Examples of the latter—“We soon discoverednthat promiscuity did not addressnthe problem of dependence and, ifnanything, only underscored it. We begannto see that it was not unrepressed lustnthat was causing us to lie down withnperfect strangers, but terror. . . . Wenhad liberated ourselves from blind obediencento past authority only to becomena cultural police state ruled by our newnpeer group—the kids.” While Ms.nSchnall treats the problems broughtnabout by the cultural revolution compassionately,nshe does not limit herselfnto its effects on the personal lives ofnmen and women, but attempts to providena solution for them. However, be­nMary Poppins’s EquipmentnThat society cannot survive withoutnmyths is, since Bergson and Jung, antruism. Today we are learning that civilization—anmuch more complex notionnthan society—cannot continue withoutnmyths. That the chastity of Mary Poppinsnis a myth, we knew all along. Yet ancertain warmth and coziness of our civilizationnwould be missing without thisnlegend. That Mary Poppins must havenhad some mammary equipment we alwaysnknew. But somehow not to mentionnit was a sort of heartrending glory thatnsomehow made us better—if only for anlittle while. Now, in a movie entitlednSOB, Julie Andrews—who has beennassociated for more than a decade withnthe Mary Poppins image—bares her bosomn(for reasons of art, sincerity, progressivism).nThere’s something inexpressiblynsluttish in that act, and nonfeminist rhetoric or revolutionary dialecticsnwill erase our feeling that Ms. Andrews’snjoyhouse manners are unredeemablenby lofty doctrines or so-called moralnaudacity. Ms. Andrews got paid for hern”work,” or “art,” and for many of us itnis as if Mary Poppins decided to take a jobnat a massage parlor for the simplest ofnreasons.n12nChronicles of CulturenLIBERAL CULTUREncause she both accepts the premises ofnthe revolution (that the old constraintsnof religion, tradition and family didndamage to our true selves) and directlynperceives the harm it has done, shencannot come to a coherent conclusion.nShe argues, therefore, that we shouldnplace limits on our behavior, yet deniesnthe validity of any set of external rulesnthat will set them for us.nAt the heart of this book lies a contradictionnthat Ms. Schnall does notnaddress—that is, once we have invalidatednany external authority, how arenwe going to set our internal compasses?nThe human heart is notoriously selfservingnand. given a chance to definen/.n>rn1 ^mn^/KWnAnvafen[^ii^L^^^^n^y^f—^^^^^OFnr>Vn^ ” iM~^ ‘nThe Powers That BenParade, America’s most trusted (bynits own self-assessment) Sunday magazine,ninforms its spiritually elevatednreadership:nAccording to Dean Norman K. Wessellsnof the Stanford UniversitynSchool of Humanities and Sciences,ngroups such as the Moral Majoritynare potentially far more dangerousnthan, say, the U.S. CommunistnParty.nIn keeping with Parade’s standards ofnexpectations for an intellectual response,nall we can say is “Oh, Gee!” Dnnnthe nature of its responsibilities completelynbereft of external guides or anynsense of external reality, will act tonrationalize its own desires. Ms. Schnallnknows this, yet she chooses to disregardnit, hoping beyond hope that somehow,nas they survey the damage, people willntake it upon themselves to put theirnhearts and minds in order. I have thendepressing sense that it will not happennunless we disregard Ms. Schnall’s fearnof traditional and external authorities.nJ. he Pursuit of Inequality is PhilipnGreen’s response to the political reactionnagainst the excesses of the culturalnrevolution. He is for the excessesaffirmativenaction, tight regulation ofnindustry, income redistribution, lowernstandards of entry into schools and professions,nthe “War on Poverty”—andnhence against the neoconservative swingnin opposition. For Green, all the variousnsigns of resistance to the political aspectsnof the cultural revolution can bencharacterized by one element: the desirenof the opponents to preserve an old ordernof privilege and advantage— the defense,nin a word, of inequality. Yet it is not sonmuch the defense of inequality as oppositionnto egalitarian dogmas that characterizesncontemporary conservatism, fornif inequalities are part of the humanncondition, then much of the liberal andnradical agenda cannot ever be completed.nLately, evidence of the intransigentnnature of some kinds of inequalitiesnis mounting, and apologists for socialnactivism have their job cut out for them.nGreen provides plenty of argumentation,nbut only a moderate amount ofnevidence and little original thought innhis analysis of the problem. For Green,nit’s as if the dislocations, trauma andninflation of the 70’s never took place,nas if there were no reason to re-examinenthese policies.nGreen’s approach to each of the topicsnhe covers reveals the same strategy:ntake the evidence cited (e.g. IQ scoresnor the desire of a majority of Americansnto resist government intrusion), reducenit from the order of objective realityn