a man who promised to dilute, if not outrightly annihilate, thenremnants of the American ethos, and the American historicnmission. Patriotism as word and notion had been taken over bynthe Republicans so firmly and convincingly that for the nextndecade it became synonymous with the Republican politicalneffort. As such, it came to serve as a facile target for everynradical-liberal, leftist, and anti-American obloquy.nWe saw, not long ago in Chicago, a black youth sportingncheap athletic shorts and a dime-store T-shirt—a. fer cry fromnCalvin Klein’s jogging gear. On the shirt there was a motto:n”America the Greatest.” Such a minuscule indication seems tonus enough to suggest that our patriotism, both as emotion andnrational choice, should and must be redefined, reevaluated, andntransvalued. But now, when the Democrats desperately try tonappropriate it as their political commodity, refiirbished for anquick sale, we must also ask ourselves: Should we buy suchnsecond-hand patriotism from those dealers?nWhat we may have already learned (though the lessonncertainly hasn’t reached everybody yet) during the past twondecades is that the age of an American political party as annonideological vehicle nears its end. It may be as well as over,nbut nobody wants to be the first to say it, least of all the medianwhich still thrive on marketing disjointed progressivism inntraditional packages. Populism can be of both the right and leftnvarieties, but the endless stuffing of “new” populist messages innhoary political forms turns those forms into cabbage patchndolls—still salable, but of dubious value for a civilization. ThenDemocrats seem to suffer more from their image as keepers ofnthe relics of the past: they have sunk into the popularnperception as dishonest without realizing that what theynthemselves view as high principle looks like cheap cynicism tonthe public. “By their syncretism ye shall know them…,” andnanyone who can cram into one sentence his respect for theniamily and his support for homosexuality must reckon vwth hisnprojecting an image a bit shady. Trying to present Rev.nJackson’s black revanchism, rooted in ultra-leftist reasoningnand rhetorics, as anything but pure demagoguery must raisenmany brows from sea to shining sea. Ms. Ferraro’s sleaze fectornis not exactly in her financial entanglements—after all, thenknowledge of Einsteinian relativity and time-warp makes mostnof the rapacious media probing into politicians’ underwearnrepulsive and absurd. However, the fact that Ms. Ferraro, partnof a multimillionaire family, wants to force those who justnmake ends meet to practice compassion by government ukase,nthis is morally malodorous, and constitutes a sleaze not ofnconduct but of conscience. Moreover, it proves that thenDemocratic Party’s liberalism has lapsed into abysmalnincoherence, one that must finally do in the identity of thenparty of Andrew Jackson and Frariklin Roosevelt who knewnhow to forge disparate social vectors into a program and anWeltanschauung. More and more, the Democrats look like annationally screened Helzapoppin, a grotesque reality wheren”traditional values” are manufactured by Planned Parent-n• THE ELECTION •nnnhood’s most radical theoreticians, with the help ofnpsychotherapists from the human potential movement.nAccording to the Chicago Tribune, Ms. Ferraro “… describednherself in [a] speech as first a mother, then a Democrat, annAmerican and a legislator.” Could it be that she unwittinglynmarked the very marrow of what is deeply wrong with thenDemocratic Party—namely the priority and prevalence ofnpolitical sectarianism over Americanism, over being first andnforemost an American.nW„ hat began by the end of the 1960’s as an alteration in thenDemocratic Party’s ethos of fundamental dimensions seems toncontinue lull speed. “Democracy” vsWch Rev. Jackson invokesnis of the kind that does not derive its substance from thenAmerican Revolution and Constitution. We deal here with andifferent Democratic Party which considers its moral andnsocial urgencies immune to the popular wiU and the verdict ofna majority. Jacobins, Marxists, and the entire European radicalnestablishment of the last two centuries adhered to the samenideological principle. By now, we all bitterly know that thatnschool of thinking inevitably leads to extreme totalitarianism.nRev. Jackson is not alone among the Democrats in hisnadmiration of Castro, Assad, Sandinistas, or Arafat: his arengenuine feelings. America’s moral and social traditions are Rev.nJackson’s demons, the hub of deviltry, and this is where,nregardless of all differences, his sentiments and those of thenKremlin’s converge. Feminism, quotas, environraentalism andnthe so-called special interests are minor gears in thenmechanism of dismantling democracy in America: yet, takenntogether, they form a new, synergic, antidemocratic doctrinenthat win play a part in this election as the Democratic Party.nThe Oj?cflgo7n&Mne summed it up this way:”.. .the themesnof family and old-fashioned values … came to dominate thenrhetoric …” in San Francisco. The Mexican-American MayornHenry Cisneros of San Antonio told the New York Times: “Thenfuture of America, or at least of the Democratic Party, may benlike its past: the immigrant story. The country has always runnon the raw energy of the most recent arrivals.” Governor MarionCuomo of New York and Italian ethnic heritage, bestnverbalized this leitmotif oi the Democratic Party’s ideologicalnprogram in his celebrated convention speech. Mr. Mondale,nthroughout his campaign, talked most often, according to thenpress reports, about”… free enterprise, self-reliance and thenwork ethic … about personal religious beliefs and thenimportance of family and home.”nOnce again, the puzzling question: wiU people buy a quickienimitation of what the Republicans and conservatives havenintensely, often grimly, championed for three decades fromnthe Democratic second-hand dealers? Demi-intelligentnjournalists often ask: “What are your values? Do you have any?”nThese are stupid questions and answers to them that go:n(continued on page 29)nNovember 1984n