putes between conservatives andnliberals.nThis method is seen best in the already-mentionednessay on the FordnFoundation’s 1974 energy study. Allnof the evidence marshaled and presentednby Mr. Lapham supports the view of thencapitalistic Mr. Tavoulareas that Mr.nDavid Freeman, the project’s organizer,nwas “a fool and a zealot.” It also makesnclear that the Foundation reneged on annexplicit promise to Mr. Tavoulareas thatnhe would, if dissatisfied with the finalnreport, be allowed to publish a rebuttal,nand it establishes that the capitalist wasnin general shabbily treated. But, despitenthis result of his own investigations, Mr.nLapham portrays both Mr. Freeman andnMr. Tavoulareas as equally misguided,nequally at fault—unreasonable ideologuesnshouting passionate nonsensenpast one another.nMr. Lapham’s forced impartiality extendsnbeyond the personalities and thenissues involved. He tells us that the notionnof the “energy crisis” was popularnwith the oil companies because it gaventhem an excuse for raising prices, andnwith the bureaucrats because it gaventhem an excuse for extending governmentnregulations and thus their ownnpower. Well and good. But is there annenergy crisis or not? And if there is,nwhich of the two solutions is to be preferred?nMr. Lapham implies that it isnreally beneath his dignity to inquire intonso grubby a matter or to choose betweenntwo such awful sets of oiks. Clues arenlittered throughout indicating that henprefers the conservative solutions of thenmarketplace. But his style and methodnallow him to remain above the battle.nMy own bias has perhaps misled menhere, but the best-argued essays,nwhether on the energy crisis or on pornography,nseem to point to conservativenconclusions, if sometimes by anwinding route. The side that Mr. Laphamnrefuses to take, on this calculation,nis the conservative side.nUngenerous people might speculatenthat he has refrained from a frontal assaultnon liberalism and its works be­nZZ^^^m^^^^nChronicles of Culturencause that is a perilous enterprise innNew York City. Of course, the NewnYork Review of Books cannot order offendersnto the Gulag. But, as defectorsnfrom liberalism have discovered onnbreaking ranks, liberals in the worldsnof culture and the media can commandna formidable array of social and literarynbitchiness—from character assassinationnto the withdrawal of dinner-partyninvitations. Surely, however, Mr. Laphamncan be exonerated from that ignoblensuspicion. He has arrived in thatnworld with excellent letters of introduction,nbut he is neither of it nor subjectnto its sanctions. He would probably notnnotice that he was being snubbed or, ifnhe did, it would never occur to him thatnhe could be wounded by someone fromnthe Village Voice.nHis reluctance to take sides, it seemsnto me, has different roots. It is, in essence,na nervousness of becoming predictable.nMr. Lapham fears to join thatnlarge army of writers whose articles cannbe judged before they have been read—na perfectly reasonable anxiety. Onlynwriters of talent manage to be consistentnwithout falling into the trap of predictability.nBut, like the fear of being vulgar,nit is a crippling fear for a writer.nIt leads him to suppress his views on occasion,nto wrap them up in a judiciousnvagueness, to pretend to a false impartiality,nto place too high a value on thenliterary virtue of surprise, and to takenrefuge in paradox, mystagoguery andnmere style. And it is because Fortune’snChild s marred by these faults that I cannoffer only the qualified recommendationnof the slim volume that is embedded innits 359 pages. •nHi! How Free Are You This Morning?nRaymond D. Gastil: Freedom in thenWorld: Political Rights and CivilnLiberties, 1980; Freedom House;nNew York.nby Lev NavrozovnIf the distribution of this book dependednon my praise, I would fill the entirenreview with “quotable quotes.” Butnsince the distribution of a serious bookndepends on a vast variety of factors, Inwill merely say that in our age of growingnnationalisms, socialisms, nationalnsocialisms and socialist nationalisms,nthe Freedom House’s annual survey ofnpolitico-civic freedom is priceless.nNationalisms deny politico-civic freedom,nfor they insist that values be national,nnot social. Accordingly, politicocivicnfreedom may be national value fornAnglo-Saxons, but certainly not for Russians,nVietnamese or Cubans. The conceptnsuits both the rulers of Russia, Viet-nMr. Navrozov is a free-lance writer innNew York.nnnnam or Cuba and the American cryptoisolationists,nwho proclaim that the Sovietnrulers’ expansion will stop when itnreaches the English-speaking territories.nThere are so many different socialismsnthat it is impossible to speak of allnof them. Yet even some of those whichnadmit the need for politico-civic freedomntend to regard it as a kind of luxury thatn”poor countries” cannot afford, asnthough the absence of politico-civic freedomnin a country were not the surestnroad to poverty as well, not to mentionnaggressive war and auto-genocide.nThe annual Freedom in the Worldncarries on the American tradition ofnuniversalism whereby the concept of anhuman being is fundamental. If 19thcenturynGerman music or Arabic algebranhas been adopted by most nations onnearth, it is not clear to me why thenGreco-Roman-Anglo-Saxon heritage ofnman and his freedom cannot become anvalue for Russia, Vietnam or Cuba, especiallynsince it has become a value fornJapan, Costa Rica, Barbados. Incidentally,naccording to this annual, Barbados,n