incarnations were visible and decipherablenin its pages. In the not-too-remotenpast, we witnessed how, by the end ofnthe 1960’s and the beginning of then1970’s, Harper’s fell into hands of youngnphony men who wished, at any price, tonmuster and demonstrate the righteousnliberal anger—and the more they tried,nthe more their products came across asnboring, stilted, and commonplace. Theyntackled issues, social images, and culturalnmessages from aplatform of tediousnpredictability, they praised writers who,nover the subsequent years, proved to beneither inconsequential, or flimsy, ornirresponsible, or just liberal hacksnsustained by the popular press’s everlastingnhunger for mediocrity. In those days.nHarper’s, its illustrious history notwithstanding,npromoted perspectivesnon arts and letters, or on social dilemmas,nwhich mightily contributed to thengeneral dissolution of criteria, to the all-nAmerican feeling of decrepitude thatntended to overwhelm anyone who stillnVicious GauchismenIn The Nation (where else?), onenDaniel Singer argues that the nouveauxnphtlosophes—that is, the French intellectuals,nwho began to bitterly criticizencommunism and the Soviet Unionnduring the 1970’s, were not motivatednby knowledge and conscience, but werensomehow commissioned by someone tonperform such a heinous task:nThe powers that be realized that suchna unification [had to be] prevented.nThey had to discredit not just thenRussian experiment but the idea ofnrevolution itself Ttiis dirty job had tonbe carried out by young ex-leftistsnwhose ideological wounds were stillnbleeding.nIn the same journal, we read undernthe title “Power to Destroy” an accountnof its editors’ wrath at thenInternal Revenue Service for investigatingnthe finances oi Mother Jones,ncraved dignified cultural meanings andncontents. It promulgated positionsnwhich from our present distance seemnboth wrong and trite. As such, it hadnreneged on its own cherished tradition.nThe March 1984 issue oi Harper’snseems to announce urbt et orbi that thentime of incertitude, sham, and vacillationnis over. It bears the unmistakable imprintnof its editor’s, Lewis Lapham’s, idea of anjournal of enlightened opinion. Mr.nLapham, whose intellectual silhouettenand personal vicissitudes as the magazine’snhelmsman are familiar to thenAmerican reading community, is oncenagain in charge oi Harper’s fortunes.nThus, a spirit of innovation and freshlynrefined responsibility seems to suflusenLapham’s//A/Jeer’s; it features a renewednsense of quality in both form and content.nSince we beUeve that the rampartsnof cultural and moral quality are the lastnlines of defense in the Great War for ourncivilization, we find that the old/newnHarper’s is a very welcome arrival. Dna strongly leftist magazine, devoted tonrelentless politicization of everynhuman impulse and to eradication ofn”American imperialism”—be it innVietnam or San Salvador. Accordingnto the grieving A’^artow;n… the Northern California office ofnthe Internal Revenue Service rulednthat the magazine was commercialnrather than educational and challengednits tax exemption. The LRS.’snfinding must have giwea MothernJones’s business department pause.nThe magazine lost #500,000 last year,nand it has been in the red since itsnfounding in 1976. Losing its nonprofitnstatus would cost the magazine annestimated «200,000 a year in additionalnpostal fees—^and would probablynput it out of business.nTo our mind, Mother Jones is not anneducational magazine but a politicalnagitprop sheet. However, what’s mostninteresting is where it comes from, ornwho has been ^mg Mother Jones thatn$500,000 a year for the last seven years?nIts circa 200,000 copies circulationnobviously does not cover its publishingncosts, thus—who is giving the subsidy?nThe Nation is less interested in that partnof the story. It concludes its nasty littlentale:nThis Administration’s record ofnharassing advocacy groups, whethernby withholding Federal funds ornattacking their tax-exempt status,ndemonstrates the need for somenlegislative buffers.nKnowing our legislators, we maynexpect that “education” a la Mothern/owes will continue. Dn• The Center on Religion and SocietynOperating out of New York City, this new arm of TheRocl