consistent position on this issue thannBrandys. On the one hand, he arguesnthat “without power, ideas are Httlenmore than a pipe dream”; he also recognizesnthat the symbiotic relationshipnbetween ideas and reality means that an”monopoly of power inevitably imposesna monopoly of ideas.” He freely admitsnthat during the period when he assistednthe communists in the consolidation ofntheir rule, they sternly liquidated allnopposition in the drive toward a monopolynof power which they had to seize ifnthey were to modify reality according tontheir ideas. And yet Djilas parted companynwith Tito precisely because henwished to fracture the party’s monopolynof ideas through relatively free discussionnand debate—including the “freedomnof information” for which he longsn—and that would unerringly underminenits monopoly of power.nAt the same time Djilas preaches thenhistorical necessity of the communistnrevolution in Yugoslavia by arguingnthat “the roots of Yugoslav independencenlie in the power of the revolution.”nHe justifies the suppression ofnindividual liberty within the countrynby the requirements of national independence.nBrandys’s narrator quotesn—more disapprovingly than not, despitenhis strong sense of the Polish nationalndestiny—a saying attributed tonthe novelist Henryk Sienkiewicz: “Bewarenof nations that prefer liberty tonthe fatherland.” In his confusion Djilasnadopts this point of view: if he mustnchoose, national independence is morenimportant than individual liberty.nJ- he modern era is a time of severelynconflicting allegiances. Those withnstrong commitments to what they considerna potentially more just socialnstructure than that which presently exists—likenDjilas—are ready to mutilatenreality for the sake of that ideal. Theirnfanaticism is, if anything, more intensennow than it was in Djilas’s heydaywitnessnthe holocausts in Cambodia andnAfghanistan. Brandys’s narrator, forninstance, is distressed when the fictionnliiiiliil lioni/xn’]’n- .nun(;iir sdiitu’ li.is ;iltt:ivs lii-t-nniiinsiiltrcii .IIIIDIII; ilif ni(i>;l I’^iilifariaiini-iii J Prcsiiliiil iiKiy In- iKlilri-.SM-J iiNnIke- jiwii ivrlii)n the popular iMnsfiou.sncs.s. And atiiiijiiii;nro the Icndal W.v;- iiu-iiialifvn.md honor codi’ ol tin- niiciia. llu- l.itcnand ihi’ narni’ innsi assoiiaic with lilK’ialnfri,)iiiKti.!i’::iii!ii.’:. how i- cr viciousKniiiaiu’ or inii’lki’aially .>.Ua/.nriiis is vvli liln lal nia.i;a/ini-.s in iwn”i’ork always liiiluri- rhi’ likes ol’ Ms.nShirli’y .Macl.aini’. an ai”Mvs.s wiih a pel-n.si/.(.d brain, or oiii’ l-dward .AMIIT. a ;;inanr ol ‘I V .sirii-s who liappi-ns to he anwalkiiii; li’ioin of cheap radical sloyanii-riiiji.ni) lali-. tin- laii’ ot Mr. .-MannAkla lia.s lu-niin losliiiir torlh lioiii thosenpi’riodical.s which nuke a luick l< piosniraliii}; thenisi’lves Ixlore the lelehs.npersonal pallriness nolw iih.sianiiin.i;.nWomen s iiiaiM/.iiies are i-.spieiallv siooilnsources ot this mass spirilual nourishniiieiil: Irom feminist manilestoi-s lonkiiclu’ii l>i>iirid HOssip almanacs M .Senentli Aveiiui- oracles, rhev all celebraten.Mr. .lda. I lis irademark is a sort olnhandsome boishiiess with an exjinssioiinol mass iiianiilaci nred. pr<‘pacl;a.i;edninnocence on his laic; his laiikiiiess aiiJnbonhomie recall the yonim Jinimv Stewnan. bnt without ihe laiti-r’s hnmoroMsncharm. Where Stewart was into ]iatrioinism and American values. .Xlda is intonliberalism, consumerism, radical rheloric.ncoiiservalionism and aniisexism.nMr. .Mdas career proes ihe toniiiila:nLIBERAL CULTUREnnnaller an aclor has completed his appieiinticeslii]’ in ear wiji^iliii); and bedroomncalisihenics. he miisl publicly declarenhis liberalism. Slatetnents like the lollowiiii;nwill do: “We mnsi .ill be responnsi e lot he needs ol !lieneedI”””We musiniieer allow the rich to lell ns what to do!”nI This maxim praclicalK esckules Mr.n.lda Irom telliim us anMhiny. as he isn,’. i rich: he jnsi keeps convenienily lorniieiiiiij;about il.i Then this liberal actor’sncareer will beyiii to skiockci. promptednbv some manic propellam.nI’ew .nuiiVan onilet.s of opinion haenlailed lo repori on llu- workings ot Mr.nAlda’s iiijnil. noi even such an ori;an ofnrradiiioiial common sense as AV.vr/c’Mn/’/’Vi-iV. The sad pan of the siorv is ihaln.Mr. Alda’s mind has iieer ;;oiie beyondnihe diAelopiiKiiial siaije of the averasiensophomore. 1 lis siibile phili>sopliy cannall be condensed into a siiuili’. litu-ialnpiecepi: “Let’s biiiii; compassion, jusliciandallluencenlo everybody, but don’tnask me how it’s not n: business, all Inwatit is the punishnieiii of all those whondo iiol want the same.”nThe i[uesiion whether anvone wouldni:iil like to di.spen.se i.oiii]ission. jusiicenand welfare to eMivoiie never enters .Mr.n•Alda’s mind, which makes his mind notnloo disiani from .i niosiinito’s co,i;iii!ion.nI lis flimsi self riyhleon.sness is the basisnfor his “philo.sophv ” ot juiiiieval iini.:>iilj:::»:i Hut .Mr. Aldn is an iicn>r .;niina liberal, ihushis laceir/.’i/his words musinbe rammed down our ihro.its- acciifilin^nloihedespoiic forces of ihe media’s leiidalnliberal ism..Mr. Keanan w.is once an actor.n^!ooi! lookinj;. liiivi-,h and ire.sh. biil henwas noi a liber.il so he could iiol trace thencover ol .],l,r!!;”.’. I hi-.Xnierican mediancri-dii ihi-mselves with impartiality andnuasoii. ralhi-r llian feudal nivsiiijue. I3uln(.”oiii;ressriian Crane is even bciier lookniiii; than .-Mda. Redlord. Heaitv or .Mac-nI.aini-. I le has more lo sav about the telanlionship betwei.’n (:om|!as.sioii and ihi.sinjilencili/eii ihaii all of them. I low lerriticn111- would look on ihe cover of / i!il!isnH’/n/r Jiiu’/^c;! or ( iisn:iift//!tiiH.’ Fatnchance… !_.nJttly/Aagttst 1981n