suggest that anyone who doubts that thenpurpose of our foreign policy is tonpromote the “rights of man” is un-nAmerican— “To argue against a foreignnpolicy to promote the rights ofnman, then, is to argue against the rightsnthemselves, and thus against our ownninstitutions” — and he relies on thenequality clause of the Declaration ofnIndependence to justify his interpretationnof America’s purpose.nWe have been through all this before,nbut let us rehearse it briefly once again.nThe Declaration says nothing about then”purpose” of the US or any otherngovernment. It is not even a charter ofngovernment, but a proclamation of nationalnindependence and a catalogue ofn, the abuses of power that justified the actnof separation. The real purposes orngoals of the US government are quitencleariy spelled out in the Preamble ofnthe US Constitution, and they say nothingnabout equality, human rights, orneven foreign policy. The Constitutionndid not establish the political equality ofnindividual citizens, and its tolerationnof slavery, the nonenfranchisementnof blacks in most nonslave states, the diversitynof state political practices, andnthe indirect election of senators and thenPresident would seem to contradict then32/CHRONICLESnLIBERAL ARTSnStraussian-JafFa-Kesler interpretation ofnthe American political tradition that Mr.nFossedal endorses.nFrom the false premise that then”rights of man” are the goal of the USngovernment Mr. Fossedal draws thennon sequitur that the same goal andnpurpose must animate our foreign policy.nIt is at this point that his book ceasesnto be merely frivolous and becomesndangerous. Other possible goals of foreignnpolicy—national independence,nterritorial security, economic prosperity,nand the physical protection of our ownncitizens and their property, rights, andninterests at home and abroad — simplynare not encompassed within Mr. Fossedal’sngoals. Indeed, it is possible that angood many of our legitimate nationalninterests would be transgressed by Mr.nFossedal’s foreign policy. Treaties withnnondemocratic governments, privatenbusiness contracts enforced by them,nand geopolitically necessary alliancesnwith them might all be jeopardized bynthe democratically elected regimes thatnreplace them. The genuine democratizationnof the Soviet Union and EasternnEurope, for example, would almostncertainly transform worid power relationshipsnand perhaps lead to the disintegrationnof the USSR and even tonGOOD CHRISTIAN FRIENDS, REJOICE?nSome tidbits from the new Methodist hymnal: “Onward,nChristian Soldiers” and “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,”nthose militaristic favorites, remain, only because when newsnleaked out three years ago that the hymnals’ editors werengoing to drop those songs, thousands of letters poured in tonprotest. Nevertheless the hymnal has been bowdlerized andngone the way of the Episcopalian and Lutheran hymnalsnbefore it. “White” is out, as it’s unjust to equate sinlessnessnwith a color: in the hymn “Nothing But the Blood of Jesus”nthe line now reads, “make me as bright as snow.” Not evennMethodist founder John Wesley’s brother, Chades, is exemptnfrom these tireless editors: a line in his hymn “O for anThousand Tongues to Sing” that refers to “ye deaf” “yendumb,” “ye blind,” and “ye lame” gets a little asterisk and thencomment below, “May be omitted.” God still gets to be OurnFather but “Him” is out, as are “men” and “brothers” andn”sons.” As the newspapers are reporting this, on women’snissues the hymnal is striking a “middle ground.” After all, thenhymn “Strong Mother God” was rejected by the editors.nnnprotracted warfare in Europe, WesternnAsia, and the Far East. “Majority rule”nin South Africa almost certainly wouldnresult in an anti-Western (and probablynbrutally racist) government oriented towardnthe Soviet Union and toward ancontrol of the sea routes and vast mineralnresources of southern Africa. Thendemocratization of Saudi Arabia ornother Persian Gulf states could lead tonradical Islamic and anti-Western regimesnthat could jeopardize oil flows tonthe West. The democratization ofnGreece has already led to the mostnanti-American government in Europe,nand the democratization of Spain hasnendangered our military bases there.nThe democratization of the Philippinesnhas led to the doubling of the communistninsurgency there, to increased politicalncorruption and anti-Americanism,nand also to endangerment of our bases.nMr. Fossedal’s division of the woridninto “democracies” and nondemocraciesnproceeds from an abstraction thatnbears no relationship to concrete USninterests or to what the United Statesnmust do to protect those interests. Itnlumps pro-American governments suchnas those of South Africa and Chile innthe same camp as enemies like Cubanand the Soviet Union. It puts close alliesnsuch as Great Britain in the same campnas uncooperative governments like India.nIt puts irrelevant states such asnBotswana on the same level as states likenJapan. The fact is that democracy/nnondemocracy is simply not a usefulnstandard by which to govem our foreignnpolicy. It obscures or ignores too manynother significant variables to offer anreliable guide to evaluating our interestsnor knowing how to pursue them.nOne of the persistent flaws of Mr.nFossedal’s book is his confusion of democracynwith liberal government,nthough F.A. Hayek in The Constitutionnof Liberty long ago cleariy distinguishednthem: “Liberalism is a doctrinenabout what the law ought to be,ndemocracy a doctrine about the mannernof determining what will be thenlaw.” As Hayek (and many others)nnoted, there is no necessary connectionnbetween liberalism and democracy,nand in fact liberal government wasnsecured in England and the UnitednStates in the 18th and 19th centuriesnwell before the advent of democracy.nThe growth of democracy, as notednabove, is historically associated with then