ian, while the conflict is old and will last long. They can callnus names; invectives cannot dissipate the smell ofntotalitarianism.nIn fact, what most trenchantly divides us from tbem todaynis their bigotry. We believe, with the Founding Fathers, thatncourteous pluralism graces society and remains our mostncherished tradition, that there’s valor and common good innrespect for the other person’s view, and in the diversity ofnideas and their interplay. The existence of the New YorknTimes, Irving Howe, and even Professor Galbraith, to ournmind, enriches us all. We admire their intellectual and professionalnprowess. In return we live with a constant feelingn—which emanates from the plethora of words, both writtennand spoken, and images that together constitute culturenaccording to the liberal gospel—that a liberal sees us as a sortnof carcinogenic tissue. The best we could do, in his opinion,nwould be to disappear from the face of the earth. He hatesnus as much as is becoming to his sense of intellectual elegance.nWe only think that liberals are in error; they thinknthat we are a bane, against which the best defense is to pretendnthat it does not exist. Which, of course, will keep thenconflict alive forever.nWe think that the fondest dream that has eluded this societynsince the ’60s is a coherence that would prescribe ourndreams anew. Not that it’s imperative to have dreams on ansocial scale, but it helps. We can call them ideals, or values,nor norms of comportment and coexistence within a civilizationnand a society; we may also be very prudent in applyingnthese ideals to the realities of life. But any attempt to eradicatenthem from the hierarchy of human needs that cultivatesnmorals and manners, and holds them inseparable from ancivilized existence, will only protract the oldest conflict; wenwho have observed the liberal’s dismal failure in defendingnhumanity by social efforts will oppose the liberal’s bigotrynThe, Q. ‘AMILYnAmericas J^e’nThe Speakers:nDr. Michael Novak, Distinguished Professor of Religion at SyracusenUniversity and columnist for the Washington Star.nDr. James Hitchcock, Professor of history at St. Louis University.nDr. Harold Voth, senior psychiatrist and psychoanalyst at thenMenninger Foundation,nArchbishop Nicholas T. Elko, Vicar General of the Archdiocesenof Cincinnati.nDr. Mayer Eisenstein, Vice Chairman of the American College ofnHome Obstetrics.nAbout the Programnto the bitter end. What the liberal in America has forgottennis that freedom is, in fact, a lack of oppression, a guaranteednabsence of peremptory demands unmotivated by law or socialnnecessity. Freedom from moral bonds and duties, commonnrights or exigencies of reason, is not freedom at all, butnimposition. Liberty is not an abstract circle: an excess of itncan become a sort of bondage.nITinally, the oldest conflict boils down to a showdownnbetween outlooks. A progressive is by nature an optimist:nhe believes that at some time man and society will be perfect,nor at least better, and this justifies much effort and somenoccasional skullduggery. A conservative is one who thinksnthat life is full of traps and the world full of nonsense, sonlet’s stick with methods which, after millennia of exertions,nhave proven to be the least faulty and somewhat reliable.nWhich, once again, pits optimism against pessimism. Andnhere’s where my problem begins. I consider myself an optimistnwho believes that some of the most despondent pessimists,nlike John Calvin, for one, had the best advice for mankind.nAnd that nothing brought mankind more sorrow, misfortune,nordeal, pain and desolation than the sunny, optimisticnpredictions of the progressives, from Babeuf to Marx to Leninnto Senator McGovern and Ms. Bella Abzug. However, whennaccused of relativism, I have to reject such a charge withncalm dignity, for I also deem myself a Manichaean. I do benlieve in a distinct division between the forces of good andnevil. Relativism is too often a shelter for hypersubjectivity,nprejudice, ignorance. Hitler did not consider himself a forcenof darkness, but we know he was. This is why my faith in thenhuman mind’s ability to choose lets me look ahead to evennthe oldest and most protracted conflict with confidence.nRockford College InstitutenNational ConferencenJune 7-9, 1979nRockford CollegenRockford, Illinoisn—Leopold TyrmandnMr. Leopold Tyrmand, Associate Director of the Rockford CollegenInstitute.nDr. Joseph Christensen, Director of Seminaries and InstitutesnWorldwide of the Church of the Latter-day Saints.nProfessor Harold O. J. Brown, Chairman of the Department ofnTheology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.nDr. Herbert Ratner, editor of Child and Family Quarterly.nDr. John A. Howard, Director of the Rockford College Institute.nThe conference is designed to be of assistance to parents, teachers, counselors, clergy, legislators, social service agency personnel and othersnwhose responsibilities affect the well-being of the family. The program will review the primary functions of the family, examine circumstancesnwhich inhibit those functions, propose some actions for counteracting antifamily influences, and consider some of the. ways in which religionnmay more effectively support the family.nFor registration information: Rockford College Institute, Rockford, Illinois 61101 (815) 226-4015.nnnChronicles of Culturen