and state laws that outlaws discrimination on the basis of sex,nnot to mention an entire library of interpretative regulationsndaily enforced in every nook and cranny of the Americannactuality.nIs this a matter of intellectual and ethical fairness? Far fromnit. And this unfairness is at the heart of the liberal concept ofnAmerican pluralism. America is now more than ever anpluralistic society. But a dangerous myth has been deceptivelynsustained that the American culture is still open to the diversitynof philosophical and ideological propositions, and that they allnhave an equal chance of being argued for and listened to. Innpoint of fact, the more society, honoring its initial promise ofnequal human rights and opportunities, opens up to variousnethnic groups, their traditions and folkloric paraphernalia, thenmore pluralism is expelled from the culture. American culture,nonce the haven of free consciences and religious variety, hasnbecome monopolized by one ideological formation—“enlightened”nand “progressive” liberalism.nL .liberalism’s perennial merit is that it early and forcefullynendorsed human rights and privileges, and was ready to picknany fight in their defense. However, at some point, it confusednthe necessities of moral order grounded in reason, and optednfor social order structured on speculative theories.nProfessor Irving Howe, a distinguished liberal but by nonmeans a libcultist, who is not shy to call himself a socialdemocrat,nwrote not long ago that the foundation of Americannliberalism is reason. To my mind, the foundation of Americannliberalism, at least over the last 30 years of its dizzying career,nis the blatant abuse of reason. It fought for a welfare state asnthe economic solution to the ills of a capitalistic economy. Itnpropagated Big Government as the defender of freedoms andncivil rights—a rather unreasonable supposition. In foreignnpolicy, since World War II, liberalism has informed Americanthat it has no right, and even less moral title, to tell the rest ofnthe world how it should behave; until a few years ago, everynstaunch liberal insistingly demanded an attitude of reverencentoward Russia—toward the same Russia that emerged fromnthe last war as the only imperialistic power, enslaving freennations and enlarging its territory at others’ expense. At thensame time, the West began to disassemble colonialism undernAmerica’s pressure. Every objection to unconditional love fornRussia has been branded by American liberalism as Cold Warntactics and American leaders of all stripes were burdened withnthe blame. Even now this is taking place as Russia begins toncolonize Africa. If this is proof of the liberal obedience tonreason, we may be losing a crucial tool which, since man’sndawn, has warranted his very existence.nThe Chicago Tribune, a chameleon of a newspaper, flannelgreynon its editorial pages and liberal-pinkish in its culturalnsections, not long ago ran another of its advertisements fornpro-communist books in the form of a review of The GreatnFear, examined by Mr. Levine in this journal. As in its reportsnon Mitford and Gornick, the Chicago Tribune reviewer statednthat the clear-cut anti-communism of the ’40s and ’50s wasnsinful, calamitous, repulsive, and, basically, an assault onninnocent people and socially valuable organizations. It thusnrepresented an ugly treason of American humanism andnpluralism. The review was entitled: “A Painful Record thatnIlluminates a Dark Age.” Why an epoch that brought Americansocial stability, economic prosperity, flourishing of arts andncrafts, and all-out progress in social mores, all of which becamenthe entire planet’s envy, can be called a “dark age” remains anmystery. Why the galactic American civilization should bencharacterized solely by its vigorous rejection of communism isnanother puzzle. The Chicago Tribune’s review says that “thenperiod was characterized by, abce all, a suspension of duenprocess of law,” but does not mention the Rosenberg trial,nconsidered even by America’s foes a model of judiciary proprietynunattainable even by the oldest European democracies. “Wasnthere a viable Communist Party in America during the ’30snand ’40s.” Did it present a legitimate threat to U.S. security.””nasks the Chicago Tribune reviewer.nWi, f’ell, I am from Eastern Europe. Whenever I readnabout the tribulations of Mr. Hiss and his adversaries, whonstill do not believe what he has been repeating for 30 years, Infind them peculiarly irrelevant. If he lied, or passed statensecrets, which it seems he did, it is not very nice, and henshould have been punished for it. But what matters to me isnthe fact that, according to quite reliable Polish intelligencensources in London (during six years of war, it saved the alliedncommand a lot of trouble), Mr. Hiss had telephone extensionnNo. 3 within the American delegation at Yalta. No. 1 wasnRoosevelt, No. 2 was Harry Hopkins. Mr. Hiss instructednthem both in how to negotiate with Stalin.nAll the Soviet objectives for the post-war global order werenattained at Yalta. Entire populations were slaughtered innGulags. Old nations with flourishing cultures went into slavery.nThis is why Mr. Alger Hiss, in keeping with my sense ofnreason and conscience, deserves a life term, if not more.n*If you are not yet a member or supporter of the Rockford College Institute, and would like tonbecome one:nThe Rockford College Instituten*If you would like to learn more about it: Rockford CollegenRockford, Illinois 61101nplease contact: Telephone: 815/226-4016nnn—Leopold TyrmandnChronicles of Culturen