goals” as the “good for which all otherrnputative goods must serve as mere tools.”rnAlthough Charles Taylor believes thisrnfulfillment involves “something” thatrn”has significance independent of ourrndesires,” like other communitarians hisrnrelativism compels him to “reject anyrnformulation of” that “something” or ofrn”the goals of life that transcend developmentrnof our individual talents andrncapacities,” In his scheme, then, transcendentrnloyalties “to one’s family, class,rnor God” are, as Frohnen argues, valuedrnonly “when and to the extent that theyrnhelp individuals flourish.”rnThe equality and toleration of thernnew communitarians, however, haverntheir limits. Here their “golden rule”rncomes into play. As Frohnen writes;rn”Communitarians wish us to believernwithout question that all individuals arernequal, save those bad ones who presumernto judge the personal conduct of othersrnor who oppose pursuit of social justicernthrough government redistribution ofrnwealth.” In other words, the new communitariansrnrealize full well that thern”healthy liberal democratic community”rnthey envision requires “the right kinds ofrncitizens possessing” the appropriaternvirtues such as a heartfelt commitmentrnto equality and toleration. Thus, one ofrnthe critical problems they confront isrnhow to secure and maintain the “rightrnkind” of citizenry.rnNew communitarians deal with thisrnproblem in various ways. Because theyrnregard human nature as malleable, theyrnplace great faith in institutions to producernindividuals with an appropriaternmorality. Frohnen stresses the role of educationrnand of the “intellectual classesrnwho control the school curriculum” inrnthis process. In his view, these classesrn”constitut[e] a vanguard” charged notrnonly with shaping character, but withrnreshaping social institutions to facilitatern”progress toward utopia or a more selffulfillingrnlife.” There are also what herncalls the “facilitators” and “interpreters”rn—the elites in the academy, thernmedia, the bureaucracy, and the judiciaryrn—who shape the world about us tornease the path to individual fulfillment.rnOn Frohnen’s showing, their mission involvesrnreinterpreting “not merely ourrnlaws but also our customs and even ourrnforms of spirituality.”rnThe new communitarians, however,rnsee a “civil religion” with appropriate beliefs,rnpractices, and values as crucial forrnsecuring citizens of the “right kind.”rnThey understand, as Frohnen puts it,rnthat civil religion is not only the glue thatrn”holds the political society together,” itrnalso renders “our fundamental politicalrnideals” sacred. Thus they are concernedrnthat the civil religion—or “functionalrntraditionalism” as William Galston appropriatelyrncalls it—embody the teachingsrnand values conducive to their goals.rnBut this, as P’rohncn illustrates, posesrnproblems. Our tradition does not readilyrnyield what the communitarians wouldrnlike by way of a civil religion, and “revising”rnthe tradition to secure the desiredrnresults—the route Bcllah takes—is vulnerablernto attack and refutation. GarryrnWills’ approach to civil religion, asrnFrohnen emphasizes, ingeniously overcomesrnthe obstacles posed by history. AsrnWills would have it, a civil religion embracingrnnew communitarian values needrnnot rely on historical fact or practice, butrnon “the myths constructed by the skilledrnrhetorician.” Such is the case, he holds,rnwith Lincoln’s powerful rhetoric at Gettysburgrnthat “shaped the mind of thernpeople and so made it the authority onrnthe American spirit and our proper commitmentrnto equality.”rnIf education, civil religion, facilitators,rnand interpreters fail to produce citizensrnof the “right kind,” communitariansrnhave other means in their arsenals. AsrnFrohnen notes, “Etzioni endorses arnplethora of mandatory workshops,” programsrnthat expose students “to the ideologyrnof multiculturalism,” “sensitivityrntraining” requirements for all students,rnand “arbitration seminars” in whichrnthose guilty of making “insensitive remarks”rnare informed by “students, faculty,rnand administrators that their viewsrnare offensive, harmful, and un-American.”rn(These, not surprisingly, are thernpreferred techniques in the academyrnwhere liberalism still reigns supreme.)rnFrohnen is convinced that we oncernpossessed a genuine tradition thatrnrested “ultimately on religious belief andrnpractice.” Americans, he contends, fromrnthe colonial period throughout the earlyrndecades of the republic, “felt they owedrnduties to God, country, and particularrngroups.” But, he observes, by the 1930’srnonly vestiges of this early tradition remained;rninitially weakened by the secularismrnof the do-good Social Gospelers,rnit was almost totally washed away withrnthe emergence of a virtually omnipotentrncentral government. The private andrnvoluntary associations that once providedrnindividuals with order and meaningrnwere decimated as well, leaving us with arn”massive social breakdown and therncrumbling of our way of life in the face ofrnillegitimacy, crime, and a general loss ofrnmoral bearings.” But, Frohnen asserts, tornfollow the path marked out by the newrncommunitarians will only compoundrnthese problems. Their relativism andrnsecularism blind them to religion and itsrntranscendent Truths that form the foundationsrnfor a genuine community.rnWhile recognizing the difficulties involved,rnFrohnen suggests that we “lookrnto our past,” to the older tradition thatrnwe have abandoned, as a way out of ourrnpresent plight. His analysis of our decline,rnand his suggested path to restoration,rnpoint to questions that we shouldrnponder. Does it make sense any more tornspeak, as the new communitarians arernwont to do, of a “national community”?rnShouldn’t our aim be the restoration,rnwherever possible, of smaller communitiesrnor little “platoons,” whose dimensionsrndo not dwarf the individual? Andrnisn’t a prerequisite for such restorationsrnpolitical decentralization of a nature andrnscope well beyond what our politiciansrneven dare to contemplate?rnIn short, the chances for restorationrnalong the lines suggested by Frohnen are,rnat best, exceedingly slim. To make mattersrnworse, the odds are that the newrncommunitarians will continue to thrivernby advancing those doctrines that haverncontributed substantially to the degenerationrnof our moral and social fiber—arnsorry state of affairs, to be sure, but also arntribute to the powers and ingenuity ofrnthe liberal intelligentsia. <5>rnLIBERAL ARTSrnTurning Tides: Modern Dutch &rnFlemish Verse in English Versions byrnIrish Poets.rnEdited by Peter van de Kamprn(Story Line Press, 1994).rnJANUARY 1997/31rnrnrn