bribed to do so by God? Is a human beingrnonly his or her waking consciousness?rnHow can we repair the leaky boat of languagernwhen we are already embarked onrnit? My chief intellectual objection torncontemporary modernists and postmodernistsrnis not that they ask the questionsrnbut that they do not have the guts to facernup to the new answers that are emergingrnfrom research and experience, answersrnvery different from the ones originallyrngiven.rnIt is precisely the importance of thesernquestions that leads me to reject the understandablernreaction of many on thernpolitical right, who in their insulted outragernwant to suppress the artists and gornback to a prettv, safe, comfortable officialrnart that never really existed. The rightwingrnattack on gays, for instance, is arntragic mistake, as the delightful CamillernPaglia points out. There is a much betterrncritique of contemporary art than thernone that such guardians of morality canrnoffer: and that critique, and especiallyrnthe new and exciting answers to the greatrnquestions, are what I call the third side.rnIf we look at contemporary science wernsee that the universe is not a linear, deterministicrnsystem running down intorndisorder, but a nonlinear, creative, unpredictablernprocess of evolution intornmore and more subtle, self-reflective,rnand beautiful forms of order. If we lookrnat contemporary politics we see that entirelyrnnoneconomic forces—human valuesrn—drive much of history, whetherrnthose values are creative, like VaclavrnHavel’s notion of democratic civil society,rnor destructive, like Slobodan Miloshevitch’srnnotion of ethnic separatism.rnWhen we look at the human sciences wernfind that we are not machines but marvelous,rnfree animals, cultural in our veryrnnature and neurobiologically designedrnto work best in a noble and demandingrnmoral system, in an inspiring aestheticrnsystem, and in a context that believesrntruth can be meaningfully sought ifrnnever perfectly attained. We do have arnhuman nature; that nature is cultural;rnthat culture is classical, when we get itrnright; and classical culture is not a set ofrndead norms but an enormously creativernand revelatory source of new realities,rngrowing out of the old realities and graftedrnonto them. We find that art is notrnthe arbitrary expression of a particularrnethnic, social, and political conditioningrnbut a flowering out of deep humanrnroots that are common to all cultures;rnthat there is a human classicism of artrnthat is indeed not confined to Europeanrncultures, but of which Europe is a gloriousrnexample; and that true art is preciselyrnthe opposite of coercive politics.rnThe new environmental science hasrnshown us that nature does indeed existrnand is not the invention of the rich andrnpowerful—^we cannot damage or destroyrnsomething that is not there, with its ownrnreal laws and tendencies, in the firstrnplace; a large part of the art of the futurernwill be a kind of healing and gardening ofrnthe living planet. And language turnsrnout to be not an arbitrary imposition onrnan unknowable reality but the next turnrnof accelerating reflectiveness in the evolutionaryrnprocess.rnThere is already a growing number ofrnartists in various fields who have begunrnto embrace the new paradigm and whornwill one day be seen as the pioneers ofrnthe next major historical phase in thernarts—as Dante, Petrarch, Giotto, andrnPiero were for the Italian Renaissance, asrnBlake and Wordsworth were for EnglishrnRomanticism. The contemporary establishmentrnhnds them threatening, butrnthey are preparing their Armory Show,rntheir Preface to the Lyrical Ballads, theirrnDefense of Poetry.rnFrederick Turner is Founders Professor ofrnArts and Humanities at the University ofrnTexas at Dallas. He delivered this paperrnat a J 993 conference on “Winning thernCulture War,” organized by Pat Buchanan’srnAmerican Cause Foundation.rnLife on the FrontrnLinesrnby R. Cort KiikwoodrnThe Presidential Commissionrnon Women in the MiHtaryrnI’m a trained killer,” Army CaptainrnMimi Finch announced during arnhearing of the Presidential Commissionrnon the Assignment of Women in thernArmed Forces. A thirtysomething graduaternof the United States Military Academyrnat West Point, Captain Finch wasrnthe youngest member of the commission.rnIts job was to “assess the laws andrnpolicies governing the assignment ofrnwomen in the armed forces,” a fancyrnway of saying it would ponder the utilityrnof girding Kathy Ireland’s loins for combat,rnand as you can see. Captain Mimirnfigured her loins were girded. The LongrnGray Line has done wonders for femininernself-esteem.rnAmusingly, the captain was greatrnwith child when she unbosomed herselfrnof this pronunciamento in response to arnproposal from another commissioner.rnBrigadier General Sam Cockerham.rnGeneral Cockerham, who fought in Korearnand was a senior commander in Vietnam,rnwanted the commission to vote onrnthe question of whether we, meaningrnthe American people, should turn womenrninto “trained killers.” When CaptainrnFinch told the general that he wasrnstill living down the street from DonnarnReed, that women already were “trainedrnkillers” because they got to play Patton atrnWest Point and Nimitz at Annapolis,rnone of the many unmarried men andrnchildless women who attended the hearingsrnwith annoying regularity barked,rn”Yes!”rnWhatever Captain Finch’s skills withrna bayonet while her child gestates inrnutero. General Cockerham had askedrnthe right question. As a practical matter,rneveryone knows women can kill. Thernquestion is: As a matter of principle, propriety,rnand policy, should they do so inrnorganized combat units? That’s whatrnGeneral Cockerham wanted to debate.rnProblem was, the commission didn’trnwant to debate that question because itrnwould risk the ire of the man-hating harridansrnand their eunuchs in Washington,rnwho have turned the Armed Servicesrninto a daycare center for singlernmothers and a finishing school for womenrnwho want to be men.rnThat’s why the “trained killer” remarkrnwas one of several poignant momentsrnduring my tenure on the commission.rnIt illuminated the problem with thisrncommission in particular and all commissionsrnin general: they don’t answerrnquestions or solve problems. It illustratedrnhow silly the debate over Americanrnpublic policy has become, how banalrnthose who participate in it truly are.rnThe Presidential Commission on thernAssignment of Women in the ArmedrnForces found its genesis in the PersianrnGulf War. During and after our smashingrnvictory over Saddam Hussein’s coweringrnlegions in the Gulf, the news mediarntreated the American people to tales ofrnherculean women treading the hotrnMARCH 1994/45rnrnrn