institutionalize the mentally ill for thenbenefit of all New Yorkers, includingnthe homeless, the ACLU declared ancivil right to live on busy thoroughfares.nOne of Koch’s “captives,” an obviouslynderanged woman, was even invitednto lecture at Harvard, while others gaventhe woman a job and a new set ofnclothes, all apparently to show thatnwhat the homeless merely needed werena “chance” and a “break.” Before 60nMinutes could even get this “successnstory” on the air, the woman hadntraded in civility for a return to hernprevious calling: defecating on thenstreets of Manhattan. (Perhaps this wasna value judgment on New York, fornwhich she ought to qualify for an NEAngrant as a performance artist.)nThere is, of course, no long-termnanswer to homelessness. There willnalways be drunkards, addicts, slackers,nand the insane who will end up on thenstreets either by choice or circumstance.nWhat advocates for the homelessnactually despise is not the homelessnessnitself, but what homelessnessnmirrors about humanity’s darker side:nabout the incurability of human sufferingnand sin and the fatuousness ofnmodernity’s promise of the perfectibilitynof man and his social institutions.nWe think it tragic that a society capablenof placing a man on the moon is onenincapable of curing homelessness; butnwhat is tragic is our inability to see theninanity of the comparison.nAnyone who speaks honestly aboutnthis issue will be attacked as “insensitive.”nYet, the target of condemnationnshould rightly be the administratorsnand “experts” of the National Institutenof Mental Health who inhumanelyndumped interned patients onto thenstreets. Dr. Leonard Duhl, chief ofnplanning at the National Institute ofnMental Health in the 1960’s, was onenof the architects of this policy, callingnmental illness a “socially defined condition”nthat “must be conceived as ansocial problem.” Duhl and his colleaguesnsaw hospitalization as the causenand not the cure of mental illness; itnwas society that was ill and not thenpatient, a message successfully marketednby drug guru Ken Kesey in OnenFlew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Of thenhalf-million patients in public mentalnhospitals in the early 1960’s, four outnof five were released during the nextndecade. As clinical psychiatrist E. Full­ner Torrey wrote in Nowhere to Go: ThenTragic Odyssey of the Homeless MentallynIII, deinstitutionalization consistednof “dumping unprepared patients intonunwilling and unready communities.”nThe recommendations of Tulsa’sntask force are counterproductive butnnot surprising, for they are the logicalnresult of decades of deceit and misguidednsocial policy that have harmednthe very people purported to be helped.nMcMurphy may have stimulatednChief Broom’s escape, but the chiefnisn’t living happily ever after; he’snscrunched up in a ball and drooling onnthe street corner.n— Theodore PappasnFREDERICK THE GREAT hasnbeen revived as a figure of nationalninterest among the Germans. The anticipatednattendance of German governmentnleaders at a reinterment of thengreat Prussian king (ruling betweenn1-740 and 1786) spread horrornthroughout the journalistic profession.nIn a particularly revealing report in thenWashington Post of August 17, readersnwere reminded that the German people,ndespite all efforts at reeducation,ncontinue to hold Konrad Adenauer,nMartin Luther, Otto von Bismarck asnwell as Frederick in higher esteem thannKarl Marx. Political correctness innGermany obviously involves repudiationnof even non-Nazi political andnreligious celebrities who failed to foreshadownthe progressive views of then1990’s.nAs late as my graduate school educationnin the mid-1960’s, Frederick thenGreat remained an authentic hero tonmy social democratic emigre professors.nA friend of Voltaire and MosesnMendelssohn who insisted on writingnand speaking in French, the animatingnspirit behind the Prussian Landrechtnthat aimed at minimizing legal distinctionsnamong social classes, and a practitionernof religious tolerance, Fredericknwas held up by my impeccably leftleaningnand usually Teutonophobicngraduate professor, Hajo Holborn, as anrelative progressive. Though Fredericknused his army to fight in dynastic warsnfor territory, so did his neighbors, includingnFrederick’s English allies in thenSeven Years War. In fact, his fathernFrederick William I, also now reputednto be a militarist, had used his armiesnnnless often than Prussia’s neighbors andnhad allowed himself to be grievouslynswindled out of part of his territorialninheritance by the Holy Roman Emperor.nMy purpose is not to show Fredericknin any kind of angelic light. It is rathernto point out what was once generallynassumed, except by the Austrian monarchynof the 1740’s and 1750’s: thatnFrederick’s geopolitical conduct wasnindistinguishable from that of othern18th-century dynasts, save by the factnthat he brought religious tolerance tonthe territories under his rule.nWhy, then, the sudden furor beingnunleashed against him and thenGerman government by Western journalists?nThe answer is the left’s neednfor Teutonophobia: without a Germannthreat to rail against, leftists cannot bencontent. Having claimed to fear thenGermans for so many years, even asnthey vegetated in a militarily weaknwelfare state democracy, the Western ,n”voice of conscience” will certainlynnot give up its hysterical tone now thatnGermany is unified. But the unceasingnoutcry has become less and less convincingnwith the passage of time. Ournprogressive journalists are keeping aliventhe fear of a German menace bynlinking both Nazi militarism and aberrantnnationalism to the popularity of anclearly anti-nationalist Prussian andncertified enlightened despot. Nevertheless,nmuch to the regret of Westernnjournalists in general and of WashingtonnPost feature-writer Marc Fisher innparticular, “warts and all,” Fredericknstill enjoys a two-to-one advantage overnKarl Marx in terms of the number ofnGermans who consider them “great.”nBut it is possible to see anotherntendency in these attacks on Germansnwho admire Frederick. Though leftistnintellectuals, including East GermannCommunists, once praised the Prussiannruler in the context of his time, thenleft no longer permits admiration fornanyone different from itself. Fredericknwas clearly different from the currentnleft, perhaps irreconcilably so. Unlikenthe exemplary German leftist WillienBrandt, for example, he was not ansocial democrat who spoke of nationalnatonement. Nor was he someone, likenMarx, who declared war on his ownnclass, though he certainly forced allnclasses to contribute money and talentnto the Prussian state. Frederick evennNOVEMBER 1991/9n