tempt to dismantle the New Deal, butnneither did he substantially add to it;nhe was later appalled by the Great Societynexperiments of the Johnson administration.nIn the last published diarynentry, dated March 1967, Ike describednRichard Nixon as “one of the ablest men”nhe knew, a man for whom he held “greatnaffection.”nJiisenhower presided over The AmericannDecade, an era characterized bynpeace, domestic stability, economicngrowth, social progress, and the apogeenof U.S. military and moral prestige innthe world. Even long-apparent trends innAmerican social life—a rising divorcenRyan’s WorldnWilliam Ryan: Equality; PantheonnBooks; New York.nby Lee Congdonn^^onsider, if you will, ProfessornRyan’s Manichaean world. In commonnwith most of “us,” he belongs to then”vulnerable majority” of long-suffering,nsystematically exploited Americans.nWhile we struggle, with varying degreesnof success, to eke out a living,n”they” — the tyrannical rich — indulgentheir every desire. We make paymentsnon small foreign cars; they own Cadillacsnoutright. Our wives work; theirsnidle away the hours. If fortune smiles,nour children attend State University;ntheirs are graduated from Princeton,nHarvard and Yale. In a word, we arenthe have-nots; they are the haves.nWhy, Ryan asks rhetorically, do “sonfew of us get upset about the enormousninequalities in the ownership and thendistribution of resources?” Because, younsee, our artful masters have contrivednto create in us a submissive conscious-nDr. Congdon is professor of history atnJames Madison University in Harrisonburg,nVirginia.n8 i^nH^^^^iinChronicles of Culturenrate, falling fertility, spreading juvenilendelinquency, declining church membership—allnreversed during this remarkablenperiod of national confidence andnvitality.nOne man, of course, did not causenthese changes. In fact, the above-mentionedndevelopments all began duringnthe Truman years. Yet Eisenhower’snsense of balance, caution and moralnpurpose allowed them to continue andnthe nation to prosper. There is muchnabout Eisenhower for all Americans tonadmire, but there is very little in hisnworld view that contemporary liberalsnwould find in their own ideologicalnmirror. Dnness. The mere rtiention of such “neoconservatives”nas Irving Kristol, DanielnBell and Daniel Patrick Moynihan isncalculated to ignite Ryan’s volatile passions.nAnd with good reason. These renconstructed liberals champion the insidiousnideology of “Fair Play,” laughinglynreferred to as equal opportunity.nCentral to their propaganda, accordingnto Ryan, is the quaint notion that wenare, in some admittedly qualified sense,nresponsible for our own lives. Quitennaturally this depressing news breeds innus a spirit of resignation and inferiority.nAnd as if this were not enough, Ryanncomplains, our children are similarlynindoctrinated. Ajrierican schools arennothing if not “ideological instruments”nthat discriminate between good and poornstudents and encourage competition tonthe utmost limit, forbidding “cooperationnwith [one’s] friends (they call itn’cheating’).” It follows from all of thisnthat conditions of inequality are neithernnatural nor fortuitous; Ryan and otherndisabused victims have often “half jokingly,nspun out fantasies about a giantnconspiracy [emphasis added].”nAlthough I have edited out the jargonnof victimization (“sexism”; “racism”;n”stereotyping”), this, or somethingnnnclosely approximating it. is Ryan’s world.nYet his is no Spenglerian jeremiad, noncounsel of final despair. Satisfied thatnhe has decoded the ruling class’snideology, he speaks confidently of a newnworld, one in which “we” will finally receivenour “Fair Share.” At long lastn”we” will be equal with “them.” Togethernwe shall constitute a collectivitynthat, in the form of the state, will ownnthe principal means of production andnbring distribution in line with need, ornperhaps I should say appetite, for “whennwhat used to be luxuries become commonnpossessions, they are. in fact, essential.nIt is difficult to do without them.”nFor starters, we shall all have food andnfuel stamps, free medical care and thenrun of theaters, concert halls and ballparks.nLet the good times commence!nAll in due course. Ryan does not foreseenan immediate and total socio-economicntransformation. Such, he allows,nis the stuff of Utopia. Rather, we shallnadvance one step at a time—a kind of incrementalnapocalypse. Before surveyingnthe strategies of ressentiment, I shouldnexplain that Ryan’s own “consciousness”nwas formed during the 1960’s, a timenthat he chooses to look upon as a goldennage. Thus inspired, he advocates renewedn”strikes, demonstrations, disruptionsnof all kinds.” Faced “with enoughninstability and turmoil, the mighty andnpowerful do make concessions.” Andnif they do not—what then.’ Despite repeatednprotestations of peaceful intent,nRyan knows full well that violence willnever be the final arbiter when a socialnorder is subjected to incessant provocation.nIndeed, he makes little effort tonveil his threats. He chides the poor fornrefusing, even when they are starving,nto plunder the rich; he imagines withnevident pleasure the murder of “Herman,”nthe Cro-Magnon property ownernin one of his parables; and he recalls—n”perhaps capriciously, but I think significantly”—nTosca, Act II. Significantlynindeed. It is then that Tosca mortallynwounds Scarpia, whom Ryan takes to ben”the cop as fascist, the fascist as cop.” Innour author’s fevered imagination, then