sumptions. Speaker after speakernopened with a ritualistic attack onn”mercantilism” and “economic nationalism”nbefore turning his attentionnto ways of helping American firmsndefeat their foreign rivals — the veryngoal of mercantilists and economicnnationalists!nDespite the attempt to link mercantilismnwith isolationism, just the oppositenis true. Mercantilism was the policynof governments that recognized thenopportunities opened by sea-trade withnAsia and the discovery of the NewnWorld. Each country wanted its merchantsnand industrialists to capture asnlarge a share of the available wealth,nresources, and markets as possible. Itnwas a philosophy of national capitalismnborn of dynamism. As Carl J. Freidrichnonce said of mercantilism, “It may,nindeed, be called the most comprehensiventheory of the emergent modernnstate.” Thus when IRET speakersnurged American business to expandninto new markets and to develop newnproducts in order to expand their sharenof the international economy, and fornchanges to be made in tax policy to aidnthis expansion, they were speaking asnmercantilists without knowing it.nBarry Rogstad, president of thenAmerican Business Conference andnAbraham Krasnoff, CEO of PallnCorp., were the most aggressive examplesnof unconscious mercantilism.nTheir theme was “we must fight everywherento win anywhere.” Both emphasizednthe need for American firms tonpenetrate the home market of rivals innorder to weaken them by denying themna secure base. The value of a largendomestic market to achieve economiesnof scale and to support advances alongnthe learning curve is substantial. Fromnthis base, firms are able to expand intonexport markets.nThis strategy has been used withndevastating effect by foreign companiesnin the US market, yet neither speakernaddressed this problem. They couldnnot see that the logic for attackingnforeign markets also held for the neednto protect domestic markets. Rogstadncame close when he allowed thatn”dominance at home leads to dominancenoverseas.” And Krasnoff notednthis truism as the reasoning behind thenrising barriers to US exports around thenworld. He was particularly worriednabout the economic integration of Eu­n8/CHRONICLESnrope set for 1992. The Europeans arenseeking a large “internal” market theirnindustries can dominate. They wish toncreate an advantage, not throw onenaway as the US has done.nThe pressure of competition forcesnpeople to abandon ideologies based onnabstractions. Performance and resultsnbecome the uncompromising standardsnof policy. Conservatives havenlong recognized the theoretical errorsnthat underiine the economic failure ofnsocialism, but have been less able to seenit within their own camp. Slowly, however,nthe requirements of industrialnpolicy and strategic trade are makingnthemselves felt. It is time to break thenparalyzing spell cast by liberal globalismnand advance the position of the USnin the centuries-old struggle for economicnadvantage.n— William R. HawkinsnTHE “AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONncurriculum” returns east: T. EdwardnHollander, New Jersey’s higher educationnchancellor, has argued that collegenteachers should “rethink what theynteach and . . . seek ways of bridgingnthe gaps between their areas of expertisenand the diverse student populationsnin New Jersey colleges and universities.”nWhat this obscure languagenmeans is that Hollander wants NewnJersey’s higher educational institutionsnto have faculty members introducenteaching “practices” and curriculumnreform that reflect the contribution ofnnonwhites and women to this culture.nIf embraced. New Jersey will be thenfirst state system of higher education tonintroduce the notion of an “affirmativenaction curriculum.” Hollander hasnconceded the controversial nature ofnthe plan, but has insisted this measurenis needed and “the step is morallynright.” He also noted that he would notncoerce faculty to change the content ofntheir classes. He says he plans to usenthe carrot, not the stick—employing anreward system for those colleges thatnsubscribe to the new approach.nNonetheless, there is little questionnthat the chancellor is sending a messagento the faculties in state-supportedncolleges and universities. He contends,n”We must do that which is both morallynright and educationally sound tonensure that our students are intellectuallynand culturally equipped to func­nnntion and live in a global and highlyndiverse society. Our campuses mustnbecome multicultural communitiesnwhich honor and respect diversity.”nThe instrument the New JerseynHigher Education Department willnuse to foster change in the curriculumnis an initial fund of $300,000 forn”multicultural projects.” One need notnbe too imaginative to realize thatn”multicultural” in the present climatenmeans feminist studies, black studies,nand the prevailing orthodoxy aboutncurrent affairs, including a romanticninterpretation of the so-called ThirdnWorld.nWhile Hollander rationalizes his approachnas a bold attempt to recognizenother cultures in the curriculum, annunexceptional goal, everyone —nincluding Hollander, I suspect —nrecognizes full well that this reformnrepresents the installation of an approachndesigned to appease radicalnsentiments on campus.nEven more important, in offeringnrewards for a way of perceiving issues,nthe state is now determining legitimacynfor the “right way” of thinking. Thosenopposed to feminism as an ideology ornthose who consider the traditions of thenThird Worid less worthy of study thannthe traditions of the West, will tacitlynand possibly overtly be informed thatntheir positions cannot be recognized atnNew Jersey campuses. One can onlynwonder how academic freedom will benretained in an environment where formalnpreference is given for a point ofnview.nPerhaps the central issue in thenHollander position is his implicit beliefnin the fungibility of subjects and culture.nThe essential readings of Westernncivilization are invariably trivialized bynthe assumption that a woman or anblack or a voice of the Third World cannby virtue of birthright replace the traditionsnof Western democracy and itsnaccompanying sense of honor and tolerance.nThat the highest educationalnofficer in New Jersey would propose sondaring a reform in order to counter thenmonopoly of white Western men innthe curriculum — his description — is,nin my view, a manifestation of a formnof Philistinism I’d hoped would remainnat the elite schools like Stanford.n—Herbert Londonn