moral and social authority of the AmericannUniversity was destroyed by whatnhappened during the sixties. The AmericannUniversity used to be an object ofnenvy for the rest of the world, unrivalednin both its level of scholarship (witnessnthe number of American Nobel Prizenlaureates of the last 50 years) as well asnin its collegiate atmosphere (as measurednby the degree of respect and privilegengranted to the students). Professor Riesman.nhardly a non-liberal, makes it unequivocalnwho is to blame for the recklessnannihilation of a common value—perhapsnan irrevocable loss for us all.nWhat Happened to ERA ?nWhat happened to ERA is a mostntelling illustration of what has happenednto American political morality in the eranof liberal brainwashing.nAfter the amendment failed to benadopted in keeping with the customarynconstitutional procedure, the Housenvoted to extend the deadline for its ratification.nBut, at the same time, it forbadenthe states that had ratified it to withdrawnthat ratification.nUp to now, such a method of reachingna political goal was described as totalitarian,nand our liberal press called itntyranny in Chile or South Korea. InnWashington, it is called the progressivenfight against the lack of women’s rightsaccordingnto the formula d la mode.nThe Mini-Orgy of Liberal JingoismnFrom its dawn as “the New World,”nAmerica stirred the imagination ofnEurope. Then, as a society and a nation,nAmerica started doing extraordinarynthings for itself, and the world becamenfascinated and envious. Then, Americanwelcomed every traveler, every inquirynand every scientific or reportorial research.nThen, America created a marvelous,ncaptivating literature which in itsnown right conquered the world and endowednit with deep insights into thenAmerican reality, society and character.nThen came the movies, and the worldnbecame imbued with both America’snimage and fantasies—a visual saturationnon an unprecedented scale.nThis constant and overwhelming flownof information has produced a specialnabundance of knowledge about America.nThis phenomenon is routinely overlookednby Americans, so when put on display itncauses a sometimes unwelcome surprise.nBut the fact remains that if Eskimos andnAlbanians can with good reason tellnAmericans: “You know nothing aboutnus,” Americans would be presumptuousnwhen telling the Bulgarians or Indonesians:n”You know nothing about us.” Innpoint of fact, the Venezuelans, Swiss andnMoroccans who read books and go tonmovies know so much about Americanthat it would make many Americansnuncomfortable.nThe most profound lore of Americancomes from non-Americans. It wouldnbe difficult to challenge whatnde ToqueviUe knew about America with:n”What could he know about us that wendidn’t know? How can an uppity Frenchnaristocrat understand us, our institutions,nour mores.”” Moreover, we can’t recallnany vivid protests in the liberal pressnwhen Sartre and Marcuse held forth onnAmerica’s alleged calamities in the sixties.nNo one would have dared then.nNeither the America-firsters from thenNew York Times nor the love-it-or-leaveitnpatriots from Greenwich Village, gotnup to ask: “Now, Mr. Sartre/Marcuse,nwhat do you know about America?” Thenmessage of those two rheumatic Europeannleftists was received as critique, andna valid one to boot.nThey all rose, however, like woundednlions against Mr. Solzhenitsyn’s Harvardnaddress. The mere fact that Solzhenitsynnhas countless times expressed his admiration,ngratitude and respect for Americanand its historical accomplishments, suddenlyncounted for nothing. He dared toncriticize the new realities of Americancreated by the liberals and the LiberalnCulture during the past two decades. Hendid it trenchantly and from an anti-liberalnposition. The New York Times, spokes­nnnman for the species, immediately ran anlead editorial, entitled: “The Obsessionnof Solzhenitsyn.” Archibald MacLeish,nin his otherwise restrained and tactfulnpolemics in Time, nevertheless assumednthat Solzhenitsyn: “… knows little ofnour American lives or of ourselves.”nThe most perverse—unwittingly, ofncourse, as this sort of perversion requiresnintelligence—summation of the episodencan be found in the title of a newspaperncolumn by a certain Mary McGrory:n”Solzhenitsyn doesn’t love us.” Poor Ms.nMcGrory. It is beyond her grasp thatnSolzhenitsyn just does not like her.nThe Invincible StrategynIn an article published not long ago bynThe Wall Street Journal and entitled:n”Failure of Nerve—or Intellect?”, thencutest of our intellectual magicians. ProfessornArthur Schlesinger wrote:n”Look at Indochina today. The Communistnstates are at each other’s throats.nCommunist Vietnam, the country thatnour official fancy portrayed in 1964-n70 as the stooge of Communist China,nhas today the most tense relations withnCommunist China. The security of thenUnited States is totally unaffected bynthe communization of Vietnam,”nProfessor Schlesinger sounds as if thisnoutcome is what the anti-war liberalsnconsciously and programmatically anticipatednfrom the very beginning of thenconflict. It looks as if Schlesinger andnhis consorts had meticulously plannednthis Machiavellian foreign policy coup.nWhy did they tell us nothing about thisndevilishly clever stratagem 10 years ago?nWhy did they keep repeating that it wasnthe murderous American military-industrialncomplex and the insane ambitionsnof American politicians whichnmade peace impossible, and keep assuringnus that those benevolent and loving Orientalsnwished only to be left alone to livenin peace among themselves? If they hadnonly told us that they had a better way ofnserving the interests of the United States,nor that they were plotting such an in-n21nChronicles of Culturen