It and Essence

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

[opinion published in Pomona College’s The Student Life, Friday, April 15, 1988]

Liberal Sex Mores Debase

Sex is the Everest in the mountain range of human experience. Sex, however, is treated much too casually in the post-fifties world.

One major slogan of the sixties was: If it feels good, do it! The lack of self-restraint implicit in this lifestyle typifies the childishness of the age of the hippie; a childishness defined by George Will as an “inability to imagine an incompatibility between one’s appetites and the world.”

Attitudes like this, along with advances in medical technology, combined to change mores. With the Pill, men and women could have sex without worrying about pregnancy.

But, from the standpoint of 1988, the new-found sexual freedom came with a high price. the consequences of the prevailing attitude toward sex — I will do anything I want with my body and trust medical science to find a cure — resulted in record numbers of sexually transmitted diseases. And then came AIDS.

The lethality of AIDS brought sexual behavior into sharper focus. The balance of discussions excluded the moral questions and focused on the technical aspects. Why was this? Primarily, because enlightened opinion is that any sex between consenting people (including minors) is a good thing.

Look at the approach to sex education. Who will deny that the message to high schoolers is that if you are going to have sex, then use contraceptives to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases? Occasionally the educational establishment makes a bow toward pre-marital abstinence, but its heart is not in it. Secretary of Education William Bennett is the only major public figure directly concerned with education who adamantly supports emphasizing the morality of abstinence as the basis of sex education.

So how does Pomona fit into this? Basically, we Pomonans have easy access to birth control, educational materials, etc., and, as opposed to high school students, are adults with presumed abilities to run our lives. The problem is that we treat sex as a toy. Sex is just another way of plugging into something pleasurable — like a Walkman. This approach to sex cheapens it, trivializes it, and debases the participants.

The point of life is to be a good citizen. This traditionally involves marriage and raising a family. The real pleasure in life comes from living out your allotted tiem with your one faithful partner. With the person you marry you are free to reveal your innermost self, the part inside the shell that protects you from an often hostile world. Sex is the deepest and most emotionally and spiritually fundamental way to relate to another person; accordingly, within marriage it is most natural and fitting.

If sex were only a physical thing, it would hardly be such a divisive question. If it were easy to deal with, every culture on earth would hardly have created intricate customs and taboos surrounding it. But the emotional, physical, and spiritual fusion that makes sex the most fulfilling human activity also make it the most dangerous, and when we reduce sex to the purely physical, we demoralize ourselves.

It is a fast world with much pressure to conform. In relation to sex, conform means losing virginity around seventeen. Maturity — that is, self-restraint — requires that we step back and slow down.

The upshot of the sixties is that some men and women tend to use one another as mere tools for their own physical gratification. Marriage, the basic institution of society, is weakened, seemingly pointless and detrimental because it gets in the way of any new sexual experience. The high divorce rate attests to this assertion. In conclusion, sexual mores do not change overnight, but over a generation. I call on my peers to help contribute to a renewed societal respect for the proper role of sex (inside a marriage), and conduct themselves as responsible citizens.//

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

[opinion published in Pomona College’s The Student Life, Friday, April 8, 1988]

Divestment Wrong

By Alex Linder

Over the last four years it is fair to say that the question of divesting from South Africa has been the biggest and hardest fought issue at Pomona. Although Pomona itself did not divest, it was pressure of the type found on our campus that was instrumental in forcing Reagan to impose sanctions against that country. Now — a year and a half later — it is interesting and instructive to look at the change, if any, those sanctions have brought about.

First, consider the course American policy followed under Reagan up through around 1985. Chester Crocker developed a policy called constructive engagement by which America could use her admittedly minor political influence to encourage South Africa to promote political progress through the expansion of individual rights to minorities. Further, American companies employing South Africans would be encouraged to sign the Sullivan Principles, guaranteeing they would treat their white and black employees equally.

Around 1984, the political pressure for sanctions and divestment began to grow. Although there was little actual change in the internal conditions in South Africa, in the wake of America’s economic upturn and decommunization of Grenada, American liberals needed something to attack Reagan with. Hence, sanctions.

