diminution of liberal government.nYet one of the characteristic beliefsnof the modern democratic left has beennthat democracy is essential for thenprotection of liberal government. Mr.nFossedal adheres to this belief andnstates it explicitly: “It may be possiblenthat other forms of government wouldnsatisfy the rights of man, but practicalnhuman experience suggests that certainninstitutions are needed for governmentnto respect those rights consistently.”nAmong the institutions he suggestsnare elections, constitutions, and divisionsnof powers, though the latter twonare properly liberal rather than democraticninstitutions. In any case, hisnstatement is simply erroneous.nIt is a fallacy of both the liberal andnthe democratic mind that a set ofnformal procedures, by itself, will protectnfreedom. A more realistic view has longnrecognized that while certain proceduresncan help protect freedom undernsome circumstances, in other circumstancesnthey only endanger it. This isnwhy the case of the Weimar Republic,nwhich enjoyed the formal procedures ofnliberalism and democracy, is classic.nThe procedures and forms of liberalism,ndemocracy, or any other constitutionalntype must reflect a balance of powernamong significant social forces — e.g.,nrural versus urban, business versus labor,nreligion versus secular authority,nclass versus class, region versus regionn— if they are to institutionalize realnfreedom and social diversity and enhancenthe level of civilization. Thenexistence of this kind of balance may benformalized through legal and politicalnprocedures, but it can exist independentlynof them as well, and while clearnand stable procedures are helpfirl inninstitutionalizing the balance of socialnforces, it is the substance and not thenform that is important. Statesmennshould design the forms to reflect thensubstance, as The Federalist recognized,nand not try to engineer thensubstance to fit forms derived fromn”natural rights” or other abstractions.nLike the man who believes that milkncomes from supermarkets rather thannfrom the careful civilization of cows,nliberals and democrats believe thatnfreedom comes from the proceduresnthemselves; they fail to recognize, asnHayek does, that “freedom is not anstate of nature but an artifact of civili­nzation.”nMoreover, if this kind of pluralism isnnot to degenerate into an anarchicalnfactionalism, it must be limited byncommon acceptance of a social mythnthat at least implicitly defines the endsnof the public order and the legitimatenmeans by which they may be pursued.nMr. Fossedal’s “natural” or “human”nrights provide one such myth that hasnproved useful to certain groups aspiringnto power throughout modern history,nbut the universalism of this mythntends to ignore or even undermine thenparticular cultural framework and socialnbalances necessary for the preservationnof concrete freedom. In anyncase, whether this distinctly post-nChristian, Western myth exerts anynenduring appeal to non-Western culturesnis a question Mr. Fossedal nevernexplores seriously.nMr. Fossedal’s prolonged ode tonglobal democracy is characteristic ofnthe neoconservative-social democrat-nStraussian-“progressive conservative”nschool of political thought that nownseems to prevail on the mainstreamnAmerican right. Both his text and hisnacknowledgments are filled with quotationsnfrom the exponents of thisnmovement and expressions of gratituden”A groundbreaking and timely investigation of anneconomic concept once central to American socialnthought. For anyone who has wondered why the familynis now under such financial pressure, this booknwill answer a host of questions.” – Robert Nisbetnto them. The chief goal of this movementnseems not to be a serious explorationnof and challenge to the presuppositionsnof the dominant Americannpolitical culture, but rather the pursuitnof its own political and cultural power.nHence, it is content to adapt prevailingnliberal humanist presuppositions to itsnown purposes and avoids expressingnany thought (or tolerating expressionsnby anyone else) that might offend,nthreaten, or frighten our own Majors ofnthe Palace who guard the public discourse.nTo challenge the dominantnpresuppositions would mean isolationnfrom the mainstream of political debatenthat these presuppositions define andnwould make the quest for power farnmore difficult. The result has been thenintellectual impoverishment of thenAmerican right, the emasculation of angenuinely radical conservatism, and itsnreplacement by bubble-talk and sophomoricncant more suitable for the BoynScout Jamboree than for considerationnby grown men and women concernednwith the prospects of their civic culture.nMr. Fossedal’s contribution to thenbody of thought and scholarship producednby this movement is no doubtndestined to find a place as one of itsnclassic expressions. <^nThe Family Wage: Work, Gender, and Children innthe Modem Economy A i’ascinating collection of essaysnthat will help Americans better understand the current economicnchallenges to family life. Send for your copy today!nilffiFAMlnIWAffi,!’n•^ dirteffia^ife^Caii^,nisVlnov:^ i0^.V«kkTnDYES, please send me copies of The Family Wage: Work,nGender, and Children in the Modern Economy at $11.50 eachn(postage and handling included).nNamenAddressnCitynState ZipnSend this coupon and your check made out to The Rockford Institute to;nThe Rockford Institute, 934 N. Main St., Rockford, IL 61103nnnSEPTEMBER 1989/33n