put together, theynmake him a splendid political hybrid,na superbly manageable socioeconomicnhermaphrodite. He thus represents nobody’snthinking, no accumulated traditionnof political wisdom, experience ornpostulation. What he offers is a socio­npolitical garage sale—random buyersnmay come in and find something tontheir liking. He is a born-again liberal,nto be sure, although he rejects such anlabel. However, something deeply andnincoherently liberal must be in him tonJuly Aui^usl 1980n