Surely, it seemed, sanctions was an issue we could all agree on. Is not South Africa’s a racist government? Do not we Americans support, however indirectly, this racism by allowing companies to invest there? Finally, on purely utilitarian grounds, is it not wiser to go along with the wishes of those who will inevitably take power – the black majority? Those favoring action against South Africa answered the questions this way: 1) South Africa has a racist government, thus we must try to get rid of it. 2) Doing business, even through firms that have signed the Sullivan Principles, shows support (through taxes, etc.) for the racism that is South Africa’s hallmark. 3) The majority of black South Africans favor sanctions, and to be moral we must go along with what they want. Conclusion: We must try to get as many nations as possible to declare sanctions against South Africa.

Which brings us back to the initial question, now slightly refined: Have the sanctions declared on South Africa changed the sitaution for the better? (“Better” is here defined as more democratic.) In a word: No. To understand why not, we must look at what people expected sanctions would do. First, many people thought that sanctions would put enough pressure on the ruling white elite to force them to change their ways, i.e., enfranchise blacks and other racial minorities. Second, some hoped that sanctions would hurt blacks so much that they would rise up and overthrow the whites. Thirdly, many in favor of sanctions just wanted to do what they felt to be morally correct.

Regarding the first rationale, it is clear that sanctions have failed. Listen to the words of Stoffel van der Merwe, the deputy minister of information and constitutional planning and a leading reformer within the National Party: “Sanctions have not hurt our ability to survive, but they have limited our ability to do reform,” (L.A. Times, March 13). Van der Merwe also said taht sanctions had slowed the pace of reform by “engendering a major backlash against any progressive measure.” The economic statistics bear him out. In 1987 South Africa had a $3 billion surplus in its balance of payments; her gold holdings and foreign reserves have doubled from 1985; her economic growth rate has gone from a modest decline (-1.5%) in 1985 to 2.6 percent in 1987 and continues to rise. Thus, the effects of sanctions were relatively weak. South Africa simply shifted her trade to Japan and other Asian countries away from the U.S. and Europe. Although the calling back of short-term loans by some Western banks did result in increased unemployment and general economic slowdown, South Africa has by most measures rebounded.

Regarding the second motive, it is equally clear that this has failed. Blacks have not risen up and overthrown the whites. The much-heralded revolution is hardly imminent; if anything the situation is less heated and emotional than three years ago. And, as previously stated, the South African economy is growing, not declining.

It is the third motive, the question of being morally correct that is most interesting. Having answered the question of the effects of sanctions from the world in general, let us examine the effects of the American sanctions.

Listen to Fleur de Villiers, former associate editor of the Johannesburg Sunday Times: “Of the nearly 170 U.S. companies that have quit South Africa in the last few years, more than half have sold out — at firesale prices — to South African companies or local managements, thus creating some 100 new instant millionaires, all of them white.” Further, de Villiers points out, under new South African ownership, many of these firms abandoned the costly measures required them as signatories of the Sullivan Principles and fired their black employees. Black South Africans also suffered because more government money had to be spent on developing oil and arms reserves in response to sanctions.

Perhaps the most insidious victory of the pro-sanctions crowd has been their successful convincing of the average American (or college student at least) that sanctions are what the blacks in South Africa want. (Their wishes, it is commonly accepted, deciding which course is moral for America to take.) In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The blacks in South Africa who favor sanctions are the hierarchies of the unions as well as those perceived by Western media as leaders (i.e., Bishop Tutu). Poll after poll has found, however, that when the average workers are asked, only 25 percent favor sanctions if it means they will undergo hardship. The people who favor sanctions are the ones who are not affected — people like you and me and Tutu.

So here we are. When I last wrote about sanctions (fall semester 86/87) I said that we would be where indeed we are today: After having imposed sanctions and finding South Africa still non-democratic, facing the question of renewing sanctions or choosing another path. Clearly, we must side with the average working black South African and eschew sanctions, focusing instead on rebuilding economic leverage with an eye toward encouraging the evolution of South Africa into a more perfect democracy with respect for individual rights.

