seems virtually invincible. Even in popularnelections, the dependence of candidatesnand parties on massive amounts ofnmoney and the arts of political manipulationnserves not to enhance popularncontrol but to avoid it, leading to whatnliberal journalist Sidney Blumenthal hasncalled “the engineering of consent withna vengeance.”nIt may be that there is no necessarynconnection between the forms andnprocesses of American democracy andnthese obvious flaws of the current politicalnorder, though their historical conjunctionnsuggests that there may well bena connection. In any case, Mr. Fossedalndoes not consider the question.nSecondly, Mr. Fossedal might havenasked, assuming that it is a good orndesirable form of government, whetherndemocracy is possible in various non-nWestern or nonmodern states and societies.nHis assumption, again, is affirmative,nbased in large part on a wave ofndemocratic movements of the 1980’s innsuch societies as the Philippines, SouthnKorea, and several Latin Americannstates. Yet he conducts no serious analysisnof this trend, its causes, its capacitiesnfor success, or its possible consequences.nWhile Mr. Fossedal recognizesnthe connections between economicnstrength and a stable liberal democracy,nhe tends to neglect other preconditionsnsuch as a high degree of literacy, a stableninfrastructure of govemmental control,na national consensus shared by all partsnof the population, and (perhaps mostnimportant) a cultural tradition that includesnthe many presuppositions aboutnpower and its uses characteristic ofnWestern society. Mr. Fossedal does notnsufficiently reflect upon the fact thatnWestern democracy is less the productnof “natural rights” than of several centuriesnof evolution within a particularncivilization that recognizes and rewardsnindividuality and opposition to a farngreater degree than Oriental, African,nand Islamic cultures do. Such conceptsnas a “loyal opposition,” a public rathernthan a dynastic or patrimonial idea ofnpolitical office, a distinction betweennsecular and religious authority, the legitimacynof political involvement by subordinatensocial groups, the effectiveness ofnvoting, a national rather than a tribal,nfeudal, or sectarian identity, and thenwillingness of those who control theninstruments of force to abide by noncoercivenpolitical decisions — all are basicnto Western ideas of modern democracynbut may not pertain in many non-nWestern or premodern societies andnmay not be exportable in the same waynthat Coca-Cola is.nMr. Fossedal does not consider thenargument that Latin America seems tonundergo cycles of democracy and dictatorshipnat intervals of every 30 years. Hennever mentions the classic case of thenWeimar Republic, in which a societynutteriy unprepared for democracy votednitself into dictatorship. He never discussesnthe concept of “totalitarian democracy,”nin which mass participationnis manipulated to represent the GeneralnWill, the Volk, the proletariat, thenPeople, or other abstractions useful tonmodern tyrants. Nor does he deal withnthe argument that democratic movementsnin many Third World societiesnmay be the expressions of relativelynnew, modernized elites of intellectualsnand technocrats alienated from traditionalnruling classes of clergy, landowners,nand military and who may seek tonuse democracy as a means of displacingnthe older elites and seizing powernfor themselves. Such new classes innThird World states, as Barry Rubin hasnargued, can easily form the social basenof modern dictatorships rather thanndemocracy. It may be that democracynis indeed on the march across thenglobe, but Mr. Fossedal does not considernthe alternatives sufficiently to persuadenus. . •nThirdly, Mr. Fossedal does not dealnat all adequately with the questionnof whether the export or developmentnof democracy is compatible with Americannnational interests. Given the way innwhich he defines “national interest,”nhowever, he manages to give a quicknand easy affirmative answer to this questionnas well.n”The purpose of American foreignnpolicy,” he writes, “cannot be explainednwithout first answering a prior question:nWhat is the purpose of the Americanngovernment? To know what we are fornin the worid, we must know what we arenfor at home. . . . The goal, as our framersnput it, is to secure the rights ofnmankind.” Mr. Fossedal goes so far as tonAMERICA BY THE THROAT:nTHE STRANGLEHOLD OF FEDERAL BUREAUCRACYnby George Rochenrfp%.nTHROATn”A lucid, even entertaining, yet also brilliantnand penetrating diagnosis of the majornsocial disease of our time. A splendid booknthat deserves very wide readership.”nNobel Liiureate Milton FriedmannSenior Research Fellow,nHoover Institutionn5jp5ffltjpi(wnI’ ,lt.ll,.lT’neconomic disaster, oeorge Koche makes…nthe problem frighteningly clear. His book. .ndisplays a keen understanding of this issue,nand carriers an important message.”nWilliam E. SimonnFormer Secretary of the Treasuryn$5.00 PAPERBOUNDn$14.95 HARDBOUND (Michigan residents add 4% sales tax)nVISA AND MASTERCARD ORDERS 800-253-3200, EXT. 801n”Democracy will break down if the people do not soon become aware of whatnis being done in their name . . . take notice of what Dr. Roche is telling you innthis book.”nF. A. Hayel<nNobel Laureate, FA. Hajek. Author, The Road to SerfdomnHILLSDALE COLLEGE PRESSnHillsdale, Michigan 49242nnnSEPTEMBER 1989/31n