malignant fatuity that the professor hasnmade so painfully familiar to veterannfollowers of National Review.nThe review made me sorry in threenways. First and foremost, of course, Inam sorry to see a good woman andnbrilliant conservative writer viciouslynabused for no serious reason. Second, Inam sorry to have borne for somenmonths a silent grudge against Mr.nWilliam Buckley, whom I had thoughtnresponsible for the dry-gulching ofnMrs. Noonan in NR last fall. It is anrelief to learn that that exploit shouldnbe credited (if that is the word for it) tonProfessor Hart.nLastly, I was deeply distressed to seenProfessor Hart refer to Bouvard andnPecuchet as “great.” After all, it is.n— C.H. RossnNashville, TNnMr. Hart Replies:nAccording to C.H. Ross, I am “not onento be deterred by minor details.”nIn my inattention to detail, when Inwrote that sentence, I had never heardnof a “C.H. Ross.” I had in mind peoplenwho were well-known and who hadnplanted mendacious items in a Washingtonngossip column. I do notice,nhowever, that C.H. Ross seems to benconstituting himself as a one-mannclaque.nIn the July 1990 issue of the AmericannSpectator I find a very long letternfrom none other than C.H. Ross attackingna negative review of Noonan’snbook by Mary Eberstadt. This reviewnmade much the same points my piecendid. C.H. Ross’s approach was to mocknMary Eberstadt in a flood of verbiage,nwithout refuting one thing that she hadnsaid.nReviewing Noonan’s book in NationalnReview, former White Housenspeechwriter Aram Bakshian madenmany of the same points that MarynEberstadt and I made. After all, theynare scarcely contestable. Mr. Bakshiannsays that he actually pulled his punches.nI have received a flood of correspondencenabout Noonan’s performance innWashington. If C.H. Ross wants this tongo public, well, be my guest.nThere is no way to “reply” to hisncomments on my article. I support mynjudgments, literary and political, withnquotations and other evidence. Henoffers in answer no evidence and nonserious argumentation. He resortsnmerely to name-calling and personalninsult. There is no way to “reply” tonthat.nOn Tost-Cold War’nMurray N. Rothbard’s “Foreign Policynfor the Post-Cold War Worid” (Mayn1990) covers much territory in a finenfashion. However, his assessment of thenSoviet situation does not rest on solidnground.nJohn T. Flynn prophesied the comingnof fascism in the United Statesnwithout realizing that fascism is merelyncommunism in uniform with whitengauntlets. Samuel Goldwyn has goodnadvice for prophets: “Never prophesyn— particularly the future.”nThe Soviet situation has yet to playnitself out. So also Jeane Kirkpatrick’snthesis regarding totalitarianism and authoritarianism.nThe totalitarians — Hitler,nMussolini, AUende, Ceausescu, andnother small fry—were old soldiers whondid not fade away, so they had to benblown away. The odds are that a hurricanenwill come to the Soviet Union. AsnClausewitz said over a century ago,n”Such a country [Russia] can only bensubdued by its own weaknesses, and bynthe effects of internal dissension. Innorder to strike these vulnerable points innits political existence, the country mustnbe shaken to its very center.” Leninnechoed this in his works, crediting Clausewitz,nhis mentor.nPan-Slavism and Russophilism stillnhave deep roots in Soviet areas and willnbe a major concern. We seem not tonunderstand that while the United Statesnis composed of many tribes of the earth,nnone are clinging to a bit of Americannreal estate called a homeland, motherland,nor fatherland. The rest of thenworid is saddled with tribal loyalties,nwith the many tribes, large and small,nsecurely attached to their bit of ground.nThe many European wars arose fromnemotional tribal/land outbreaks.nLord Brougham, a Scottish jurist,nsaid, “Education makes people easy tonlead, but difficult to drive; easy tongovern but impossible to enslave.” Wenhave yet to see just how educated thenpeople of the Soviet Union are; if thenperformance of the economy is anynnnmeasure, it appears the people still havena way to go.n— Richard L. BarkleynPalo Alto, CAnMr. Rothbard Replies:nI appreciate Mr. Barkley’s thoughtfulncomments. However, it strikes me thatnJohn T. Flynn’s warning of a comingnAmerican fascism was all too prophetic.nWhat else but a “virtuous and politen. . . bureaucratic state … the great nationalnbanker and investor … a powerfullyncentralized government . . .nmasquerading under the guise of thenchampion of democracy” have we beennliving under?nI have always maintained that thencollapse of communism was inevitable;nwhat is never predictable is the timing:nin Eastern Europe it took 44 years, innthe Soviet Union, 72.nIt is certainly true that post-communistnEurope will be no Garden of Eden;ninstead, Europe and near-Asia are revertingnto ethnic nationalisms, whichnindeed have been responsible for modernnEuropean wars. But this is thenpoint: that there is no need for thenUnited States to become embroiled innthem, especially now that internationalncommunism is, to say the least, nonlonger a monolith. Furthermore, notnonly has the Soviet empire in EasternnEurope collapsed, but crumbling also isnthe old Russian Czarist empire. Fromnthe Baltics to the Ukraine to Kazakhstan,nthe conquered periphery of the oldnMuscovite empire is beginning to demandnautonomy and even national independence.nIn that context, Pan-Slavismnand Russophilism are about the lastnthings in the world that the UnitednStates has to worry about.nAs for education, I see no correlationnwith freedom or resistance to tyranny:ncertainly the population of Germanynduring the 1930’s was one of the mostnhighly educated in the worid. Nor, alas,nhas education saved Germany, GreatnBritain, or even the United States fromnhighly destructive economic policies. Inam reminded of a charming and effectivenpaper once delivered to a scholariynconference on education by the distinguishednphilosopher John O. Nelson.nNelson pointed out that the majornargument for compulsory educationnand the public school in the 19thnSEPTEMBER 1990/5n