81 CHRONICLESncial and has resulted in a broader debate and a higher level ofngeneralization. We have to some extent escaped from thenparochial notions of American exceptionalism and view withnsuspicion our messianic role among the nations of the earth.nThe essays by distinguished metics in this issue alone arensufficient proof of their contribution. Europeans remain,nhowever, European, and they miss certain things even anyokel or a political sociologist takes for granted. Tocqueville,nfor example, missed entirely the significance of AndrewnJackson in strengthening the executive branch of thengovernment, and his successors have uniformly denouncednJackson for introducing the spoils system and introducingnmob rule. Of course, he did neither. His real sin was being anJeffersonian.nIt is precisely that Jeffersonian tradition that so many ofnour European friends hold responsible for all the ills of thencommonwealth, and they have been followed by a majoritynof conservatives. Without wishing to stir up the old animositiesnbetween Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians, Feds andnanti-Feds, I would like to observe that on most of thenquestions of the past 50 years, virtually all of the FoundingnFathers would speak out with one voice against growth ofnthe national government, the usurpations of the SupremenCourt, and the welfare state’s depredations against familynand community life. Forrest McDonald has done an heroicnjob of rescuing Hamilton from liberal statists, and a propernreading of Dumas Malone’s Jefferson would convince anynAmerican that the party of Wilson, Roosevelt, and Dukakisnis not the party of Jefferson.nEuropean conservatives, coming out of traditions ofnclericalism and aristocracy, will never be made to understandnthat what are bulwarks against tyranny in Francenwould serve a quite different purpose in America. For betternor worse, our conservative tradition is closer to communalnlibertarianism than to the French Counterrevolution, asnmuch Cobbett as Burke, and even — stretching a continen-nThe Fourth Annual Erasmus LecturenBIBLICAL inTERPRETATIONnIN CRISISnOn the Question of the Foundations andnApproaches of Exegesis TodaynbynJoseph Cardinal RatzingernPrefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.nPresident of the InternationalnTheological Commission and PontificalnBiblical Commission.nTo order your copy of BIBLICAL IMTERPRETATION IPtnCRISIS send $2.50 (Includes postage and handling)nwith the coupon below to: The Rockford Institute /n934 North Main Street / Rockford, Illinois 61103.nn Please send my copy of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’sn”BIBLICAL inTERPRETATIOn IN CRISIS.”nD Enclosed is my check or money order for $2.50nCity- _ State _ _Zip_nMail to: The Rockford Institute / 934 M. Main St. / RoAford, IL 61103nnntal analysis — smacks more of syndicalist labor unions thannof the monarchist legitimists who continue to claim thenthrones of France and Spain. What is conservatism innFrance is radicalism in America. As Edward O. Wilson saysnsomewhere, it would be folly to take our politics from thenants. It is only a little less foolish to take them from thenFrench.nIt is hard to blame a Frenchman or German or Hungariannfor failing to comprehend what so few Americans are able tongrasp. The fault lies entirely with the Americans, not onlynfor accepting a European perspective on American democracynbut even more for reinfecting each new set of visitorsnwith the Old World disease. It can be observed, time afterntime, how European conservatives arrive with open minds,neager to figure out what makes us tick, until they meet upnwith one or another rightist sectary — Old Right ornNeoconservative—who fits them out with a mythic frameworknof demons and saints. (Depending on the point ofnview, everything went bad with either Andrew Jackson ornLyndon Johnson.) That these interpretations of our historynare almost entirely derived from third-rate liberals likenArthur Schlesinger, seems to trouble no one. The conservativenrole in American intellectual life is to believe what thenliberals tell us and then do the opposite. If they like Jacksonnor celebrate the populists, then we must hate them. If theynlike Proust, we prefer John P. Marquand or James GouldnCozzens (both of whom, let me add, I read with pleasure),nand if The New Republic talks about rock music, then wenlearn to content ourselves with Guy Lombardo or, at best,nDuke Ellington. And so we send our travelers home withnsome very strange notions about the state of the Republic.nEven if a European never spoke with an Americannconservative, he would have a hard enough time of it. Everynman in a foreign country is more or less an imbecile. Nonmatter how long he stays, he will never get the drift of evennhalf of the pointless jokes and references. For all the manyntimes I have been to Canada, I understand next to nothingnof Canadian politics. I did not realize the depths of mynignorance until I struck up a conversation with the editors ofnThe Idler in Toronto. Canada is as close to being Americannas it is possible to be, and yet we remain worlds apart in somenways. An American there, a Canadian or European here,nare in the position of a son-in-law at the first family union ofnhis wife’s relatives.nThis is one of the perils of anthropology. E.E. Evans-nPritchard, who did so much superb fieldwork among thenNuer of the Sudan, was still the repeated butt of theirnpractical jokes. On one occasion they kept him up all nightnlong, telling bizarre stories to illustrate their ideas on sex.nAfterwards, they could not repress their amusement over thenease with which the Englishman had been taken in.nThroughout her entire life, Margaret Mead never did catchnon to what should have been obvious: natives are notnnecessarily less intelligent than the civilized traveler. Mostnjournalists don’t catch on either, although a good foreignnjournalist, like a good anthropologist, can often see thingsnthat custom has made invisible to us. Leopold Tyrmandn{Chronicles’ late editor) was full of such insights, and it isninteresting to note that among the best English correspondentsnin the US is the Spectator’s Ambrose Evans-Pritchard.nPerhaps he learned something from the old man.n