Hell With Culture, in the democratic civilization of thenfuture all workers will be artists, because “the artist is notna special kind of man, but every man is a special kind ofnartist.”nBecause it makes “the finer things in life” accessible tonthe many, the affluence of the advanced industrial countriesnin the West seems further to aggravate this problem.nHere the meaning of “art” is daily decided by millions whonare neither critics nor members of the relatively smalln”leisure class.” By a kind of supply-side economics in annaesthetically neutral free market, the meaning of “art”nexpands to include anything that can be sold under thatnlabel. J.B. Priestly a generation ago coined the termn”admass” to denounce this situation, and protests againstnsuch “commercialization of art” in the “consumer society”nvirtually at the mercy of the “mass media” have never reallynceased. But they tend to be drowned in the noise of cashnregisters.nFor some critics, this development is simply anothernproof of “capitalist decadence” and disintegration, and theynmay well be right. If beauty is what gives pleasure withoutnTattered Tom ReturnsnHoratio Alger lives. Only now hisnname is Donald Lambro, and henwrites nonfiction. In Land of Opportunity:nThe EntrepreneurialnSpirit in America (Boston: Little,nBrown; $17.95), Lambro investigatesnthe rapid growth in the Americanneconomy during the earlyn1980’s and finds that—surprise—nalmost all of the credit belongs tonthe plucky individuals whonlaunched new small and mid-sizednbusinesses in everything fromnhomemade pies and herbal teas tonski hats and kitchen tools. If Americanhad depended on the grayflannelednexecutives sitting in thencorporate boardrooms, we’d still benmired in recession.nHimself the son of a rags-torichesnAlbanian immigrant, Lambronfits a dozen individual successnstories into a broader analysis of thenpolitical and economic trends of thenrecent past. Lambro praises thenReagan Administration for givingnentrepreneurs their chance by reducingntaxes and government regulationnand by resisting the phonynarguments for economic planningnand Federal jobs programs. Lookingnabroad, he finds the same patterns:neconomic freedom producesnstirring desire, true enjoyment of art just might be one ofnthose few things that money cannot buy. But it by no meansnfollows that the salvation of art is to be found in “socialistnrealism.” For if it is not for sale, so to speak, the experiencenof transcendent beauty certainly is not in the power ofnpolitics to give either.nArt and politics go together in our experience, becausenthere is no art except in an organized community, and therenis no community without politics. But that does not meannthat politics and art cannot be meaningfully separated innsocial practice, and historical evidence suggests that suchnseparation is especially beneficial to art. The flourishing ofnthe fine arts in ancient Greece, in the Renaissance, andnindeed in modern times must be attributed at least in part tontheir relative freedom from political interference. By contrast,nto the extent that official policy in totalitarian statesnincludes not just censorship of the arts but often alsonpersecution of dissident artists, art suffers. Can mere makersnof symbols of social reality ever attain transcendent beauty?nWhatever one may think of the possibilities of a “commandneconomy,” “command art” is a contradiction in terms.nREVISIONSnwealth; taxes and regulation stiflengrowth.nOnly ideologues and nervous bureaucratsnwill quarrel with Lambro’snagenda for extending the ReagannRevolution through furthernderegulation and deeper tax cuts.nAnd Lambro’s upbeat tone andncrisp style provide a refreshing approachnto “the dismal science” ofneconomics. Yet thoughtful readersnmay still wonder about the entrepreneurialnWundershaft of then1980’s. The remarkable GNP increasesnin 1983 and 1984 that Lambroncites as evidence of healthyneconomic growth may mean lessnthan he thinks, especially if we paynattention to what he tells us elsewherenabout the changing characternof the American economy.nIn celebrating the entrepreneurshipnof “enterprising women,”nLambro hails the unprecedentednmovement of women into “thenU.S. economy’s fastest-growingnsector, the service industries.” Butnhas a nation really grown richer ifnall its meal preparation and childncare is now bought and paid forn(and so counted for the first time innthe GNP) instead of being providednfree by wives and mothers? (Duringnthe Great Depression and after,nthere were small American townsnnnwhere the main employment, sonthe stories go, was selling eachnother groceries.) We must alsonquestion the long-term economicneffects of increased female employmentnupon an American birthratenalready well below the replacementnlevel. In European countries likenDenmark and West Germany,nwhere almost all women work, babiesnhave almost disappeared.nLambro has no more time tonponder these problems than he doesnthe “declining employment in thenindustrial and manufacturing sectors.”nHe is too busy cheering thenequal-opportunity entrepreneursnwho are setting up innovative newnfirms to provide legal services,nnanny care, or hamburgers. No onencan refute the overwhelming evidencenthat private initiative producesnmore wealth and jobs thanngovernment planning. Yet in anworld of fast-food shops and sueyour-neighbornclinics, America’sndeeper social and cultural dilemmasnmay not yield to an entrepreneurialnsolution. And a GNP thatnrises off the top of the chart may notnensure the staying power of a societynthat must import not only all itsnsteel, but also all its babies. (BC)nJANUARY 1987117n