infinity. It does not matter whether thenrepresentative is a Democrat or a Republican,na liberal or a conservative, annabortionist or a pro-lifer, a rake, anpervert, a thief, or a drunk. All he hasnto do is make sure enough of us get ournshare of the gravy, that the balance ofnthose who think they are getting somethingnfrom the government is maintainednover those who know they arengetting shafted. Thanks to the diabolicalnsystem of withholding, this is madenmuch easier. We do not blame ournrepresentatives for the tribute we pay,nbut thank them for what we get back.nThe very meaning of representationnhas been transformed into somethingnour forefathers would not have recognizednby the term.nIn order to understand why representativengovernment has been alterednbeyond recognition, we have to understandnwhat it meant to our fathers. Thenexecutive branch of the government,nespecially of the federal government,nwas regarded by most people, exceptnthe lucky few of placemen and monopolists,nas a necessary evil. Thenpurpose of representatives was to protectnthe communities which they representednfrom the depredations of thengovernment. This is why revenue billsnhad to originate in the House of Commonsnand the House of Representatives.nIt was understood that the main jobnof the representative was to protect andndefend the community — to give thenlaw to its potential oppressor, the government;nto make sure the government’snimpositions on the communitynwere really necessary for the generalnwelfare and were confined in strict andnlawful limits.nTwo-year terms were a way of makingnthe representatives refer back tontheir communities frequently so thatnthey would not be seduced away by thenpayola and honors that it was in thenpower of the executive to confer. Turnovernwas also an affirmation of governmentnof the people in another sense.nThe representative was temporary. Hencame from the ranks of the people andnwhen his term was done there henreturned, to live as an equal citizennunder the benefits or the burdens ofnthe laws he had made.nBut one of the things that has happenednin recent years is that congressmennhave been insulated from then6/CHRONICLESnconsequences of their acts. Whethernfrom malice, from ignorance, fromnirresponsibility, from cowardice, ornfrom some combination of these, theyncan decree for us war, taxation, inflation,ncrime, busing, abortion, and socialndecay, whatever they wish. Theynare largely immune — after all, the fewnwho are unlucky enough to be turnednout have their pensions, their appointmentsnto the bench or the executivenbranch, nice jobs as lobbyists and “consultants,”netc. etc. etc.nThe traditional representative wasnnot only a representative, he was also anleader. In the high original concept ofnAnglo-American democracy, the representativenwas not a machine whonregistered the preferences of 51 percentnof his constituents. He was, rather,nan exceptional person entrustednwith a high responsibility, along withnwhich went the scope to exercise hisnown wisdom and ethics in pursuit ofnthe long-term best interests of thencommunity. That is, he was expectednto be not a mouthpiece but a statesman.nUntil this century, nearly all thengreat and admirable political figures innthe British and American traditionnwere parliamentarians — not thosenwho promised the people everything,nbut those who showed the people whatnwas needed.nNeedless to say, we do not findnmany statesmen of this sort in ournCongress, which is as much a reflectionnon our virtue as on theirs. In ordernto have such representatives again wenwould have to elect people with intelligencenand moral determination to considernthe interests and welfare of societynin a larger time-frame than the nextnelection or the next brown bag full ofnmoney. And people with a highernconception of their duty than constituentnservice or following the recommendationsnof their pollsters and publicitynagents.nThere is, then, in the minds of ourncongressmen no reason why theynshould not receive a raise, whether wenwant them to have one or not. Theynare the brokers who handle an immensentransfer of wealth from hand tonhand — and brokers are always entitlednto a handsome percentage of what theynhandle. They do not work for us. Theynare the servants of Leviathan, and it isnLeviathan that rewards them.n^ Clyde WilsonnnnTHE INSTITUTE for AdvancednStudy, the research center in Princeton,nNew Jersey, was founded 60 yearsnago around the figure of AlbertnEinstein. When I was named membern(1989-1990) the inestimable WilliamnSafire said to me, “Oh, Jack! That’snwhere they send the geniuses!”nSo strong is the presence of Einsteinnthat people hereabouts readily forgetnyou just can’t institutionalize genius.nWhatever their spiritual gifts, Franciscans,nunlike St. Francis of Assisi, can’tntalk to birds — and when they try, thenbirds don’t listen. So here, too, whateverntheir formidable pretentions andnhowever great some of their predecessors,nnot many Institute professors arengeniuses. But they all know how to actnthe part.nJudging from the two schools of IASnI know well, the School of HistoricalnStudies and the School of Social Sciences,nthe staff is made up of peoplenwho range from above average but notnmainstream (social sciences) to thenquite good but not all that brilliantn(historical studies).nAll of them are presentable figuresnin their field. None could be regardednas an intellectual leader in his subjectn— no R.R. Palmer, no George Kennan,nno Felix Gilbert (the Institute’snclass-acts now retired), no counterpartnto a William MacNeil or a EugenenGenovese for instance — nobody brilliant,ncontroversial, and agenda-setting.nBut then, how much genius is therenin any generation? And why mustnthere always be a genius in everynsubfield of (for instance) history, fornwhich an opening exists? And thereinnlies the lesson. Why think that the sixnfields of history IAS covers will have annEinstein ready for you the day that younneed one? Chances are, you’ll just getnsomebody competitive in the field as itnis practiced that day, not the one who isnshaping the field as it will be studied forna hundred years.nWhy not institutionalize genius?nBecause it happens when and where itnhappens, this field today, another fieldntwenty years from now. Genius isnGod’s joke on the rest of us. IAS todaynis what happens when you don’t believenin Grace: you believe, instead, innyour own press notices. Fields of studynare what they are, until some lonely,nself-absorbed, stubborn narcissist persistsnand, by accident or sheer weight ofn