makers were to delve into the pages ofnthis lavishly supported publication, theynwould discover that most of its authorsnand ideologists anticipate no future fornGM at all. The fiiture they would likenbest is a nationalized GM whose formerncorporate leaders could sell pencils onnDetroit sidewalks. DnGuess Who’s Irying tonCome In?nIn a recent lead editorial entitledn”Who’s Betraying Conservatism?” thenChicago Tribune announced, not for thenfirst time, that those who are generallynthought to represent the ideologicalnopinions and principles of modern conservatism—thenNew Right, Moral Majority,nsupply-side economists, constitutionalntraditionalists, etc.—are not exactlynbona fide conservatives. So who is? Wencan judge by these sentences:nBut if anybody is betraying the best ofnconservatism, it is those who have appointednthemselves as custodians ofntrue conservatism, declaring that itnmeans whatever they happen tonbelieve in.nThe key words are “best of conservatism”:nthose who know what then”best” is presumably are the “best,” andnif they have a huge printing facility atntheir disposal, they can easily declarenthemselves—you guessed it—conservatives.nAs conservatives of a lower qualitynthan the Trib ‘s editors, we should rejoicenat the prospect that a big-city daily—neven one with strong tabloidal tendencies—coiJdnbe on our side. But let’s looknat some hard facts in the Trib’s journalisticnand publicistic record.nPolitically, the Trib maintains anmeandering course. Domestically, itnscolds the unions and disparages capitalismnalmost evenhandedly, but it supportednJohn Anderson for President,nERA, and most of the liberal social causesn—not exacdy conservative positions. Innforeign policy it is tough on the Sovietsnand communism, but it has effiasivelynwarm sympathies for their proxies in thenMiddle East, Latin America and Africa.nIt is in the Tribune’s political philosophynand cultural propensities, as they arenreflected in its journalistic practice, thatnits claims to conservatism become eithernfarce, or self-delusion, or—we hate tonthink so—an outright attempt at a selfpromotionalnshell game. Near-fixturesnon the Op-Ed page are features reprintednfrom the Institute for Policy Studies andnits syndicated outlets—that is, fromnthose lovely people who overtly promotenthe dogma of the World Peace Congressn(the Kremlin’s official oracle on thennuclear-armament issue), “liberation”nmovements in El Salvador or Namibia,nor Cuba’s purity of intentions. All this isnpossible thanks to the First Amendment,nto which the Trib swears unswervingnallegiance, at the same time meticulouslyneliminating the nonliberal andnantiradical views. Over the last five years,nwe’ve never seen on that page a reprintnfrom National Review or Modem Age,nnnboth of which are known for their deepndistmst of opinions that come from IPS,nMoscow, Mother Jones, Havana, or thenPacific News Service.nIt is in the realm of culture where thenTnb’s “conservatism” turns into eithernenigma or caricature. Over the same fivenyears, we have seen in its pages serializednexcerpts from Midnight Express, a booknthat makes a drug-pusher into a rolenmodel and moral hero, and ThynNeighbor’s Wife, an opus that fervidlynadvocates complete sexual anarchy andnnihilism as answers to our personalnmalaises. We have read Tribune “critics”nwho admitted their wholehearted supportnof the “new” permissiveness in thenmovies; we have seen paeans to AngelanDavis, the communist operative, andnJane Fonda, Hanoi’s ally in the VietnamnWar, labeling them “forces of good” innour society.nQuite the Michigan Avenue conservativesn. And tmstworthy semanticists. DnDon’t Be Impertinent,nYoung MannThe movie reviewer of New Yorknmagazine, the organ of those who thinknthey know better by mere dint of theirnproperly sooty bathrooms, writes aboutnAn Officer and a Gentleman—a movienwith good intentions but meager results:nScreenwriter Douglas Day Stewartnmust think that we’re longing notnonly for the narrative strength of oldnmovies but also for the reassuringnmoral universe Hollywood showed usn40 years ago.nSpeak in your own name, mister. Anlarge, though seldom vocal, majority ofnAmericans longs for a reassuring moralnuniverse. Sometimes they even win elections,ninstall a President in whom theynvest fond hopes, and change the politicalnlandscape. TTieir voices are banned fromnmagazines like New York, but they arenfar from nonexistent. DnNovember 198Sn