tions, etc.) constitute such a large portionnof the population and 2) the difficultiesnin combating the Marxist guerrillasndue to the hiding places afforded bynjungles, rugged mountains, secluded villages,netc. Nowhere did I suggest anythingnwhich would contradict Mr. St.nJohn’s explanation of the importance ofnreligion to the Indians. It was not my intentionnto say everything there is to saynabout what is going on in Guatemala.nAs to my reference to Somoza expropriatingnrelief funds after the 1972nearthquake: it was alluded to by HectornWilkinson of LAAD of CentroAmerica,na regional land-development firm. Wilkinsonnis a twenty-year resident of Nicaraguanand a staunch anticommunist. Inwas startled when he mentioned it at ournmeeting in Managua last summer andnconsidered it significant. I had not researchednthe allegation; therefore, perhapsnI shouldn’t have mentioned it. Mr.nSt. John should note, however, that Indid not accuse Somoza of not rebuildingndowntown Managua because of any ulteriornmotive; I wrote that the area wasnlined with flaws that would have madenrebuilding unwise.nAt the same time, I emphatically disagreenwith the suggestion that noncommunistnbusinessmen who opposed Somozandid so only in the hope of personalnprofit. Somoza, I believe, was morensinned against than sinning. But he wasnan autocrat and therefore made enemiesnamong honorable men as well as leftists.nI certainly would not call the “anti-Somozanrevolution” a pro-Marxist revolutionnwithout qualification, since manynnon-Marxists joined the Sandinistas.nI think I provided sufficient detail onnexactly who came out on top, and why.nI didn’t consider my description of CostanRica a glowing one. My main impressionnwas that Costa Rican businessmen aren(were) smugly indifferent to potentialnpolitical and economic crises.nIf, as Mr. St. John recommends, wenget our facts straight on Central America,nhis reference to “Marxism—undernthe cloak of the Catholic Church — “nought to be sharply qualified to read:n”under the cloaks of individual priestsnand nuns whose radical activities havenbeen disavowed by the hierarchy of thenCatholic Church …” The Jesuit andnMaryknoU orders in Central Americanhave largely been radicalized; still, theyndo not constitute “the Church.” DnThe American ProsceniumnHopenNot until Mr. Reagan and his peoplenconvince us that they are aware of thenfine distinction between economicnwealth, economic success and economicnvigor of the nation will we look towardnhis administration with hope. Thosenthree categories are not the same ornsynonymous; in fact, they are morallyndifferentiated. To our mind, not everynsuccessful tycoon who was able to drivenup to an inaugural ball in an elongatednlimousine is of social value; not everynmultibillion-dollar corporation is annally in the effort toward national renewal.nEvery multidimensional conservativenknows that. One of Mr. Carter’snmost disturbing habits was thatn—as President—he still tended to cultivatenand defend friendships withoutnregard to his friends’ ethical substance.nWe trust Mr. Reagan won’t follow thisnpattern.nMemonTo: President Ronald Reagan, ThenWhite House.nFrom: A group of supporters at ThenRockford Institute—which isndedicated to musing upon ournAmerican reality.nConcerning: What Winnie-the-Poohncalled Rabbit’s friends-andrelationsnsyndrome.nDear President Reagan:nThis is neither a frivolous nor a lightheartednmatter. We are uneasy aboutnnnthe atmosphere which is condensingnaround your Presidency. As disciplesnof Winnie-the-Pooh (that quintessentialnphilosopher of simple sagacities)nwho watch the tube and read the newspapers,nwe begin to feel a bit of melancholicnfrustration. The outpouring ofnecstatic “Oh’s!” and “Ah’s!” that isngreeting your ascension to power fromnthe living quarters and stompingngrounds of the chic canaille makes usnvery uncomfortable. Your inauguralnballs teemed with characters from thenliberal Grand Guignol whose faces andncountenances made us shudder. Whennasked by Winnie-the-Pooh about hisnfollowing:n’I didn’t ask them,’ explained Rabbitncarelessly. ‘They just came. They alwaysndo . . .’nIt is that adverb “carelessly” thatnbothers us most. Do you. President Reagan,nstill care who is—or is not—yourntrue friend-and-relation.” We know thatnit is a Christian virtue to turn enemiesninto friends, but is this as artless as itnsounds.” Some enemies-turned-friendsnmay signify less a reconciliation than anhazard. Already, after reviewing yournappointments and your social calendar,nsomeone said aptly that it seemed as ifnnot Main Street but Wall Street hadnwon the 1980 election. We have nothingnagainst Wall Street, but it certainlynis not the neighborhood from whichnmost of your votes came, nor wherenthose sensitivities flourish which gavenyou your victory. What’s even worse isnthe kissy-kissy acclaim given to you bynthat segment of our society (we call itnthe Weltanschauung vabhle) which nowngoes into rapture over you in the pagesn••MHMMM45nMarch/April 1981n