Finally, a point about demonstrations in general. It’s wrong to get involved with things you do not understand. A couple hours out of your Friday afternoon may not be much to you, but to that black South African with six dependents, Ford’s divestment may be a matter of life and death.//

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

[News article published in Pomona College’s The Student Life, Friday, February 26, 1988]

Elie Wiesel Spends and Evening in Big Bridges

By Alex Linder

Holocaust survivor and noted writer and speaker Elie Wiesel defined evil as indifference, especially indifference to suffering, during his brief stop at the Claremont Colleges earlier this week.

Besides various smaller engagements, Wiesel spoke for an hour during “An Evening with Elite Wiesel” at Big Bridges Auditorium on Wednesday, February 24.

The evening started with an introduction by John Roth, a philosophy professor at CMC. Roth briefly detailed Wiesel’s history as a prisoner in the concentration camps Buchenwald and Auschwitz and went on to laud the author for the “character and spirit” that govern his work. Wiesel is the author of some thirty books, recipient of over 40 honorary Ph.D.’s and the winner of the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize.

Before starting his actual lecture, Wiesel accepted questions from the crowd, saying that he would incorporate his answer into his speech. Questions dealt with varied subjects including the Arab-Israeli conflict, anti-Semitism, and the nature of evil.

After opening with a brief story about throwing out the first ball at the World Series, Wiesel moved on to more serious matters. Noting taht as a Nobel laureate he was “supposed to know everything,” Wiesel lamented the perception that “our planet has shrunk, but the problems facing it become more and more complex.”

Asking how one can hope, given the desperate nature of the world situation, Wiesel affirmed that madness is “the key word” in describing the 20th century. Nevertheless, he continues to try to find “a spark of hope in madness, and perhaps beyond madness.” In particular, Wiesel pointed to the Iran-Contra affair as a prime example of madness.

Moving along to the issue of anti-Semitism, Wiesel said that he naively thought that Auschwitz might turn out to mark the end of anti-Semitism, its deadliest practitioners having been destroyed. But “anti-Semitism is flourishing,” stated the author. Furthermore, it has sprung up in places like Japan, where it has “no right nor reason to be.” Anti-Semitism has historically been a European phenomenon and the Japanese ought to leave it there, he asserted.

At this point Wiesel turned to Israel and her problems with the Occupied Territories. Tracing the history of that state, he noted that six Arab armies invaded Israel on the day of its inception as a state. Still, he said, Israeli conduct of late has been a “source of anguish” for him. Then he read to the crowd a letter he had written to a young Palestinian back in 1975 — a letter he said he could rewrite now with even more pain and anguish.

In conclusion, Wiesel said that “mankind needs peace and some kind of compassion more than ever.” He said he has drawn a two-fold lesson as a result of his personal experiences; first, that there are no answers — only the immortal answer; and second, that just as despair can only come to us from others, so does hope. Peace, he said, is not God’s gift to his creatures; it’s a special gift we can give one another.//

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

[opinion published in Pomona College’s The Student Life, Friday, February 5, 1988]

Case Against Aid Fails

By Alex Linder

Let’s examine two dominant themes of the liberal case for ending contra support as evidenced in the debate leading up to Wednesday’s House vote.

The first bit of demagoguery is the liberal adjuration to “let the Nicaraguans decide their future for themselves.” This specious appeal to American respect for self-determination, (which, you’ll recall, was one of Wilson’s Fourteen Points), is pure misrepresentation of the question Congress is deciding in voting to aid the freedom fighters.

When confronted in this manner, the listener is meant to feel shame that his/her country is interfering in the internal affairs of another state wtihout warrant. That is, s/he’s supposed to conclude that if we’d pull out, the situation would improve. This formula ignores the fact that the Sandinistas, of their own volition, allied with the Soviet Union and have threatened to spread their political system.

Look at the facts. From 1983 to 1987 the U.S. gave the Contras roughly $200 million dollars. In 1986 alone, the Soviets gave the Sandinistas an estimated $850 million. Over the course of the revolution Soviet aid has amounted to nearly $3 billion. In other words, while we debate around the clock over the extension of niggardly sums ($36.25 million this year), the Soviets give willingly and freely. Yet, have you ever heard a liberal express concern about Soviet involvement in Nicaragua?

