out dishonoring our ancestors and adulteratingrnthe cultures of both countries. Itrnis time —it is way past time—for patriotsrnwho love our country and who understandrnthat home is not elastic to take theirrnstand on the American soil of the Old 48.rnVivan los independentistasl For PuertornRico’s sake, yes—but for ours, too.rnBill Kauffman is the author of four hooks,rnincluding With Good Intentions?rnReflections on the Myth of Progressrnin America (Praeger).rnLive Right,rnThink Leftrnby George Watsonrn”A’ nglo-Saxon hypocrisy” is arnfamous phrase, and iir Januaryrn1996, Harriet Harman, Labour spokesmanrnfor health in the British House ofrnCommons, became an object of scornrnon both sides of the House by sendingrnher 11-year-old son to a school outsidernthe public sector, chosen by entrancernexamination. She was later, after 1997, arnminister in the Blair government.rnShe was only following her leader, itrnmust be said. In fact it was said, repeatedly.rnPrime Minister Tony Blair sendsrnhis son to another such school, hardlyrnless selective, and both events causedrnpublic outrage, since Labour is againstrnselection. Left-wing hypocrisy is suddenlyrna fashionable topic again.rnTo live right and think left has its advantages,rnafter all—you get the materialrnbenefits of the one with the moral satisfactionsrnof the other—and it has beenrnabout for much of the century. In fact,rnmost languages have witty descriptionsrnfor it, all coined before the war. The Englishrnspeak of “champagne socialists,”rnthe French have gauche de luxe and thernGermans Salonbolshewiker. So the huntrnfor hypocrisy is an old one, and there arernthose who are happy to be back at therngame. The prime minister of the day,rnJohn Major, took all his chances at parliamentaryrnquestion-time. “I’m just beingrntough on hypocrisy and tough on therncauses of hypocrisy,” he told Tony Blairrnblandly in 1996, to Conservative cheersrnand jeers, echoing a phrase the Labourrnleader had once thought he had madernhis own. Meanwhile, after a stormvrnmeeting with her own party, Ms. Harman,rnwho is married to a prominentrnunion official, kept her job —just. Butrnwith a year to go before a general election,rnthe matter was not soon forgiven orrnforgotten.rnThere are several explanations to bernoffered for her behavior that are more orrnless convincing. There are also her ownrnexplanations, which are not. She was only,rnshe told an interviewer, making arnchoice that thousands of parents have tornmake for their children; but Labour isrnpublicly committed to abolishing thernright of parents to choose. The presentrnschool system in Britain, she claims,rnwhich is divided between public and private,rnis not of Labour’s making; but inrnfact it is, since it derives from the ButierrnEducation Act of 1944, which Labourrn(in coalition) supported. In any case,rnthere is nothing unsocialist about selection.rnIt was practiced widely in EasternrnEurope in the days of the Soviet Empire,rnand it was endorsed by Labour down tornthe 1960’s. Communism, in its day, hadrnnothing to do with equality, and the privilegesrnof its ruling class were notorious.rnThere are contradictions when a dedicatedrnegalitarian seeks to abolish educationalrnselection, in Britain or elsewhere.rnTo start at the top: If Eton College andrnother fee-paying schools were abolished,rneducation would probably become evenrnmore unequal, since Britain enjoys freedomrnof movement with its neighbors as arnmember of the European Union. If feepayingrnwere abolished, the rich couldrnstill send their children abroad to privaternschools that would probably cost evenrnmore, since they would involve travelrncosts as well as boarding and expertrnteaching. So a universal public sector atrnhome might well prove not less elitist butrnmore. As for the middle tier, or grammarrnschools, if you abolish them and let Etonrnsurvive, as Labour has long been pledgedrnto do, you destroy the ladder by whichrnthe poor have traditionally climbed intornthe professional classes—in which case,rnin a competitive world, Etonians wouldrnenjoy even better chances of promotionrnthan now. These are arguments thatrnLabour leaders would prefer not to hear,rnand they hope no one will have the wit orrnaudacity to utter them. They are likely,rnin that hope, to be disappointed.rnThe world is plainly right to be toughrnon hypocrisy and its causes, whether leftrnor right. And it will be, in an age wherernthe media are merciless to those in officernand no less merciless to those who seekrnit. Power can expect no pit}’. But I suspectrnthere is another issue here, and onernthat is so far unheard. I mean the case ofrnthe justified sinner—one who believes,rnand honestly believes, that he has fulfilledrnhis moral duty to God, or to somernabstraction like social justice, when hernhas declared his allegiance. It is enough,rnhe thinks, to speak up. A declaration ofrnvirtue can then be used to justify a life ofrnsin. But my term is borrowed from arnnovel now seldom read, though it deservesrnto be, and I should explain.rnThe Private Memoirs and Confessionsrnof a Justified Sinner is a horror story by arnScottish poet named James Hogg. It appearedrnanonymously in 1824, and it tellsrnthe grim tale of Robert Wringhim, whornis legally the son of a land-owning lairdrnbut has been strictiy and piously broughtrnup by a Calvinist minister who is probablyrnhis real father. From boyhood on,rnWringhim justified a life of deceit and violentrncrime by a certainfy that he is onernof the elect of God. His sins are divinelyrnjustified, and he cannot be damned.rn”Hath He not made one vessel to honorrnand another to dishonor, as in the casernwith myself and thee?” Wringhim tellsrna wretched servant who has convictedrnhim of lying. That is only a beginning.rnWringhim grows up to kill his elderrnbrother, and when his father dies ofrna broken heart, he inherits the estaternand continues his profitable career ofrnmurder.rnThe fable, in a melodramatic way, isrnapposite to our times, and there mayrneven be those who find Hogg’s book toornclose for comfort. Wringhim was sonrnand heir to a laird, for one thing, and it isrnnotable that parties claiming a socialistrntradition are seldom led by the low-bred.rnTony Blair, who went to a private schoolrnand then to Oxford, is today the most sociallyrnsuperior leader of any British politicalrnparty. Conservatives, by contrast,rngave up electing gentlemen to lead themrnas long ago as 1965, when Edward Heathrnreplaced Sir Alec Douglas-Home; andrnJohn Major, who was brought up in rentedrnrooms in south London and went tornno university, has the humblest socialrnorigins of any British prime ministerrnsince the war. Harriet Harman, true tornform, is the daughter of an eminentrnphysician, was privately educated, and isrna niece to the Countess of Longford. Itrnmay seem entirely natural for such peoplernto give their own children a privilegedrneducation. That is all they know.rnIt may even have seemed natural to themrn40/CHRONICLESrnrnrn