tween the isolated incidents of real valor,nthere is little to admire either in thencharacter of those who served or in theirnconduct since their service. Many ofnthese men are still in flight from theirnmemories of the war, and they are readynto blame either the Army or their countrynfor what Vietnam did to them. Fewnseem willing to confront what they didnto themselves in Vietnam.nUltimately, the book is unsatisfying;nalthough it revives multitudes of questionsnthat most people would rather notnMarxian Cheerleadersn& QuarterbacksnAndrea Dworkin: Right-wing Women;nPerigee Books; New York.nThe Left Academy; Edited by BertellnOlltnan and Edward Vemoff, McGraw-nHill; New York.nSport, culture and ideology; Editednby Jennifer Hargreaves; Roudedgen& Kegan Paul; London.nby Gregory WolfenJLn the last few years, a number of conservativesnhave been chortling aboutnthe alleged demise of liberalism. The argumentngoes like this: a conservativenPresident, a vigorous conservative intellectualnmovement, and the liberals’ lossnof initiative and inspiration have combinednto tip the American cultural balancenaway from the left. Unfortunately,nthe “decline” of liberalism is probably anfunction of the rhythm of politics, andnconservatism remains a largely isolated,ncritical movement. These three books allntestify to the untiring activity offer-leftnideologues who are blissfiiUy unafiectednby the vicissitudes of liberal politics.nLiberalism has always been a parasiticnMr. Wolfe is editor of The HillsdalenReview,nface, it provides no clues about acceptablenanswers. Nonetheless, anyonentempted to advocate American involvementnin another international strugglenshould read Charlie Company; it is anconvincing demonstration of the fiitilitynof attempting to influence the hearts andnminds of others before one’s own mindnis settled. Then we can deal with thenreaUy vexing question this book poses:nCan liberty and democracy be preservednanywhere when provided with suchnequivocal leadership? Dncreature: the far left has been its consciencenand its mentor. When liberalsnhave awakened from their momentarynstupor, they wiU once again hear the sirennsong of the left, which is increasinglynseducing the soi-disant “educated”nclasses. In the inteUectual war of attritionnthe present danger of leftist ideologynis that it wiU bring about a kind ofnmental Finlandization. When conservativesncan forestaU this process, they willnhave reason to be proud, but not before.nThe Marxist and feminist contributorsnto the books under consideration herenagree in their interpretation of recentnsocial history. The student and civil-rightsnunrest of the 1960’s, they say, was primarilynsocial, not inteUectual, in origin.nThe real opening for the growth of radicalnthought came when liberal guilt aboutnthe criticism of traditional institutionsnled to the encouragement of left-wingnendeavors. In discussing the developmentnof Marxist scholarship in America,nthe writers in The Left Academy refer tonbooks and studies the vast majority ofnwhich were published in the 1970’s.nAndrea Dworkin, radical feminist andnlesbian, claims in Right-iving Womennthat the hippie generation’s dream ofn”free love” only confirmed male sexualndomination and led feminists in then1970’s to withdraw and formulate evennnnmore extreme theories of male “hegemony.”nIn short, the radical left is freshnfrom a decade of imparaUeled effort and,nquite independendy of liberal politics, isnsetding in as the American inteUectualnestablishment.nThe title of Andrea Dworkin’s book isnat best misleading, and at worst disingenuous.nOnly peripheraUy about “rightwingnwomen,” the book is in fact anlengthy feminist diatribe, the tide merelynan attempt to capitalize on the left’s fearnof fiindamentalism (as in Thunder onnthe Right). When she singles out somenright-wing women, Dworkin focusesnprimarily on Marabel Morgan, author ofnThe Total Woman, and Anita Bryant, ansometime antihomosexual activist. Herenmost thoughtful conservatives wouldnside with E)workin: the saccharine fundamentaUstnpiety which glorifies thenrole of housewife is simply too naive tonbe an adequate answer to the crisis ofnsexual identity. The low point of this kindnof thinking was reached when Morganncounseled housewives on how to usenSaran Wrap outside of the kitchen innorder to please their husbands—aU fornthe love of God. Phyllis Schlafly, on thenother hand, is too intelUgent and shrewdnfor Dworkin, so she calls Schlafly Machiavelliannand leaves it at that. But thisnanalysis is too facile, and Dworkin probablynknows it, too; by attacking fundamentalists,nshe can throw out thenwhole Judeo-Christian world view whichnundergfrds our understanding of sexuaUtynwith a sneer of contempt. It is likendismissing Christianity itself by examiningnBilly Graham and Jerry Falwell,nrather than St. Augustine or St. ThomasnAquinas.nJKadical feminism is not an attitudenbut an ideology, in the full technicalnsense of the word. The world as it existsnis seen as utterly iUegitimate; only whennthe “revolution” comes can there be justice.nFeminists see men as violent oppressors,nincipient rapists; their theorynof history is equaUy simple: men have alwaysntyrannized women. Dworkin alsoninsists on another central aspect of mod-n121nSeptember 1983n