Besides ignoring Soviet entanglement in Nicaragua, there is a second, subtler, premise of the slogan “Nicaragua for the Nicaraguans,” (to paraphrase mildly). That is that the Sandinistas are a legitimate, democratic government. But how could Nicaraguans, assuming all Soviet and American aid were ended, decide their own future? The Sandinistas, as practically everyone now admits, are Marxists. The leaders of the country, the National Directorate, have said frequently that they’ll not hold “bourgeois” elections to raffle off power. When one considers the vast military force they head, these assertions must be taken seriously. Besides controlling a 70,000-man army along with an equally large reserve, the Sandinistas dominate all avenues for internal opposition in the media. They have also consolidated economic power in state-run agencies and unions, giving them vital leverage over workers with divergent opinions. In short, Nicaragua today is a totalitarian society on the order of East Europe rather than traditional Latin Ameriacn society.

The above being the case, is it nevertheless possible that the average man in Nicaragua really does favor the Sandinistas? Well, no one knows for sure because polling is illegal in Nicaragua. Still, we do have evidence from other Central American countries. This evidence shows that the citizens of the region have clear attitudes toward the Sandinista regime. The following evidence comes from a Costa Rican affiliate of Gallup quoted by Susan Purcell in the Fall 1987 issue of Foreign Affairs. In a study of attitudes in Costa Rica, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, it was found that, among other things: 80% in all countries see Nicaragua as a threat to the region. Majorities think the majority of Nicaraguans favor the resistance. Between 54 and 69% believe the resistance, were it to gain power, would hold free elections and establish democracy. Finally, more than two-thirds of the respondents in every country approve of U.S. military aid to the Contras. On point after point, the majorities of the populations of Nicaragua’s neighbors express their agreement with the American Right.

The second dominant theme of the Left is the old sixties cant “Give Peace a Chance.” Liberals want Reagan to cut off aid to the Contras in return for vague promises of democratization. The problem with this request is simple. It ignores the role of force in furthering Sandinista liberalization. Without Contra pressure, which, as Purcell amply demonstrates, has deepened over the last year, there is nothing to make the Sandinistas change. No army in Central America could dream of forcing them. The only things that worry the Sandinistas are the Contras and their U.S. backers. To desert the Contras at this point, when they are gaining vastly in strength and ability, for the sake of trusting the Sandinistas to abide by the Arias Plan — a plan with neither means of verification nor penalty for failure to live up to its demands for democratization — would greatly set back the cause of democracy in Nicaragua and Latin America.

Let us hope then that Congress will do what the majority of those in Central America wish: support the Contras. Let this support, moreover, be at a level high enough to offset Soviet aid to the communist ruling elite. Finally, may the liberals call into question some of their central beliefs about the nature of the regime they presently support in Nicaragua.//

Written Spring 1988

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

my good-bye piece, which was published with good-riddance added unprofessionally on at the bottom by my jewess-feminist editor Kopec]

[opinion published in Pomona

And so we draw to a close.

I handed in my thesis today. I guess that means I’m out of here in a couple of weeks. As this is our last paper, some last thoughts would seem to be in order.

I suppose I could review my litany of personal complaints against the liberal Pomona hierarchy: no conservative professors in the departments that need them most (government, history); the liberal-er-than-thou attitude of the administration, the pompous attempts of Sean Morley to censor (phrased as revising the guidelines) opinions articles he deems offensive. But all that doesn’t seem that important right now.

The future is what’s important.

Attitudes will change. A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, professors were conservative. The sixties saw a change in morality and ways of looking at the world. Now, obviously, many of the sixties anti-establishment types required institutionalization; the problem was that they got into the wrong institution – academia. This too will pass.

Now, I know that there are a great many conservatives at Pomona. As opposed to the faculty, the student body is decidedly less liberal. I can’t claim, as Nixon did, that a silent majority exists, but I do claim that conservatives are a large silent minority.

