dear to his heart. He does not recognizenthat they are cunning—but not wise—nmen: long-term wisdom has never beennthe goal of the masters of diplomaticnmaneuvering and quotidian pecuniarynsuccess. He seems incapable of forming anbroader foreign-policy vision within ansphere of intricate, historically entanglednpolitical vectors. Either he has forgottennhis conviction that totalitarianism isnmankind’s scourge, or he has becomenperplexed about what totalitarianism is.nNo one with an unprejudiced eyenwould deny that the underlying strugglenin the Middle East is between a pluralisticndemocracy and assorted totalitariannforces whose raison d’etre is firmlyngrounded either in petty “socialist” exploitativentyrannies, or in the entrenchedninterests of tribal hierarchies, or in fanaticalnreligionism. All these ideologicalnpredispositions overlap in the currentnArab amalgam; they are sources of occasionalnmutual mayhem, but they alsonunify all Arab countries in the commonnbond of a cmel—at least from a Westernnperspective—social reality in which direnpoverty, injustice, corruption, violencenand total contempt for human rightsnthrive. These are not Latin American autocraciesnor dictatorships, where—realisticallynor not—we may expect a Brazilianngeneral or a Somoza to grow democraticallyncivilized. These are regimes that arenthoroughly antithetical to what we standnfor, societies which long ago decided tonconsider their world view a legitimatencasus ^e/A’against o«r ethos and o»r fundamentalnbeliefs.nIn an excellent Wall Street Journal •Xiticle.nProfessor Walter Berns recently demolishednthe notions behind an inanenliberal-Democratic project (a so-callednNational Peace Academy from whichn”thinkers” like Jonathan Schell and PaulnNewman and the theologians of liberationnwould prove to the world thatnWashington, not Moscow, is the placenwhere world peace is unobtainable) andnprovided a few phrases of lasting value:nOn these principles, and with institutionalnrefinements contributed bynChronicles of CulturenMontesquieu and our own FoundingnFathers, we in the U.S. built the firstnliberal democracy. The connectionnbetween liberal democracy andnpeace is suggested by the followingnfacts: The United States has nevernfought a war against another liberalndemocracy; not one of the manynwars now raging in the world is anwar between two liberal democracies;nindeed, there has never been anwar between two liberal democra-nHe could have extended his premiseneven further. In our recent history wenhave allied ourselves only once with antotalitarian power—Soviet Russia—withnwhom we achieved something which, atnthat time, was labeled a common victory.nThat “triumph” soon proved to be an inexhaustiblensource of vile woes. Then inn1956 President Eisenhower and Mr.nDulles took the side of Nasser’s savage,ntotalitarian nationalism against threendemocracies resolved not to submit tonfascist Arabic blackmail, and the resultnwas a quarter-century of war in thenregion. Those were two momentousnblunders. We are afraid that in barteringnwisdom for cunning. President Reagan isnheading toward a third one. The Lebanonncrisis must serve only one objective:nthe elimination of our most implacablenideological foe, and Soviet Russia’s mostntrusted proxy—Arab terrorism. Otherwise,nour basic concept of ideologicalnalliance will suffer yet another defeat.nEvery time we have taken indecent libertiesnwith the essential idea of Americannnnforeign policy, we have been the loser.n(LT)nPublishing and DisseminationnIn July a number of publishers, editorsnand observers of the current culturalnscene gathered in Washington, D. C., invitednby the Free Congress Research andnEducarional Foundation to participate innsomething entitled “Workshop on DisseminatingnConservative Ideas,” whichnwas chaired by Professor Charles A.nMoser of the George Washington Universiry.nIn an era when the liberals accuse conservativesnof “warfare against culturalnpluralism”—as one Manhattan organ ofnhomosexual bolshevism put it recently—nit is hard to figure out exactly what thenliberal measure of a pluralistic culture is.nWe all know that most liberal New Yorknpublishers would reject the manusciiptnof The Possessed voAi.^, claiming that itnslandered an innocent bunch of youthfulnidealists pursuing lofty humanitarianngoals. To anyone with an unprejudicedneye ir’s obvious that the opinion-makingnindustry, which includes publishing andnis firmly in liberal hands, does not seencultural pluralism as a fair and evenhandednexchange of ideas which assumesnrhat a genuinely opposite point of view isna common civilizational asset. The liberalncultural establishment practicesntokenism, which means that a few nonliberalnnames are awarded exposure andnrecognition in order to maintain an appearancenof tolerance, while facmal accessnto the market of ideas remains sttictlynregulated by liberal ideological priorities.nIn such a situation, any serious attemptnto disagree with liberal ideas andnattitudes as well as the intellectual andnliterary creativity related to them, mustnreceive rheir support from a nonliberalnpublishing institution. If that support isnnot available, those efforts will hopelesslynwilt, leaving the American culture preynto liberal monopoly. How specifically tonavoid the realizarion of such a gloomyn