an exclusive franchise on practical populism, and this newnassociation lasted until the 1970’s. Now, at the thresholdnof the 80’s, everybody knows that the Democratic Party—nthe party of Kennedy, McGovern, forced busing and militantnfeminism—is one of the mightiest and most aggressive forcesnof prescriptive populism ever witnessed in American publicnaffairs. Its only redeeming feature is that everything to itsnleft is even worse.nBut what about the Republican Party.’ Its bold rejectionnof the ERA—an issue defeated by women who have balkednat a prescribed reality—would indicate that the RepublicannParty has a sense of what is happening in America. Nonethenless, the Republicans are still Johnny-come-latelies: so far,nit looks like they’ll try to pursue the path of glory which thenDemocrats have abandoned. The Republicans now seem tonperceive the alluring promise in the great ethnic patchworknof American pluralism and in the compromise and consensusndevice. Does it make much sense.”nThe campaign of Mr. John Anderson may shed some lightnon the subject. Mr. Anderson—and everybody would agreenon it now—was manufactured by a group of left-wing millionairesn(yes, they do exist, and they apparently sleep well,nuntroubled by their consciences), an occurrence which isnspecial to advanced capitalism, where selling capitalism’sndemise is a thriving business. Before Mr. Anderson’s venture,nthese millionaires financed Vietnam-era defeatism and everynother anti-American initiative, thus objectively serving thengoals of Soviet imperialism. Mounting a presidential candidacynof their own was a throwback to the robber barons’ andncattle lords’ political morality (something which is fiercelynportrayed as evil incarnate in “progressive” Hollywood films).nThat effort was contingent upon finding an antipopulistncandidate—and Mr. Anderson was perfect for the part. Thenmedia, which replaced vested-interest groups as the mostnpotent engine of political corruption, lent eager-one mightneven say unprecedentedly eager—support to that operation.nIf George Wallace, a previous independent candidate, hadnhad a fraction of the support the press gave to Mr. Anderson,nhe might still he the United States president.nMr. Anderson claimed that independence was the ideologicalnsubstance of his bid and the magic formula for appealingnto everybody. In the American political environment, independencenis a negative value, a detractive calculation, annaffirmation of little, or just nothing. His attempts to structurenan eclectic, all-encompassing program on principles ofnfiscal conservatism and social liberalism—two exclusionarynconcepts—were absurd and doomed to failure. It apparentlynwas a final cry for gallimaufry as the supreme political virtue.nH„ Lowever, does Mr. Anderson’s dud mean that there isnno room for a third proposition in the contemporary tapestrynof American politics.’ To my mind, there is not only room,nthere is even an acute need for something. I believe that itnmust be an ideological proposition. I also believe that everynindependent or third-party attempt, from Teddy Rooseveltnto John Anderson, has failed because it was, by definition,nconfined to the political arena. Is a party founded on a thirdnproposition—which would be qualitatively different from thenDemocratic and Republican ones—an impossibility in America?nThere is an historic record of defeat and futility; thenindications are that third propositions, whenever they succeednin attracting popular attention, tend to ensconce themselvesnwithin one of the existing party structures. However,nwe have reached the point where it has begun to dawn onnmost of us that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans,nin their present forms, can give this country that sense ofnmoral and civic commitment, or obligation, on which nationsnand civilizations thrive. They could in the past, but they nonlonger can, and something must be done about that. Thus,nany successful effort in launching a third proposition mustnbegin with two fundamental premises.nFirst: the re-establishment of the sense of mission andnservice within a political venture. We cannot recall the lastntime a candidate for political office unequivocally announcednthat he sought that office because he wished just to servenAmerica. What the candidates do now is to proclaim theirnfitness for the office—moral or mental or professional. Overnthe last half-century a pattern has become prevalent whichnmost strongly emphasizes the promises made to the electorate.n”All things to all men,” a contemporary British observerncalled this political tradition. We are wary of this kind ofnprinciplelessness. We think that, carried to its extreme logicalnand pragmatic justifications, it may bode ill for America.nThe fundamental principle of serving the country must benrestored.nSecond: a third proposition must be culturally substantiatednand motivated. Instead of rushing into the elective sweepstakes,nit has to structure a philosophical foundation. Politicsnis the last stage on which the fortunes of such propositionsnshould be tested.nI hope The Rockford Institute and the Chronicles of Culturenwill prove themselves to be effective forums in whichnsuch propositions may be formed, analyzed and abundantlynwritten about.nReagan’s Victorynand its magnitude give a new and fascinating dimension to our editorial. The next issuenof Chronicles of Culture — entitled “Toward Conservatism with a Human Face” — willnattempt to articulate our thoughts and hopes in the light of this momentous event.nnn—Leopold TyrmandnOnIVovcmber/December 1980n