of the “ultraconservative”—as they arencalled by cynical liberal entrepreneursnand writers—concerns and feelings fullynlegitimate. However, we also deplore thenNew Right’s trivial faith in simplisticnpolitical slogans as an autonomous force,nas well as the Moral Majority’s reliance onnrighteous but worn-out platitudes,nneither of which are adequate weaponsnin a confrontation with the glitteringnmultitude of liberal socioexistentialndemands and promises. Yes, the antiabortionnissue, the antibusing impulse,nthe school-prayer postulate all can be potentnpolitical ingredients, but only asncomponents of a larger sociomoral imperativenendowed with multidimensionalnintellectual insights into modernnman’s condition. Then, such directivesncan be expertly and knowingly moldedninto a sophisticated analysis of the liberalndetriment to humanness and Americanism,nand—consequently—can be transformedninto a cultural image that willnserve as a political message. And such anstylish distillation of idea into politicalnaction can be obtained only throughnhigh culture, top-notch intellectual effort,nfunctional scholarship.nThere was one bright spot in the bleaknNovember electoral landscape—thenNew York state gubernatorial race.nThere, Mr. Lewis Lehrman, businessmannand economist, challenged all the liberalnpowers that be on the grounds of ideologicalncontention. It was a unique challenge;nnot only was it made in the mostnhostile political environment possible,nnot only did it take up a cause that hadnbeen declared by all liberal and economicnpundits as bankmpt, but even the economicnreality of the particular historicalnmoment testified against it and negatednIn the Mailnits rationality. Yet Mr. Lehrman, entrenchednin a sociopolitical argumentnwell grounded in ideology, withstood allnderision, invectives, and insinuationsnand persisted in his faith in the theory.nAccording to all political experts, such annattitude when vying for votes is suicidal.nWhat mattered, however, was that hisnclaim, that supply-side capitalism is thenbest way to deal with our economic adversities,nhas impeccable intellectualncredentials, and this, unexpectedly, hasnrevealed itself to be a political factor ofnmagnitude. Before he entered politicsnMr. Lehrman founded a research institutenand did his homework well: thus henfluently spoke the language of an ideologicallynmotivated politician propellednby the intellectual elaboration of hisnideas—a species that is doomed to extinction,nif we are to believe experts onnAmerican politics. He came just twonpoints short of a victory over a liberalnmaster of slogans. In New York.nSelf-AssessmentnLike everybody else, Mr. James EarlnCarter, the 39th President of the UnitednStates, has written his memoirs. Afternglancing at their literary style and attemptingnto probe some of the book’snhistorical analyses and judgments of thenpolitical scene (and its performers), wenare reassured in our belief that the mentalnmediocrity of Mr. Carter is of exceptionalndimension. During his tenure wenalways wondered about the image thatnhis PR men and the entire press assiduouslynfostered—that of Mr. Carter as ann”intellectual,” a Tolstoy reader, a connoisseurnof both art and the passions ofnAmerica’s Burke: The Mind of Thomas Hutchinson by William Pencak; University Ptess ofnAmerica; Washington, DC. Hutchinson was the last royal civilian governor of Massachusetts;nhis defense of traditional society is examined in the light of Burke’s similar stance.nThe Creator in the Courtroom: Scopes 11 hy Norman L. Geisler; Mott Media; Milford, MI.nMcLean v. Arkansas, the creation-evolution trial conducted in 1981, is examined, particularlynin relation to its handling by the media and to traditional Judeo-Christian values.nnnbody and soul. We rather thought of hisnmind as a reservoir of monumental trivialities.nIn a prepublication interviewngiven to Time magazine, Mr. Carternconcluded:nI am at peace with the knowledge Indid the best I could.nHe’s right. That was the gist of thenproblem.nSpace-Age ApostolatenLast year’s meeting of the NationalnConference of Catholic Bishops—held innNovember in Washington, D.C.—propellednthe venerable shepherds into ansort of spiritual brawl. At its origin wasnthe question: What to do about thenthreat of nuclear war?nIt’s not up to us to pass opinionatednjudgments on ecclesiastical pacifism,nallegiance to the flag, or raised consciousnessnregarding affairs of this world—herenand now, on this planet. All we canndeduce from the impassioned pleas—nfrom both sides of the division betweennthe abolitionists and the supporters ofnthe idea of deterrence—is that the inabilitynto clearly distinguish between thenpurple and the red means deep trouble.nIt’s also obvious to us that there’s muchnmore to this ideological conflict thannmeets the eyes of national newsmagazinesnand other such dispensers of capsulatednknowledge. The amazingnstrength of Catholicism in Poland is in itsnrelentless defense of the integrity of lifen—personal, spiritual, social—from thenwholesale invasion of politics. Americannprofreeze bishops seem bent on doingnjust the reverse—they exert themselves toninvite politics into daily and intimatenhuman existence. By doing that, theynemphasize Catholic conscience overnCatholic wisdom. Yet, as many havenlearned—from St. Augustine and St.nThomas to Pascal and Maritain—it’s exactlynthe latter which determines the victoriousnCatholic resilience in times ofnconfusion and peril. (LT) Dnw^mm^V^nJanuary 1983n