Chicago Tribune’snOfficiatingnJ ane Fonda, a talented movie actressnand an attractive woman, is a self-avowednpro-communist who is more effective atnengineering pro-communist sympathiesnat large than any Marxist book, proletariannmovie or revolutionary lecture.nShe once served the communist authoritiesnin Vietnam by giving credibility andnrespectability to Hanoi’s most atrociousnlies. No one knows what motivated her;ndoltishness or anti-American venom. Shenherself would probably be unable to distinguishnbetween the two. But whatevernher actions and the reasons for them,nAmerica paid her back generously withnmoney, a successful career and manynopportunities to speak her mind. As wellnas with a non-stop stream of publicity.nPolemics &. ExchangesnAmong her most adulating worshippersnseem to be the editors of the ChicagonTribune: its Sunday edition of Marchn26, 1978 carried a giant cover story innthe Lifestyle section presenting her as anparadigm of virtue to Chicagoans. Thenfeature ended with her husband TomnHayden’s words: “She’s a more importantncharacter than any character she’ll evernplay.”nOn January 26, 1978, the Peoplensection ran another story on Ms. Fondanin which she said: “Joy is having a reasonnfor living. Joy is having belief. Joy isnknowing that you are part of a historicalnforce that can make life better fornpeople—“nThere is nothing wrong with thesenwords. Only one little hitch: there arendozens of women in America, equallynattractive and talented in their own fieldsnIs the Liberal Establishment for Real?nby Arnold KrupatnThe righteous indignation thenChronicles brings to the dissection ofncant in our culture is heartening. Thenvulgarity, irresponsibility, amoralism, andnopportunistic sensationalism blandly carriednforward by much of our literaturenand applauded by too many of our reviewer/criticsndeserves only scorn and isnin need of precise deflation. It isn’t quitentoday, as Yeats saw it once, that “Thenbest lack all conviction, while the worst/nAre full of passionate intensity.” Rather,nit’s that too many of the worst have freenaccess to the microphones, while others,nbetter, if not the best, find the airwaves—nthe publishers and galleries and concertnhalls and large-circulation magazinesclosednto them. But when the ChroniclesnMr Krupat teaches English Literaturenat Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville,nNew York.nplaces the entire blame for this situationnon some monolith it calls “The LiberalnEstablishment” there is a real dangerninvolved.nThere probably is a “Liberal Establishment”nor something like it, and probablynit has a very great deal to answer for. Butnonce a crusade against specific instancesnof error lapses into a crusade against ansingle Devil, criticism becomes theologynand a grand ideological touchstone—nsome notion of the True Faith—replacesnattention to particulars. When that happens—ifnthat happens—“critical inquiry,”nthat brave and strenuous project, mustncease, for anything that can be associatednsomehow with the Evil Monolith mustncome in for wholesale condemnation.nThe next step—as if this one weren’tnbad enough—is an inevitable yearningnto roust the Devil and install God—or,nin the usual case, simply to replace onennnof activity, who experience joy and havena reason for living, who have beliefs,nwho know that they are part of a historicalnforce that can make life better for people.nLet’s name one: Phyllis Schlafly. Shenmeets all the criteria Jane Fonda lists asnnecessary for her own prominence andncan add to them an educated mind andnscholarly erudition.nBut can we imagine ^er picture adorningnhalf a page of the Chicago Tribune?nNo one, not even the Tribune’s editorsncan deny the selflessness of her beliefs.nHowever, hers are not liberal or procommunistnbeliefs. Thus, she serves thenwrong “historical force” and, of course,ncannot “make life better for people.” Herncommitment is as ignored as Jane Fonda’snis trumpeted, pushed, admired andnadored. Which is just one way of officiatingnin favor of a pro-communist. DnEstablishment by Another, ridding thenworld of Them in favor of Us.nI don’t believe culture is well-servednby any Establishment, Liberal or Other,nalthough it is well-served by the editor ofnChronicles of Culture’s stated commitmentnto “critical inquiry”—which, Inwould suggest, involves strict standardsnof rationality as applied to the scrupulousnanalysis of each individual case examined.nThis, to be sure, is wearisome. But whatnless than this would be worth one’s effortnand energy?nIn illustration of some of the above, Inwould point out that Rolling Stone whichnis brought to our attention unfavorablynin regard to Percy’s Lancelot (and regularlynboxed for placement in the stocks),nmight be instanced more favorably innregard to Sara Davidson’s Loose Changen(loose enough, apparently, and sufficientlynchangeable to have become anSInChronicles of Culturen