new world order. My only reservationnwith allowing our current chief executivento exercise sovereign powers is ournpresent difficulty in sorting out twonentirely different political aims: thenprotection of American lives and vitalnnational resources, and the reconstructionnof the world. The confusion of thenfirst with the second is the result of annhistorical process that needs to be examined.nMoynihan touches on thatnprocess, but never explores it in depth.nWhat he calls the “law of nations”nwas in fact an Eurocentric development,nwith Roman roots. Comingninto existence in early modern Europe,nthis order of things, to which thenGerman jurist Cad Schmitt devoted hisnlast great work, assumed a more or lessnfixed territorial arrangement amongnEuropean nation states. The jus publicumnEuropaeum made allowances fornwar in the case of otherwise unresolvablendisputes, but imposed limits onnsuch conflict. War took place betweennprofessional armies, but was not supposednto injure civilians. Countriesnfaced the danger of having to cede landnbut could not be entirely displaced,nand disputes were to be treated asnstrictly political, without incorporatingnthe older ideas of “just wars” and “justncauses.” Schmitt observes that Europeansnarrived at this thoroughly dispassionatenview of international relationsnafter a century or more of religiousnstruggles between and within theirncountries. Instead of continuing tonslaughter each other ad majoram gloriamnDei, European leaders and juristsncast about for a new and less violentnkind of international relations. It wasnone that appealed to Thomas Hobbes,nFrancois Vatte, and David Hume butncould not hold sway in the worldnaccording to Robespierre, Lenin, ornBork. In any case, the jus publicumnEuropaeum became increasingly irrelevantnthe farther one moved fromnEuropean culture or from the prerevolutionarynEurope that produced it. Today,ninternational law has become subjectnto a wide range of ideologicalnvariables, including the right of insurgents,nalso recognized in the U.N.nCharter, to overthrow oppressive regimes.nLike Moynihan, I would like thenworld to return to a “law of nations,”nbut unlike him I do not believe that thenmeans to this end is “global democracy.”nRepeating Woodrow Wilson’sntendentious but meaningless dictum,nthat democracies do not make war onneach other, Moynihan expresses thenpious wish that Wilson was correct innhis assertion. Wilson intended, as hisnneoconservative disciples have, that thenUnited States foster good relations withnand among nations having compatibleninstitutions and values. Hapless countriesnwith opposing values and institutionsn{e.g., Imperial Cermany, Austria-nHungary, and Saudi Arabia), havenbeen made by Wilsonian critics tonappear criminally undemocratic asnwell. Their villainy has been exaggerated,nin some cases, in order to portrayntheir culturally alien societies as politicallynwicked.nThere is no historical reason tonassume that ancient or modern democraciesnhave been more peace-lovingnthan other regimes. Even before thenFrench Revolution combined democraticnmissionizing with violence andngenocide, David Hume noted the tendencynof ancient democracies and republicsnto be relentlessly imperialistic.nAnd in modern imperialism a similarntendency has been discernible. It wasnamong Radical Republicans in France,nFabian socialists in England, and forward-thinkingnAmericans at the turn ofnthe century that imperialism foundnsome of its readiest recruits. In modern,nAmerica it is, predictably, the democraticnglobalists, not the Taft Republicans,nwho have been beating thendrums for a pax Americana. Moynihannviews modern India as “democratic”nLIBERAL ARTSnKEEPING THE FAITHnbecause of its electoral process and atnleast limited civil liberties. In view ofnthat country’s conquest of Goa, itsnmeddling in ethnic wars in Sri Lanka,nand its past eagerness to become embroilednwith Pakistan, I find it annexaggeration to describe democraticnIndia as “peaceable.” Certainly it hasnnot been more peaceable than itsnneighbor Pakistan, governed by a sequencenof military regimes.nHaving entered these qualified objections,nI should add that Bork’s previouslynquoted remarks, which resemblenenormities ascribed to Jeane Kirkpatrick,nare even more alarming thannMoynihan suggests. They amount tonan open invitadon to apply armednforce against any state that is not in stepnwith currently accepted definitions ofn”democracy” and “freedom.” In fact,nthere is no reason to assume that ourndefinitions of these political buzzwordsnwill remain constant, and it isnentirely conceivable that we may eventuallynoverthrow governments that failnto replicate our civil rights revolutionnand our feminist reforms. We havenalready taken belligerent action againstna friendly state in southern Africa. Andnprominent liberal journalists, duringnthe heady month of August 1990,nwere advocating that America imposenfemale emancipation on Islamic socie-nHes. Modern democracy may indeednturn out to be the kind of roguenelephant that we have long consideredncommunism to be.nIf so, we can forget about Moynihan’s,nor anyone else’s, restraining lawnof nations. <^nIn an early draft of The Power of Ethical Management, thenReverend Norman Vincent Peale and Kenneth Blanchardnreportedly listed prayer as the last of five ethical principles,nright after purpose, pride, patience, and persistence. Theirneditors, however, became concerned. The Scripps HowardnNews Service quoted Blanchard as saying, “It seemed that anfew people we talked to thought that using a big religiousnword like that would put some people off. … So we wentnwith ‘perspective,'” said Blanchard. “People liked thatnbetter.”nnnMARCH 1991/35n