JOIRNMISM InScurvy Self-RighteousnessnIn an editorial in The Nation we cannread:nIsrael describes itself as a democracynand should be judged by the standardsnof a democracy.nNotice, please, the predicate “describesnitself.” In liberal newspeak, of which ThenNation is one of the main codifiers, andemocracy that elects a nationalist conservativengovernment is not really a democracy.nBut what about standards? ThenNation has little problem with that: thenSoviet Union does not describe itself as andemocracy, so it has a nonnegotiablenright to murder 60 million of its citizens.nThe Nation will be understanding ofnthat; there is scarcely any mention of thisnhistorical circumstance in its pages.nFurther along, The Nation opines:nIsrael can only be stronger if it ridsnitself of that which is rotten within it.nThe first question that comes to mind is:nwho is defining and qualifying Israel’sn”rot”? Why, of course, The Nation. Itsncolumns ooze with judgments aboutnAmerican rot, so why not expand thenmoral wheeler-dealership? But imaginenthe howls of indignation from ThenNation and its intellectual mob if Mr.nBegin dared to say something about thentot of liberal media gangsterism innAmerica, about the cynical trafficking innfalsified images and facts by the liberalntruth-muggers. To a foreign eye, such ancircumstance is certainly rot, but hownshrilly it is prorected by all the might ofnAmerican liberal bigotry.nAnd so we read with utter resignationnthe following advertisement in the backnof The Nation:nWhen drafting your will, please considernmaking a bequest to ThenNation.nWe had always deluded ourselves intonthinking that the radicals of ThenNation’s stripe have nothing but contemptnfor inheritance, that they fiercelynsupporr state appropriation of all heieditarynfunds. How naive. When it comes tonsupport, the publishers of The Nationnseem ro see anything concocted by Tartuffenas a radic-lib catechism. •nI 111 MI K|( W PK()S( IMIMnPolitics & CulturenIs there a lesson in the 1982 midtermnelection? Of course, just as there is innevery exercise of people’s wishes, needs,nand preferences as they are expressednthrough the democratic process—itsndeficiencies and perversions notwithstanding.nThe grand lesson of this electionnis that we. The Rockford Institute,nare touching in our work upon somethingncrucial when we speak of and writen%lnChronicles of Cultarenabout the influence of culture—or rathernhigh culture—on the sociopolitical universenof our free and pluralistic republic.nWhat we never tire of repeating is thatnthe real war for America’s social and spiritualnshape is being waged in the humannconsciousness. One can win that war onlynby formulating morally and intellectuallynrefined concepts, by promoring ideasnthat are deeply grounded in a sense ofnhumanness and that have been tested bynhistory. These ideas determine oursocio-nnnmoral values, and only if they are constantlynreformulated and re-evaluated,nwith the help of honest knowledge andnintellectual sophistication, can they benttanslated into quotidian politics—nwhich vies for the favors of the bestdefinednactuality. In other words: scholarship,nscience, literary skills, precision ofnthinking, accurate dialectics and rhetoricalnpersuasiveness—remore as they seemnfrom rhe vulgariry and grubbiness of thenpursuit of votes by way of unsavoty PRngimmicks—are exactly rhe factors thatndecide the fate of political ascents andndownfalls, which, ultimately, are victoliesnor defeats of arriculated ideas. Thatnthose ideas may be faulty, or short-lived,nor projecting a false petspective of realitynis another matter; if they are argued fromna background of solid data and springnfrom even misperceived truths, they willnbe momentarily triumphant—which,nnaturally, does not assure their future.nBetter-conceived, better-polished ideasnwill be taken up by fast-talking politicians,nand the former norions will gondown the drain in furure elections. Thus,neveryrhing boils down to opening andncultivating channels with the high culture—thenonly incubator, polisher, andnpurveyor of social ideas and sentimentsnthat end up in the media as issues ofnunemployment. Social Security, and nationalndefense.nThe big losers of the 1982 electionsnwere conservative groupings, some ofnwhich are called rhe New Right, thenMoral Majoriry, or the social-issuesnchampions. We at The Rockford Institutenhave long anticipated a kind of letdownnafter their tiiumphs in the 1980nPresidential election. We sympathizenwith those parts of our society which projectnan unease—not too meticulously integrated,nto be sure—with the elementsnof our sociocultural reality which seemnbent on destroying traditions, customs,nand behavioral norms, thus causing griefnand birterness in defenseless humannminds and souls. We do consider manyn