IMI: AMIKK N PKnS( I.Ml M _lnThe American TragedynTragedy, as everybody knows, meansnan inevitable catastrophe written into ancobweb of factors created by characterntraits, emotion, circumstance, or fate.nAlthough in drama, tragedy deals withnindividuals, it naturally may become annexistential pattern for communities,nsocieties, nations. Contemporarynunemployment obviously is not only anneconomic, but also a historical, sociostructural,nand moral phenomenon. Asnsuch, it acquires a tragic dimension. Entirenindustries are doomed to die, andnhuman destinies are inextricably connectednto that socioeconomic fact.nThe liberals—whose socioethicalnstance in matters of relations betweennbusiness and labor has largely contributednto the weakening of industrialnproductivity, making possible thendemise of once-viable portions of thenAmerican economy—have no idea whatnto do with the predicament. Officially,nthey recommend recipes which havenbeen tried many times, failed manyntimes, and actually are at the origin of thencurrent calamity. Nonliberals are divided.nSome advocate solutions whichncertainly look, at our moment of history,nlike asking an undernourished horse tonhaul an incapacitated Cadillac. Thosenwho put their trust in government hopenthat the state can solve an issue of suchneschatological magnitude. But othersnthink, with clarity and good sense, thatnonly a powerful revival of the spirit ofnprivate initiative, a massive switch to thensmall-business ethos will do the job.nThey believe that some ideas supportednby the government about how to create anclimate conducive to the small-scale individualnenterprise are necessary. Thosenare people who call themselves conservatives.nThis adjective, paradoxical as itnseems, has come to denote some kind ofnfunctional and sanguine idealism and anfresh supply of socioeconomic perceptions.nThese are factors of hope andndynamism which long ago evaporatednfrom liberal prescriptions. Thus, we suggestnthat if the tragedy of unemploymentnis to be thwarted and turned into anpositive—or at least acceptable—outcomen, it will be only by getting help fromnthe pool of ideas that, in the press, arenstill called—scoflingly—conservative.nThe Great Nuckar DebatenRhetoric on the debate is iimundatingnthe pages of American publications ofnevery stripe, and it certainly looks like annimposing altercation of concerned andncoriflicting intellects. It is the debate ofnour age, held on what is incontestablynthe largest forum in history: Westernncivilization at the end of its 20th-centurynstage, whose formidable means of amplifyingnideas and counterideas has reachedna point where any imposition of falsehoodnas truth (or vice versa) upon humannTraditional HumornAn ad in Village Voice reflects thisnpaper’s cozy acceptance of old religiousncustoms, holidays, and traditions.nRADICAL LESBIAN FEMI­nNIST TERRORIST COMEDYnGROUP HALLOWEENnSHOW. OCT. 1,2,8, 9, 15,22nBARROW ST. $5.nThe room, of course, will be decoratednwith limbs torn by bomb explosions,nsome male paraphernalia collected fromnbooby traps, and other funny things. Dnminds has been made both possible andnfeasible.nYet, in contrast to many respectednstatesmen and journalists who believenthat the debate is both vital and helpful,nwe see it as futile, invalid, and useless.nNot until the debaters can prove thatntheir arguments, sorrows, reasonings,nagonies, speculations, fears, hopes, andnknowledge generate any reverberation innthe largest expanse of social silence in history—thatnis, Soviet Russia—will theirnrespectable efforts or doleful histrionicsnmake any more sense than a kiddie puppetnshow. One needs no Machiavelliannperspicacity to recognize that the discussionnquite clearly limits America’s abilitynto defend itself, without a shred of evidencenthat it has any impact on Sovietnpolicies—^which are virtually immune tonthe worries of its own citizenry, let alonenany moral principles of internationalnbehavior. Thus, as thiags stand now, thenSoviet Union calls the shots—let’s hopennot literally—in this game. Consequently,nanyone who supports Sovietnshot-calling, regardless of his intentions,nbecomes an objective tool (and we knownhow this term is scorned and hated) ofnthe Soviet raison d’ etat at this historicalnmoment—all the tightness and reasonablenessnof his thoughts and feelingsnnotwithstanding. DnLIBERAL CULTURE”)nnni47nMarch 1983n