Walzer and William Ryan have assertednthe primacy of equality of economicnresults, and Kuttner takes that asnsufficient. Kuttner writes merely tonreassure his reader that other statesnhave combined more equal distributionnof wealth with relative prosperitynin a democratic order. He seems confidentnthat, once comparative economicsnprovides the evidence that it couldnbe done elsewhere, we will leap intonaction to achieve such a social ordernhere. In short, he would like a transformationnof American politics thatnwould enable us to import Swedishnand Austrian policies. In effect, “up”nis really “do\’n.” Societies are to benjudged in terms of their treatment ofnthe worst off among them, which innpractice means the portion of nationalnincome that is “distributed” to thenpoorest quintile of the population.nWhat is it about Austria and Sw^edennthat make them icons in the establishmentnreligion of progress? Thesenmodel societies have combined strongnlabor organizations, relatively low unemploymentnrates, extensive entitlementnprograms, comprehensive economicnplanning, and relative internalnharmony. With nearly homogenousnpopulations, these nations have fewnsocial questions that cultivate the seedsnof discord. As long as the economicnpie continued to grow, the politics ofnredistribution were tolerated in thesencountries. Kuttner admits uneasinessnabout sustaining such policies in economicallyndifficult times.nKuttner’s ideal society is the smallnrepublic, societies that can be peacefulnbecause they have no great causes tonfight. As nations v-ith relatively fewnindustries, people throughout thencountry recognize that the health ofneach industry is important for the nationalneconomy. Industries themselvesnrarely come into direct conflict, in partnbecause the investment decisions ofnnational economic planners strengthennthe nation’s winners and preventneffective formation of opposition ornproposals for alternative industries.nWhen Austria, for example, is developing.,na national economic plan, itnmust consult the heads of 16 labornunions. The president of the AFL-nCIO has far more contesting organizationsnto contend with.nThese nations have no ambitious,nlarge-scale national projects, and theyndiscourage large-scale ambition at thenindividual level. Kuttner claims thatnaverage Swedes tolerate the nation’snconfiscatory tax rates, but neglects tonmention Bjorn Borg and IngmarnBergman, who took their talentsnabroad when marginal tax ratesnreached 102 percent. Just as thesennations think small in their industrialnand distributional policies, they encouragensmall thinking in internationalndealings. They do engage in internationalncommerce, but only with anlimited range of merchandise. ThenSwedes don’t like it when Soviet subsnpatrol their waters, but nothing in thenSwedish navy is likely to deter determinednSoviet admirals. Kuttner significantlynneglects to mention that thenUnited States has greater internationalnresponsibilities that prevent it fromndevoting as much of its resources tonthe “distribution of society’s wealth” ton”the poor” as, say, Austria. Kuttner isnblind to the possibility that a greatnpeople might want to accomplish greatndeeds, and he would be mystified bynthe notion that one would have to looknbeyond the material prosperity of thenpoorest to find visions of great projects.nKuttner is silent about people’s souls, ansilence which is entirely fitting. Anyonenwith a soul might ask him, “Whynshould Americans want to make theirnsociety like Austria?”nNewt Gingrich, in contrast, knowsnthat down is not up. When people asknGingrich for his vision of a good society,nhe looks less to the individualnmaterial wealth of the citizens than tonthe dreams that inspire them. Whennhe speaks of looking up, his outlook isnfixed on the stars. He thinks thatnAmerican society has not had a realnsense of purpose since President Kennedynpromised to put a man on thenmoon in a decade, and he believes thatnwe can accomplish a great deal morenin space. Want a few ideas? How aboutnlaser technology for more effective defense?nAre some processes for combiningnmetals impossible in earth’s gravity?nWhy not try manufacturing onnspace stations? Do we need a perfectnvacuum to achieve certain laboratorynconditions? Space has the vacuums innmuch greater quantity than they cannbe manufactured on earth. Are wengetting tied up in our own phonencables? Take it in stride; satellite communicationsnwill provide less restric­nnntive communications at a cheaper ratenin the near future.nGingrich believes that our vision ofna better future has been limited b’ ournleaders’ inclinations to view people asnvictims. The appropriate question for anvictim is, “How can we improve yournlife, since you are so unable to helpnyourself?” Gingrich argues that thisnperspective has led to the establishmentnof the Liberal Welfare State, anform of rule that builds upon thencurrent problems of favored classesnand limits the opportunities of others,nincluding the nation at large. Thenresult of a Liberal Welfare State is annation that tends to view itself as victims,nand depends upon others to rescuenit from a series of mishaps.nGingrich does not believe that andiminished sense of public purpose is anfitting way of life for a great and freenpeople. He recognizes, however, thatnescaping from the traps of Liberal WelfarenState thinking requires reorientationnon the part of public officials. Innshort, leaders must act as if they hadnsome idea of the purpose of freedom.nGingrich realizes that a free peoplenwill develop a great number of ideasnand activities to create their own improyednworld, aS long as they have thenopportunity to do so.nGingrich’s alternative to the LiberalnWelfare State is the Gonservative OpportunitynSociety. His vision of opportunitynextends the same principles tonevery sector of American life. He hasnAUGUST 1385/13n