reasons, nota bene) and this political preference gives her thenfull support of the Liberal Establishment of publishers, editors,ncritics and journalists, who have nothing but polite patiencenfor Catholicism and its complex philosophical tradition, but anwarm sentimentality for communism, especially if it has wonnone’s conscience—the very essence of liberal morality.nWhich brings us to the conclusion that, all magnanimitynnotwithstanding, the Establishment virtually controls thenliterary life in America. Some would call it oppression. Thatndoes not preclude caprice. The Establishment is powerfulnenough to give space in its periodicals for reviewing PaulnJohnson, whom it heartily dislikes. But, it will reduce DiananTrilling’s voice to the minimum because she admonishes thenEstablishment’s critics:n”It is the critic who is supposed to warn us not to benseduced by art and who is delegated to ask questionsnabout the worth of the codes which are being offered us.nIt is always a first task of the critic to make the implicitnexplicit. His is always—or so, at any rate, I believe it tonbe—a moralizing function, whatever additional criticalnpurpose he may also be pursuing. And it is today, whennhe gives sign of being most eager to forget this responsibility,nthat we have most need to recall him to it.,.”nAnd it will suppress news about Peter Berger who, in hisnbook, tries to save common sense by restoring its bonds withnthe authorities of religion, tradition, social responsibility andnmoral commitment. The Establishment has little sympathynfor this kind of appeal.nw, have titled this issue “The Literary Season of Muddlenand Venom in America.” We certainly do not believe that anneat uniformity of views and tone make for a good culturalnscene. We stand for multiplicity of art and intellectual expression,nfor pluralism of literary voices. But it looks as if the lastnyear was exceptionally marred by virulent incoherence. ThenLiberal Establishment currently enshrines a gamut of ideasnwhich have been compromised by the history of the past decade.nNonetheless, the two books on the Sixties we survey here, innspite of the thoroughness of their scrutiny, unabashedly fosterna legend. Some would say it matters little; nothing of undisputednvalue remains from the Sixties; the subcultural movementnthat was called counterculture, and seemed to fascinate thenEstablishment’s critics and journalists, left nothing permanentnexcept a hairdo. No novel, no play, no movie with distinctlynidiosyncratic features, substance or message, will be remembered,nwhile the music of the era, in my opinion, will distinguishnitself only through “We Shall Overcome.” Dr. Fox aptly pointsnout in her review of Loose Change that as of now we havenvirtually no literary account of the majority of the Sixties’nyouth, the ones who were not hippie, drug addict, runaway,ndrifter, dropout, groupie, sex hobo—because the novels, essays,nplays, treatises and songs were written only about the onesnwho were. Which means that only a small segment of thensocial stratum got any hearing from the Liberal Establishmentnthat controls the culture. We have been given a falsified image.nIs there any chance that the Establishment will change itsnstance and restore some balance.’ Not to my mind. The rulingnEstablishment believes in liberal ideas: that freedom shouldnnot be tainted by concerns about moral conduct; that no deliverancencan be found in a sense of order, or in traditionalnphilosophies; that permission unsubstantiated by reason isnprogressive while restriction backed by reason is not; thatneven aimless change is superior to a thoughtfully-preservednstatus quo. The Establishment is powerful enough to upholdnimageries which are mendacious, and patterns of thinking andnfeeling which have become~discredited. A liberal hypocrisynpermeates Davidson’s and Dickstein’s texts: they depict emptinessnand failure without acknowledging that central reality,nwhich smacks of literary swindle. Davidson’s heroines, thengroupies of Zeitgeist, seem never to have made a decision innany way concerned with human dignity: they just react tonsigns of a lifestyle. However, they are considered worthy ofndescription and critical insight, whereas that enormous majoritynof youth who did not rebel, fornicate, take drugs and challengenthe war are not accorded much introspective treatment. Theynwere, perhaps, judged too colorless for fiction and too boringnfor socio-psychological tracts. And if, by chance, some heedlessnwriter was tempted by their stories, she or he wouldn’t benreviewed. Or would be persecuted, as Joyce Burditt was, whosenmisfortune is reported in our Commendables section.nA, Luyone who, unobscured by prejudice, considers thencultural scene, must acknowledge that a variety of ideas isnnecessary to make American culture once again a home forneverybody. As it stands now—ideas do not have equal opportunitiesnin America. There are ideas which are welcome innthe pages of the nation’s most prestigious publications and onnthe airwaves, and other ideas which are excluded from them.nThe Chronicles of Culture is a modest attempt to challengenthe almighty Establishment which preaches democracy andnjustice, but exploits its cultural sovereignty by ostracizingnopposing views. —Leopold Tyrmandn• If you are not yet a member or supporter of the Rockford College Institute, and would like to become one;n• If you would like to learn more about it;nThe Rockford College Institutenplease contact;nRockford CollegenRockford, Illinois 61101nTelephone: 815/226-4016nnnChronicles of Culturen