work was a new reality that could notnbe reversed and that the state shouldnuse its power to allow women to bensimultaneously workefs and mothers.nIn her shift to pro-natalism, Alva alsonrealized that public hypocrisy must benavoided and did her duty by bearingnher third child in 1936. Yet the subsequentnmaternal tasks did not suit her,nand the care of her children wasnturned over to the professionals. (SonnJan would have his revenge a halfcenturynlater, charging in a searingnbook and a serialized radio productionnthat his mother had abandoned himnand his sisters, in the pursuit of famenand career.)nOld men, like small children, oftennsay things they shouldn’t. After oneninterview, Gunnar invited me to joinnhim for dinner. We left his townhousenon Vdsterldnggatan, the famed Medievalnstreet in Stockholm’s Old City,nwalked the cobblestones for severalnblocks to a small cafe, and feasted onnstrumming, a delicate fresh Baltic herring.nThe local news that week concernedna series of mob attacks on recent immigrantsnto Sweden: Assyrians, NorthnAfricans, Turks. The assailants werenraggare, bands of young Swedishntoughs who normally shocked thenadults by sewing U.S. flags on theirnworn denim jackets and by cruisingnthe roads in specially imported ’69nLincoln Continentals. In wake of thisnracial strife, government officials werensputtering in frustrated rage; SwedishnAre there othernoptions to thenAIDSnISSUE?nFind out in “A SOUNDER ANTI-AIDS OPTION”nby John A. HowardnSend this coupon and a check for $2.50 to:nOccasional Papers #16nThe Rocl(ford instituten934 N. iVIain StreetnRoci(ford, iL 61103n8 / CHRONICLESnmedia pundits engaged in the kind ofnself-flagellation (“where did we gonwrong?”) usually confined to theirncousin professionals in North America.nMyrdal raised the topic over herring.nThese immigrants, he said tonme, were a growing problem for Sweden.nThe newcomers didn’t keep theirnapartments tidy and proper, like Swedishnpeople did. They were often dirtynand unkempt. Their boys tried to datenSwedish girls, causing much trouble.nYes, he sighed as he shook his head,nthe immigrants were a problem.nAs an amateur Swedish sociologistnmight have remarked, in another decadenand land: Old attitudes die hard,nmuch harder than old socialists.n—Allan CarlsonnThe 1987 Jefferson lecture was deliverednthis May by Forrest McDonald.nMcDonald is nothing less than thenbest constitutional historian in thenUnited States, a man of conservativenprinciple and rare scholarship. Thenaddress, “The Intellectual World ofnthe Founding Fathers,” concludes bynconfronting “two doctrines which,nwilly-nilly, ensnared the Americans innideological thickets which were aliennto their very being,” i.e., natural rightsnphilosophy and a commitment to republicanism.nThe first leads to democraticnanarchism, and the second to annalmost totalitarian devotion to governmentnservice. The genius of the Constitution,nas McDonald sees it, lies notnwith the expansion of governmentnpowers but, in fact, with the limitationsnthat document imposed upon allngovernment.nComing in the wake of ThurgoodnMarshall’s malevolent inanities againstnthe framers, the speech was more thannworthy of the occasion. It was also anreal bargain, since McDonald practicesnwhat he preaches about limitedngovernment: He returned the honorarium.nAs we go to press, Robert Nisbetnseems to have been picked to delivernthe 1988 lecture. A superb scholar asnwell as an original social philosopher,nNisbet is an ideal choice. When thentime comes to write a definitive intellectualnhistory of 20th-century Americannconservatism, our guess is thatnRobert Nisbet—rather than IrvingnnnBabbitt or Richard Weaver—willnprove to have made the most enduringncontribution.nThe selection of such solid scholarsnas Forrest McDonald, Robert Nisbet,nand Cleanth Brooks raises the questionnof future choices. Conservatives in andnout of Washington have been wonderingnout loud when Russell Kirk is to benhonored. If we can read the signs, thenanswer may be never. For reasonsnknown only to The White House,nthere are still six Carter appointeesnlong overstaying their welcome on thenHumanities Council (the term is fornsix years), and rumor has it that somenconservatives have been less than diligentnabout attending meetings.nKirk has already had difficulties withnthe National Endowment for the Humanities.nA film project based on hisnRoofs of American Order was clearednby several levels of review but wasnmysteriously killed at a higher level.nWorse, Kirk was turned down for angrant at the same time as Eric Foner, anMarxist professor of history at Columbia,nreceived a $25,000 grant. The sonnand nephew of Communist Partynmembers, Foner is best known to conservativesnfor his vicious attack onnM.E. Bradford, when Bradford wasnbeing considered for the job of NEHnDirector.nOne argument made against Kirk isnthat his selection would be “too political,”nespecially since some conservativesnappear to be actively campaigningnfor him. But who could be more politicalnthan the first lecturer, SidneynHook, an anti-Soviet leftist with a longncareer as a polemicist? The campaignnfor Hook was vigorous and conducted,nso it is said, in the open. Why is thenOld Right by definition political, butnnot the Old Left? If conservatives arenoverzealous in promoting Kirk, it isnbecause few intellectual conservativesnin the United States can match him inninfluence, stature, and dignity. Kirk isna living symbol, and opposition to himntakes on a symbolic character.nSince the deliberations of the HumanitiesnCouncil are kept secret, wenhave no way of knowing if Kirk’s namenhas even been introduced into thendiscussions. Still, there are enoughnself-described conservatives on thencouncil either to push through hisnselection or to come up with betternexcuses than we have heard so far.n