impact from the genocide of certainngroupings of people, or more importantly,nfrom living with “the idea,” isnfoolish.nWith that said, I must strongly disagreenwith the final point of Neusner’snpiece. Neusner says: “For our part, wennever conceived a Marshall Plan ofnideas, a rebuilding of the ruined intellectualnlife of a great country.” Not onlyndoes he imply that somehow America,nand Americans, are responsible fornthe well-being of other nations, he alsonhints that “if something has gone wrong,nblame America first.” Neusner wouldnapparently have the United States acceptnthe role not only of economic guarantornof nations like Germany, but alsonof intellectual provider.nLeaving aside the fact that, to a verynreal degree, the United States in the laten18th century did provide an intellectualnMarshall Plan for the world (at leastnin the realm of governance) with suchndocuments as the Declaration of Independence,nthe Articles of Confederation,nand most specifically, the UnitednStates Constitution; there are othernproblems with Neusner’s statement.nFirst, the economic “rebuilding” thenUnited States engaged in after WorldnWar II really did not help any nation,nsave for perhaps Japan. It made Europenan American colony for an elongated, ifnnot permanent, time frame. And worse,nfor America, it made Americans both responsiblenfor maintaining an empire andnfor transforming a defeated enemy intonan economic rival. One could only surmisenthat a Marshall Plan of ideas wouldnnot have been any more successful thannwas the economic one.nAlso, with the morass in America’snmass cultural and intellectual life overnthe past fifty years, it is not only correctnthat it was best for America not to attemptnto take on the responsibility for anMarshall Plan of ideas for Germany, it isnalso good for Germany that we did notnforce American ideas on German culture.nEven the academic void thatnNeusner speaks of seems better than thenacademic devolution in the UnitednStates. Oh, our professors form “intellectualncommunities” all right, and theyneven engage in vigorous debate; thenproblem is they have nothing to do withnreality, and no connection to unifyingnour society.nBut no need to worry, for Neusnernwill get his way at last. The MarshallnPlan of ideas is currently being exported.n;along with our taxpayer dollars, to then;Soviet Union. It will probably have thensame, or more likely worse, consequencesnfor the recipients than the originalnMarshall Plan has had on WesternnEurope. America will get some relief:nwith our “intellectuals” gone to ruin thenSoviets for awhile, at least we will be ridnof them.nUnfortunately, this is merely a curenfor the symptom, rather than for the underlyingnproblem. The real remedy willnonly be found when we have a MarshallnPlan of ideas for America, or more accurately,na return to those ideas thatnmade America a great republic, beforenthe rise of the empire.n—Thomas C. Lizardo,nNational Vice Chairman,nYoung Americans for Freedom,nFairfax, VAnnnDr. Neusner Replies:nI cannot disagree with Mr. Lizardo’s letter;nwe are on the same side on most issues.nI meant the reference to a MarshallnPlan of ideas to be a bit cynical,nsince, like Mr. Lizardo, I am not sure wenhave all that much to offer. That wasnthe subtext of my statement; admittedly,n1t was buried altogether too deep tonregister. I certainly agree that we oughtnto take a modest view of our capacities,nboth economic and intellectual, and firstnof all to rebuild here at home. It is goodnto find in YAF eloquent and alert mindsnsuch as his; the coming generation willnthen have good ideas to export: the onesnon which this country is founded, as henrightly says. We must first make themnour own—once more.nAUGUST 1992/5n