historical role of Tosca, the individualnacting alone, will in the future be playednby the discontented masses in theirngreat number.nllowever foolish and irresponsible,nRyan speaks for a sizable contingent ofnAmerican intellectuals whose passionnfor equality is, in Tocqueville’s taemorablenwords, “ardent, insatiable, eternal,nand invincible.” It is this passion thatndetermines the contradictory charaaernof so much of their writing. Proponentsnof “sharing” and “community,” theynidentify class struggle as history’s motivatingnforce. Critics of militarism, theynincite civil strife. Lovers of mankind innthe abstract, they can scarcely concealntheir contempt for individual men andnwomen. Adept at Ideologiekritik, theynadvertise equality as a self-evident principlenfrom which an endless series ofn”rights” may be deduced. All persons,nRyan proclaims breathlessly, “have anright to a. reasonable share of materialnnecessities, a right to do constructivenwork, and a right of unhindered accessnto education, to gratifying social memberships,nto participation in the life andndecisions of the community, and to allnthe major amenities of society.”nAt the very least, these extravagantnclaims should occasion a rethinking ofn”natural right.” Are we endowed withncertain inalienable rights.-‘ And if so,nwhat are they.’ Life, liberty and the pursuitnof happiness? Membership in thencountry club? Straight A’s? More to thenpoint, perhaps, where do we find thenenforcing agency? If I prevent an eligiblenblack citizen from exercising thenfranchise, I can be held accountable bynlaw. But before whom can I be legallyncalled if I deny that same citizen his.nimagined right to “gratifying socialnmembership”? For aught I know, therenmay be rights without number embeddednin the nature of things, but beforenthey become enforceable, they mustnbe translated into statutory law. Thatnis one reason why conservatives fromnBurke to Allen Tate (in his brilliantnbiography of Stonewall Jackson) haveninsisted that rights are not abstract andnuniversal, but concrete and particular.nThey derive not from Mr. Jefferson’sn(much less Professor Ryan’s) reading ofnnature, but from the historical decisionsnof an entire people.nNot surprisingly, Ryan does not takenthe trouble to ask why it is that so manynof the greatest Western thinkers havencampaigned against historical acceptancenof the egalitarian principle. Yetnthe answer is not far to seek. To beginnwith, equality and liberty—often linkedntogether in a thoughtless manner—arenincompatible ideals. Since the early daysnof the New Deal, the conditions ofnAmerican life have certainly becomenmore equal, but few would describenthem as more free, for as Ryan concedes,nequality must be imposed—innour case by bureaucrats, congressmennand judges. Then too, the egalitariannagenda entails an ever-greater centralizationnof power. The Federal governmentnmust command increased authority ifnit is to ensure equality of conditionnthroughout the land; independent powernat the state or local level might wellnstall egalitarian initiatives. That, ofncourse, is precisely the argument madenby champions (such as,Ryan) of ERA;nthe ratification of which would placen^.-WlCTVvyjri*—.-i*nthe mercy of the central authority. Dictatorsnhave certainly been quick tonseize upon the possibilities presentednby this circumstance. Although Napoleon,nfor example, trumpeted FrenchnRevolutionary principles, he was judiciousnenough to choose egalite in everyncontest with liberie.nX he erosion of liberty and the concentrationnof power—with these we arenfamiliar. Less widely recognized, I think,nis the danger equality poses to everynform of discrimination. Already thenword is almost exclusively employed innthe pejorative sense, yet the ability tondiscriminate is the very foundation ofnepistemological, moral and aestheticnreasoning, hence of civilized life. If,nRyan asks, the purpose of education isnnot to facilitate social mobility and tonpromote “absolute equality,” what cannit be? The answer is that education purposesnto prepare us to make ever morenrefined distinctions. I prefer to thinknthat even beginning students recognizenShakespeare to be a greater writer than,nsay, Jack Kerouac. Graduates ought tonbe able to distinguish between the authornof King Lear and gifted, but lesser,nwriters such as Dickens and Balzac. Thenmost unsophisticated freshman shouldn”By now, it seems, the inegalitarians can get away with anything, and in an era whenntracts such as William Simon’s Time for Truth or Milton Friedman’s Free to Choosenor George Gilder’s Wealth and Poverty can ride the best-seller list, it may seemnpeevish to dwell on the shortcomings of Ryan’s book. In intelligence and accuracynEquality is more than a match for what I have read of these other works; in intentionnand informing spirit it is their superior.”n— The New Republicnnew and potentially awesome powersnin Federal hands.nTo be sure, Ryan and his ilk do notndeny any of this; they are unabashednworshipers of the state. I do not suggestnthat the functions of the Federalngovernment can or should be restrictednto those assigned to it in the 18thncentury. But it can scarcely be deniednthat the erosion of state and local powernhas abandoned atomized individuals tonnn(but probably does not) know that Mozartnis to be preferred to the most recentnrock group, but a senior should be ablento give reasons for ranking the formernabove Haydn. In the final analysis,nteachers endeavor to sharpen their students’ndiscriiTiinatory faculties becausenlife itself would be meaningless withoutnthem. A case in point is Will Rogers’sncelebrated remark that he had nevernmet a man he did not like. That being so,n9nJanuary/February 1982n