The future of conservatism at Pomona is wholly dependent on individuals stepping forward and proclaiming their beliefs. Without such effort what’s to stop us from becoming another Pitzer?

The major danger I see in Pomona’s future is the shutting down of any serious campus political debate. As it is, we are perilously close. What my experience has shown is that merely refusing to step to the drumbeat of “enlightened” opinion brings down the wrath of the administration. In my own experience, many liberals in positions of power are for freedom of speech until they read something they disagree with. Liberals have done a truly remarkable job in persuading the American populace that certain things are taboo; there are certain things you just can’t discuss. There are some things liberals believe you just can’t say.

The other day, someone wanted me to sign a petition calling for expanded efforts to hire, admit, etc., racial minorities, women, etc. I refused. This petition, by itself, is a perfect example of the problem facing Pomona. It represents a laughable conception of the problems facing our college. We seem to continually chastise ourselves for not being on the cutting edge of whatever is thought proper at the Ivy League colleges and Stanford.

The central irony of Pomona is this: We constantly seek to diversify the student body by admitting various minorities. Meanwhile, we tolerate a de facto discrimination in the professoriate against non-liberals – a minority that is defined by its difference in outlook. Evidently, what our administration hopes to create is a big happy band of like-minded ‘individuals.’

We are in serious danger of shutting out a whole segment of opinion. I call on those conservatives left here to come forward and write and try to make up for what doesn’t exist in the classroom. If you don’t come forward, it’s the same as Khadaffi’s Line of Death. Over time, tradition builds, and has the same effect as law. Translated, people become so unused to conservative thinking that they don’t want to publish it. Because they are never exposed to it in the classroom, they are utterly at a loss when it comes to understanding what truly is another perspective. Real diversity means that college students are exposed to people who believe different things, people who are libertarians and socialists and communists and conservatives. We are a college. That means we have a devotion to things intellectual. Why then do we focus on such narrow things as physical differences between the members of our community when there are deficiencies in our intellectual makeup that cry out for attention?

Here at the newspaper, it’s been quite a struggle. Cynthia and I have battled long and hard over what I am allowed to say. Needless to say, I have lost almost all the battles. The point is that here at Pomona we have a newspaper. Part of that newspaper is devoted to Opinions. In this space, students may write about world affairs or issues of campus concern. I became Opinions editor because I wanted to provide people with a perspective I felt was missing in many of my classes. One of my principal epiphanies has been that Pomona college is not an ivory tower.

Another big joke at Pomona: Hearing the feminists and other minorities complain about not being heard or having their concerns represented. Yeah, right. Who dares to say anything against these groups? Not even necessarily against them, but who dares to say anything that isn’t exactly what they want. The attitude seems to be that anything about feminists they didn’t write or approve is offensive and unprintable. I suggest that the possibility that people will be offended not be the standard by which newspapers are edited. John Stuart Mill defended freedom of the press, not freedom of the press as long as we don’t hurt anybody’s feelings.

My conception of a college newspaper is as a forum for debate. Lots of people with lots of points of view, well thought out and expressed with a certain youthful rebelliousness. The reality of Student Life is a stodgy, liberal paper. We’ve come full circle. Back in the sixties, campus newspapers were used as forums for lambasting the administration. Nowadays the liberal editors are in almost total sympathy with the deans and the president. Like I already said, the competition at this campus is over whether the students or the administration can be more liberal. Did you see Eric Shah’s comment in the ‘Speak’ last week? The convergence of opinion is the reason there are no more student uprisings that Joan Baez and others lament.

Now, there’s nothing wrong (legally) with being liberal. And liberal administrations and liberal student bodies are just the way it is. Today’s campus conservatives have to operate in this context. If they refuse to utilize the means at their disposal, they shouldn’t decry the rampant liberalism. I urge my fellow conservatives to come forward. If you refuse, campus discussion will once again devolve into endless recriminations. From the evidence I’ve seen and the people I’ve talked to, I’m sure a good deal more will be heard from Pomona conservatives in the future.

