C()RKI:SP()M)I:NCI: ^nLetter from Washington: On Politics and Pulpitsnby Thomas MolnarnFor two weeks in March, a group ofn30 European journalists were guests ofnthe Young America’s Foundation innWashington, D.C. It was a motley group;nas specified by the organizers, all werenunder 35 years of age: Danes, Spaniards,nGreeks, French, Scots, Dutch, Germans,nSwedes. Why under 35? Because we persuadenourselves that “youth” is impressionable,nand that he who sees Americanloves and imitates it. Yet some of thesensharp-eyed and curious journalists signifiedntheir discontent quite soon, claimingnthe conference was one-sided: morenof Reagan than of Kennedy, too muchnlecturing and condescension, and nonpanels on which there would be a confrontationnbetween U.S. and Europeannviews. “Are Americans not interested innwhat we have to say? Or is this a mini-nNATO with the U.S. in command?”—nwere some of the critical remarks.nYet the program was rich and varied,nalthough without opportunities outsidenthe question-and-answer periods fornthese men and women to explain hownthey see the anti-Pershing protest, thenperspectives of “Finlandization,” America’snrole at Geneva. Instead, they had tonlisten to such things as a retired generalncalling in the same breath for a spiritualnrevival under God and a vigorousnnuclear-armament program. Most ofnthem left the auditorium after the firstnhalf hour. ‘You are still the old crusaders,”na participant commented to me, “butnsuch an approach turns us off.” And whenna speaker devoted 30 minutes to excoriatingnour abortion policy, the journalistsnwere nonplussed: “What does that havento do with us? We did not come here tonlisten to sermons.”nAs one of the lecturers, I felt it was mynduty to explain a few realities to thenoverseas guests. First thing was to chal-nDr. Molnar is visiting professor of religiousnstudies at Yale University.nChronicles of Cultarenlenge their dissatisfaction with the supposedlynone-sided program: “Wouldnyou have complained,” I asked, “if yournspeakers had adopted, one-sidedly, thenKennedy-Mondale-O’Neill line? Obviouslynnot, since the media in your countriesnplay up that line as the only onenworth listening to. Now at least you hearna much-neglected side of what Americanalso thinks.” The second point, hardernto explain, was that this country wasnfounded on preaching, sermonizing,ncrusading—^appeals to God. The visitors,nsome of whom felt they were isolatednfrom “real America,” were in fact immersednin it. Coincidentally, withoutnprevious planning, a large group consistingnof young and old “average” Americansnwas holding its sessions in an adjacentnauditorium. The issue under debate wasn”security and peace.” It was a churchngroup, and it began its antinuclear discussionsnwith a prayer every morning.nWere the journalists perceptive enoughnto understand that the United States—niirom grass roots to White House—^needsnGod or some version thereof to give itngood conscience and confidence?nPerhaps unknown to themselves, thenvisitors did not only observe; they werenobserved. The questions worth askingnare: What does this representative samplenof the European generation betweenn25 and 35 think of the world, its politics,nideology, religion; and What messagenfor the future could they convey tonAmerican ally-watchers?nnnWhatever formula Americans fit, innthe journalists’s eyes, their formula is farnfrom reassuring. By and large, the guestsnfavored the status quo. Politically, thenno-longer-contradictory term “liberalsocialist”nwould apply to them. Theynwould vote, one gathers, for parties advocatingnthe free market, provided socialnand economic legislation leans to thenleft, or vote for the Socialists, providednthe private sector is maintained as anneconomic locomotive, or less elegantiy,nin Helmut Schmidt’s phrase, as the “cownwe can milk.” Whether this is “socialndemocracy,” “welfarism,” or “liberalismnwith a human face,” is hard to judge, butnone thing is certain: “Reaganism” is notnsympathtque in the eyes of these youngnmen. It rubs them the wrong way. Onenreason is economic in nature. To a largenextent they are opposed to it because itncontradicts their overarching quest fornkeeping matters as they have been. Theynthink that Moscow should be opposedn—^but so should Reagan’s Washington. Ifncontemporary fin de siecle Europe hadnan emblem, its inscription might be:n”Leave us alone to cultivate our garden.”nNot a very heroic statement, but it wouldnprobably get 99% of a continentwidenvote. It seems that the visitors would benmost happy if Walter Mondale was electednin 1984.nSuch a lukewarm, don’t-rock-the-boatnattitude also reflects their spiritualnchoice. Conversations with Germannnationalists, Spanish Catholics, Frenchnmonarchists, Swedish and Dutch anticommunists,nand others revealed thatneven those with a Christian backgroundnhave a strong anticlericalist conviction,nand they su^ested that religion is strictlyna private matter. They simply could notncomprehend that in America religiousnissues do mix with almost any publiclyntaken position; they saw this as a sign ofnfanaticism. The conference was millimetersnaway from concluding that thenU.S. is medieval and Europe is modern.nIn effect, a secularized Western Europen