vertentlv wins the “Miss Rhode Island”ntitle and thus becomes a contender forn”Miss America.”‘ The supposed sensibilitynof a Seven Sisters college girl is tonbe brought down upon the undoubtednvulgarity of the beauty pageant world.nA condescending recent movie aboutna beauty pageant. Smile, now oftennappears in the television listings, alongnwith a few made-for-TV imitations. Forntelevision programmers the appeal isnobvious: the great ratings potential forna format which can accommodate prettynactresses galore.nFor writers the subject seems to haventwo perverse attractions: the requirednchastity of pageant panicipants and thenugly aspects of American middle-classnculture. With chastity abolished as anconventional virtue, the lives of thosenof whom it is still asked retain dramaticnpossibilities which screenwriters lust tonexplore. The clumsy satirical attacknupon obvious middle American targetsn—as well as the cartoonish televisionnrepresentation of rich people—seem tonbe a part of a kind of “class imperative”nwhich has New Class screenwriter/novelistsnsatirizing, usually broadly, thosen”above” and “below.”nThe promise of something betternwhich M/5J Rhode Island, with its brightnheroine, seems to offer is smothered innauthorial brilliance. Where Stephen Alterncontorts his voice to suit the supposednfirst person tone of his variousncharacters, Norman Kotker puts allntheir thoughts into his own excessivelynclever voice. The capabilities of thisnvoice are more interesting to him thannhis characters or their fates, and perhapsnwith good reason. It’s a grim viewnfrom behind their eyes. But it’s evennuglier from his. Occasionally, the authornwill veer off into amazing punning soliloquies—“MissnMaine, I want tonBangor! Miss Mass., feel that ass!” andnworse.ni he cliches about characters ‘notncoming alive” can and should be appliednto Neglected Lives and Miss Rhode Island;nbut beyond technical failure—nthey seem to deny life, not just fail toncreate it. As to the old creative missionnof the novel. Kotker is not interested,nand Alter is not able. For whatever reason,nthe negative becomes so terriblynaccentuated in these books that tonblandly greet them with appreciativenremarks would involve almost a breachnof faith; criticism is, in their cases, notnattack but counterattack. There is anrecipe for philistinism here, but withnour popgun we are not going to kill offnany masterworks. UnIn Search of Cons* AppealnCraig Schiller: The (Guilty) Consciencenof a Conservative; ArlingtonnHouse; New Rocheile, N.Y.nby Kenneth Kolsonni hose who get excited about biorhythms,nor who otherwise have a fetishnfor periodicity, can find much of interestnin American electoral history. Sincenthe founding of our republic there havenoccurred, at remarkably regular intervals,ncertain elections that may bentermed “critical,” in that they resolvednold debates, defined new issues, andndrew the lines of partisan combat fornsucceeding generations. It is generallynagreed that these elections occurred inn1800 (the “revolution of 1800,” accordingnto Jefferson; it was the deathnknell of the Federalists); in 1828 (ansecond Adams vanquished: Jacksoniannmobs flowed into Washington like then”revolting silo juices of Ohio” thatnwere to turn Mencken’s stomach a centurynlater); in 1860 (the party systemnof a riven republic fails; the party ofnthe Union prevails); in 1896 (McKinleyismntriumphs over the silo juices);nand in 1932 (McKinleyism expires; BignBrother is conceived). Each period isnassociated with a dominant party, and,nas John Zvesper puts it, “each of thesenparties, although born in intense conflict,nhas yet been so victorious that itnhas been able to enforce its own principlesnas a consensus.”nMr. Kolson is a political scientist fromnOhio.n*Conservative, of course.nnnReaders who have been keeping scorenwill note that another eleaoral realignmentnwas “due” during the 1960s. Atnthe time there were good grounds fornbelieving that it was occurring. For onenthing, critical elections are often accompaniednor preceded by strong thirdnparty movements (the Populists ofn1892, for example, or the Progressivesnof 1924), and in 1968 the AmericannIndependent Party, apparently on cue,ncame close to throwing the presidentialnelection into the House. Even then”surge” that so often follows on thenheels of realignments seemed to havenoccurred with the Nixon landslide ofn1972. Intelligent observers such asnKevin Phillips seemed justified in proclaimingnan “emerging Republicannmajority.”nBut Jimmy Carter’s victory in 1976n—so often attributed (wrongly) to hisnresurrection of the original New Dealncoalition—now seems to have put thenlie to the Realignment hypothesis, andngives new hope to regular Democratsnand the practitioners of the Old Politicsngenerally. What gives.-” It is now becomingnevident (to me, at least; manynpolitical scientists would disagree) thatnthe parties are not in the process sonmuch of realigning as of assuming roomntemperature. Reports of their immortality,nit seems, have been greatly exaggerated.nIf the Democrats and Republicans (itnis hard to know which has the morenpassionate death wish) do go the way ofnthe dodo, it will not necessarily meannan end to the periodic convulsions thatnhave punctuated American politicalnhistorv. Still, it is hard to know hown15nChronicles of Cultaren