In conclusion, I offer a figurative tip of the hat to those of you who have responded to my articles. I still disagree with most of you, but the odd letter did make some impression. Finally, I’d like to offer one final bit of advice to y’all. Just quit being so damned oversensitive. With that, good-bye.

Editor’s note: And good riddance.

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

---

/ icon and title
message

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

---

/ icon and title
message

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

/ message
edit note

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

[news article published in Pomona College’s The Student Life, Friday, December 11, 1987]

NATO Commander Addresses Claremont

By Alex Linder

Recently resigned NATO commander Bernard Rogers gave an address titled “Disarmament and the Balance of Power” at the Bauer Center on Wednesday, November 18.

As Supreme Commander of Allied forces in Europe, Rogers was directly concerned with the defense-related issues encompassed in the INF treaty, and he spent most of his speech critiquing the treaty and its effect on the NATO-Warsaw Pact balance.

Rogers said that his job was to determine what was best for NATO as a whole. NATO, he pointed out, is made up of fifteen free and independent democracies, many of which are headed by coalitions, making effective leadership frequently difficult.

Rogers also noted that the U.S. and Europe have different sets of concerns. While the U.S. is worried about friction in Europe leading to an American nuclear response, the Europeans oscillate between fear of isolation and getting into an unwanted war.

Turning to the Warsaw Pact, Rogers described Pact attempts to intimidate, coerce, and blackmail the nations of the West which are integral to the Pact’s long-term goal of world domination by means of an expansionist foreign policy.

“Gorbachev,” said Rogers, “does not have the best interests of the West on his priority list.” Rogers went on to note that despite glasnost‘s facade of openness, there have been no “changes of substance in Soviet foreign policy.” The Soviet Union continues to devote 17 percent of its GNP to defense, a significantly higher figure than in the U.S. Further, noted Rogers, membership in NATO is voluntary, unlike the Warsaw Pact.

Before addressing the INF treaty specifically, Rogers laid the groundwork concerning the role of NATO and the recent history of arms control. According to him, the U.S. forward deploys over 300,000 American troops in Europe as a measure of our commitment to defend Europe.

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

[opinion published in Pomona College’s The Student Life, Friday, December 11, 1987]

American Survival in a Benetton World

By Alex Linder

Upon this bank and shoal of time, America is in an enviable position. A steadily growing economy, a strong military, a free and productive society are all guarantees of good times to come. Nevertheless, there are trends, found throughout the West, that if left unchecked could result in a dark future.

As every IR student learns in the first few lectures, when it comes to calculating power, will is all important. A nation may have X missiles, Y tanks, and Z soldiers, but if will is lacking, the rest is insignificant.

Will is the intangible by which the physical components of power are multiplied; if absent the result is always zero. Think of the Vietnam War.

American will, although undiminished under Reagan, is in a long-term decline. Why? Because of our leadership. The sum effects of the media, the academics, and many of the politicians is negative, erosive, and destructive.

There are three types of American fools. Those who can’t see; those who won’t see; and those who see and accept. The media are the stupid and incompetent. The politicians are the willingly blind. The academics can’t infer their ways out of paper bags. A certain sector of each sees what’s going on and approves.

But what is being referred to? Well, primarily the communist threat — facilitated by a country made doubtful of itself, its capabilities, and its special purpose. In essence, America is the last, best hope.

We are the city on the hill. We are what the world has struggled to produce. Through millenium after millenium, men have fought, killed, raped, looted, plundered, tortured, terrorized, and spat on one another. But hey, that’s what being human is half about.

America is the original place where the evil effects of human nature have been well controlled. With our constitution we’ve reached the best trade-off between order and freedom the world has ever seen. We have the richest, strongest, freest country in the world.

In a word, we are the best country in the world. The only thing capable of stopping a world governmental organization capable of suppressing all but the smallest regional conflicts, and based on the principles of the U.S. constitution, is self-doubt. We must turn away from those who work to injure this American Achilles’ Heel.

