talist England did experience exhilaratingneconomic growth, but it is all too easynto forget what those growth rates meantnto members of the British working class,nwhose desperate conditions drove Carlylento a frenzy of despair (Past and Present,n1843). Tories like Walter Scott, innhis diary, called down divine vengeancenon the heads of capitalists who hadndismpted and destroyed the health andnsanity of working-class life. Parliamentaryninvestigations into the working conditionsnof mines and factories creatednsuch a scandal that Southern Americannslaveholders were inspired to a sense ofnmoral superiority.nNovak concedes that American capitalismnhad its share of abuses, but claimsnthat they have been corrected by thendemocratic political process. The fact isnthat many of the measures that havenrendered the life of the proletariatnbearable are of socialist inspiration; socialninsurance, care of the elderly and disabled,nunemployment compensation.nMany American conservatives, i.e. democraticncapitalists, argue that such ser­nElectra Meets OedipusnMothers—at least those we know—invariablyntake pride in what their childrenndo. One particularly heartening thing fornthem is when their daughter gets married,nflying in the face of the Gallup poll.nOne mother recently wrote to Ms. magazinenbursting with pride that undoubtedlynstretched her Gloria Vanderbilt topnall out of shape. The boastful matriarchndescribed how “My daughter married recentlynand I gave her away.” She added,n”The minister had a terrible time tr^’ingnto handle that!” Natutally, the sexistnwimp wanted the father to give away thenbride, thus perpetuating that male conspiracynsometimes termed “tradition.”nMothet and daughter were insistent, thenlattet making an appeal to chronology:n”‘She has been my mother fot twenty-nioinChronicles of Cultttrenvices are better provided by families,nchurches, and local communities. Andnso they are. But the old conservatives hadnargued all along that unrestrained competition—thendoctrines of liberty andnequality—would destroy the effectivenessnof those institutions. Of course “thenpeople”—the 25-30% of the electoratenthat determines the outcome of an election—cannvote in socialist measures.nThey could also vote in mercantilism—orneven monarchy, as the insurrection of 13nVendemaire threatened. The growth ofndemocracy has been paralleled, asnRousseau predicted, by the atrophy ofnevery corporate body that served as a buffernbetween the individual and the allpowerfulnstate. The same period has witnessedna slow but inexorable degenerationnof culmral instimtions, of religionnand “the arts.” Novak is struck by thencommon prejudice that aristocratic societiesnproduce greater art than democracies,neven though “palaces, monuments,nand salons were virtually never executednby aristocrats.” Of course not manynmonuments have actuaJly been built bynLIBERAL CULTURE 1nfivi years and she is walking down theaislenwith mc.'” That rhetorical flourishnseemingly devastated the poor preacher.nDown the aisle the two trod, the scenenundoubtedly resembling David’s Liberte,nwith mother grasping child insteadnof the Tticolot. This raises a question: tonwhat was the daughter turned over.? Jnnnbourgeois labor. Mass tastes, he allows,ndo not favor great art (how does one explainnAeschylus and Shakespeare?), butnit is a curious feamre of contempotary lifenthat modern artists, enjoying all thenbenefits of bourgeois society, shouldnheap so much scorn on the dominantnclass. “The middle class seems to be thenfirst class in history to delight in selfridiculenand self-criticism.” Why? If all isnso well with democratic capitalism, whyndo most of the bright young peoplenwaste half their lives attacking it?n1 he West has undergone a failure ofnnerve. It has lost faith in its own traditionsnand identity. Novak praises thenU.S. for its cultural pluralism and arguesnthat it would be a mistake to attempt thenChristianization of such a society: “Prematurely,nbefore the endtime, to attemptnto treat any scxiety of this world asna ‘Christian society’ is to confoundnprecious hope with sad teality.” A Solzhenitsynnmay be horrified by our pornography,nbut a cettain level of vicenought to be tolerated in the interests ofnfreedom. A pluralisr society must leavenits citizens—as theit Creatot intended—nfree to make their own mistakes. But isnthete a neutral position on sin? You areneither against it—in which case younpunish the pubhc manifestations of vicen—or you are for it—in which case younleave it alone: sin does not need any morenencouragement than toleration. MostnChristians do believe that their Creatornmade them free to choose between goodnand evil, but they also believe that Hengave them the law and the authoiity ofngovernment “fot the correction of wickedness.n” Novak may be comfortable livingnin a society that tolerates Mr. Hefnernand Mr. Guccione, but in most of us whonare sons, husbands, and fathets tonwomen, the prominence of these potnographersnbrings out the Torquemada.nModern societies promote pluralism ofnfaiths and morals because faiths andnmotals are reduced to values that can benbought and sold. We persecute neithernProtestants not Catholics not because wenrecognize the truth that is common ton