ure to enact the full liberal agenda, atntimes he fears that liberalism has beenntoo successful already. How do we protectnacademic freedom from affirmativeactionnzealots? What happens to localncontrol of public schools when the federalngovernment moves in? What cannbe done to prevent welfare fraud? Howncan HEW be run more efficiently andnless expensively? How can bureaucraticnred tape be unsnarled? How can thenfederal government best work with thenprivate sector to promote better healthncare? Can HEW resist the temptationnto descend into the meddlesomeness thatnhas made it so despised among millionsnof Americans? These questions wouldnbe expected of a conservative, but whennthey appear in Governing America onenmay be forgiven a bit of surprise. Makenno mistake, though: hell will freezenover and Billy Carter will become wellmannerednbefore Joseph Califano joinsnthe philosophy of good sense. But atnthe very least, Califano represents anbrand of thoughtful liberalism that hadnapparently gone the way of such phenomenanas whores with hearts of gold.nEven the most begrudging praise ofnCalifano will be lost on many Americannconservatives, for they remain imprisonednin the Social Darwinian worldnview of William Graham Sumner. Innthis dream world of atomistic individualismnwhere the fit trample the unfit,nthere can be no truck with such men asnJoseph Califano or such agencies asnHEW. To hell with the weak! Or, asnSumner put it in 1883: “… Thosenwhom humanitarians and philanthropistsncall the weak are the ones throughnwhom the productive and conservativenforces of society are wasted. They constantlynneutralize and destroy the finestnefforts of the wise and industrious, andnare a dead-weight on the society in allnits struggles to realize any better things.”nGiven this view, it follows that HEWn(now the Department of Health andnHuman Services) should be abolished,nor at least reduced to a few perfunctorynchores.nIt constitutes heresy in certain con-nLIBERAL CULTUREnspeaking of Responsibilitynfor the WordnA certain Mr. Gene Mater, describednas senior vice president for policy ofnCBS Broadcast Group in New York, hasnbeen making speeches of late to variousnchapters of the National Academy ofnTelevision Arts & Sciences. Thesenspeeches have been eagerly reprinted,nby the liberal dailies, as a sort of righteousnand noble defense of freedom ofnexpression. Here is a sample of how Mr.nMater’s powerful mind works as he announcesnthe truth:nThere are those who blame televisionnfor all societal ills, for crime innthe streets, for immorality, for lownreading scores in schools, for thenhigh divorce rate—indeed, for everythingnexcept the common cold andnbad weather.nOf course this elongated sentencenmakes one suspect that Mr. Mater isnone whose talents at ratiocination arenabout equal to those of a less-giftednhigh-school student. No reasonable personnblames television—that is, a giantnheap of cables, wires, electronic gadgetrynand technological whamot—for thensociomoral disintegration of our realitynwhich every American is witnessingnand experiencing at every step thesendays. However, the ideas which are espousednby people who rule the Americanntelevision and program its activities arencertainly responsible for creating culturalnclimates—which, in turn, make thisndisintegration possible, so that crime,ndivorce rates and mental callousnessnflourish. Moreover, a good many Americansntend to believe that the peoplenwho rule television, Mr. Mater amongnthem, refuse any responsibility for anyninfluence television may have on society.nAs committed, even rabid, First Amendmentntwisters, they seem not to noticenthat by decrying as coercion appeals tonself-restraint, they sound like cheapnhypocrites. Their refusal to respect anynnndemand from the society at large, juxtaposednwith the ignoble personal wealthnof many TV executives, anchormen,ncelebs, etc. make them look, in the eyesnof many Americans, like sleazy operators.nBy stubbornly and mendaciouslynclaiming that they never, under any condition,ncreate social problems but onlynmirror them, they slip down to the categorynof ordinary con men.nSome nationll academy. Some levelnof discourse.nA Gem of LogicnThe New Yorker, that venerable organnof Madison Avenue gentry, hasnnothing but contempt for President Reagan—naturally.nIn one of its thoughtfuln(ponderous.’) editorials, its specialite denla maison, one of The New Yorker’snpropagandists scoffs with impeccablenelegance at the President’s claim that wenowe South Africa at least a little gratitudenfor having fought on our side innboth world wars:nNever mind that during the SecondnWorld War many of South Africa’snfuture leaders were Nazi sympathizers.nDid South African soldiers die togethernwith our own in the same trenches andntank battles or didn’t they.’ History saysnthey did. As to nazi sympathizers in postwarngovernments, what about East Germany?nWe wait in suspense for ThenNew Yorker to print a single word aboutnthe family ties between the nazis and thenGestapo and that country’s communistnelite. The New Yorker’s authors fromnthe Institute of Policy Studies shouldnhave firsthand knowledge of such parentage,nnn^mmmmmm^^^ 9nXovember/December 1981n