Let’s consider a country where the evil effects of self-doubt are evident in the national psyche: West Germany. The legacy of Hitler is a confused land full of geistlos and angstvoll people who have no ability to tell right from wrong. West Germany is a country so mixed up and turned around as to make one despair for its future. What can we learn about ourselves from this country? Let’s listen to some of its students talk about the U.S. — friends of the writer.

First, there’s Christian. He says he doesn’t like it when Reagan says “God bless America” at the end of his speeches and all the listeners stand up and cheer. Then there’s Heide. You try to hide a smile as she lectures you on America’s imperialist history. Finally, there’s Inge. When you try to explain the tenets of Reaganism to her, she laughs at you in the softly condescending way you’d laugh at a toddler falling over while trying to walk.

“I feel much more threatened by the Americans than by the Russians,” she says. . . .a sorry state of affairs.

What threatens America today is our decline into moral relativism and intellectual squishiness brought about by liberal mountebankery, whose representatives strive to outdo one another in their put-downs of America.

There seem to be so few people around today who are willing to forthrightly assert the moral superiority of the American system of government.

What we are taught: We’re taught to think in shades of gray rather than in black and white. We’re warned that we perceive everything through our own cultural lens, thus implicitly negating our judgments.

Think of the term “ethnocentric.” This is a big word with many IR people. The word’s a sick joke. It’s a fancy word for letting the other guy walk all over you while you philosophically justify his actions. A common mistake is to overrate the importance of looking at issues from another nation’s perspective.

The problem is that where we do this we tend to forget that we have to represent our own interests. Do the Iranians or the Soviets think about our interests when we deal with them? Hell no. They figure out what they want and go after it.

Moral equivalency is perhaps the most widespread and certainly the most dangerous trend among the elite of America and the West. It is widespread in that the vast majority of Europeans and an increasingly large number of Americans see no moral difference between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. It is most dangerous because there is obviously no particular reason to feel an obligation to defend a certain country (America) if it’s no better than its chief adversary.

As evidence of the growth of this trend, mere anecdotes will have to suffice. The Europeans referred to previously are believers in the two-scorpions-in-a-bottle metaphor many Europeans like to use to describe the two superpowers. Polls have recently found that many view Gorbachev as more of a peacemaker than Reagan.

Perhaps better than anyone else, the murdered John Lennon represented the two-scorpions approach to world politics. “Imagine there’s no countries. . . . A brotherhood of man.” Similarly, you might be familiar with a song called the “Universal Soldier” which talks about young men of various denominations dying in various fights for various causes.

The point of this despicable tripe is that no idea or cause is morally distinguishable from any other since they all involve some amount of conflict and bloodshed; only the idealistic one-worlders remain uncorrupted visionaries. There’s “nothing to kill or die for” in John Lennon’s world.

It cannot be overemphasized that this is the type of thinking that can destroy America. John Lennon and his ilk see no moral difference between the Soviet Union and America; all they do is rise above to an invisible world where they are alone and perfect. Call it moral Swedishness.

Like the residents of that sorry country, Lennonists feel free to claim the moral perfection that is nothing more than the birthright of the impotent.

There is a sickly habit today of refusing to make distinctions. It’s the approach that makes English and Art History so meaningless compared to politics — there’s never any voting. There’s never the satisfaction of deciding something. I think this, you think that, she thinks the other. And this holds for whatever painting or book is examined.

The point is: if a book or painting can mean anything, then it means nothing. For some reason this sieve-mindedness is starting to slide over into politics. And that’s a bad sign.

Finally, the scary truth about our times is that we’re living in a Benetton world. Benetton’s advertising campaign is based on the approach that the world’s nations and peoples are one, big, undifferentiated mass. We can all — whether we’re Laura in Los Angeles, Mbutu in Kenya, or Fyodor in Leningrad — wear the same dopey, androgynous jumpsuits. Why? Because we’re all the same — our ethnicities, traditions, customs, beliefs are only so many stumbling blocks to be swept aside in the race to create the generic person.

But it ain’t so. America is not just another in an array of equally valid choices for societal organization. It’s the best. And the others aren’t different — they’re worse. That’s what I believe, and that’s what you ought to believe. And if enough of us continue to believe it (as we traditionally have) the future is ours.//