Editor^s CommentnIn contrast to what the liberal propaganda infuses intonthe popular American consciousness, the modern secularnantiliberalism is fundamentally an intellectual movementnwhich — thus far — has yet to reach the masses in a coherent,npolitically processed manner. A few decades ago, itngained impetus from a group of university professors whonperceived the moral horrors of communism, the perverseninanities of liberal economic “solutions,” and the cynicalnvulgarity of liberal culture. Its foes falsely associate thisnmovement with low-brow, right-wing politics. Big Business,nor suspect religionism.nA he truth is that for half a century low-brow fanaticismnhas been mostly on the left in American politics, and bignmoney has been a generous source of liberal power, a gluenlinking together two omnipotent liberal establishments —nthe political one with the cultural one. After all, the Kennedysnare multimillionaires whose bombastic posturing onnbehalf of the downtrodden never inclined them to renouncentheir wealth. The Rockefeller Foundation and the Mott Foundationn(General Motors’ money) could be spotted recentlynamong the underwriters of The National Resource CenternAgainst the Radical Right, together with the National ConsumernLeague, United Auto Workers, National Council ofnChurches and Gay Activists Alliance. This zealotry goes farnbeyond the personal connection between big money andnleftist politics: it somehow determines the general culturalnclimate in America. Radical film stars these days are multimillionaires,nso are countless radical intellectual artists andnwriters. The Ford and Guggenheim foundations pour hundredsnof millions of dollars into liberal and radical causes,nand it takes some doing to find nonliberal, or conservative,nintellectuals and scholars on their lists of grants. The multibillionndollar advertisement and public relations industry isnever ready to champion liberal causes: no one ever sawnMadison Avenue up in arms defending nonunionized workers,nbut everybody has seen its strenuous efforts on behalf ofnradical chic and California grape-pickers. The multimillionairenMarlon Brando, and his equally endowed colleagues,nwould consider it an insult to suggest that they contributenfinancially to the action fund for keeping universities freenfrom governmental intervention; they would immediatelynprovide money to any leftist initiative to politically underminenthe freedom of American education. Time magazinenwould consider it beneath its dignity to review ProfessornMolnar’s book, ask Professor van den Haag for an opinion,nor consult Professor Robert Nisbet; it will, however, prominentlynadvocate books of “socially alert” (that is, left-radical)nChristian “moralists,” feature opinions of psychologicalnquacks with impeccable liberal credentials, and seek consultationnof modish revisionist historians who know how tonsensationalize history by catering to liberal prejudice.nChronicles of CulturennnAnd so it goes — the everlasting liberal distortion andnabuse so persistent that it smacks of absolutism in liberalnsheep’s clothing. The liberal politician John Anderson, whennfacing a conservative in a primary election, knew perfectlynwell that his opponent’s money came from a mail fund-raisingncampaign, that is, from a mass of modest donations fromnconservatives; nonetheless he spoke constantly about an unnamedncabal, a financial conspiracy to defeat him — whichnis an obvious falsification of reality. Concealing the facts innpolitics is an accepted tactic. In this case, however, it hadnmuch more serious implications. It signaled an ideologicalnbigotry of totalitarian nature, an encroachment upon a truthnmuch more significant than political truth, actually an attemptnto structure a socially dangerous myth. Perhaps Mr.nAnderson does not comprehend that those who oppose himnare people, not elites, or right-wing clans, or obscurantistnfundamentalists; his brand of liberalism entitles him, in hisnmind, to opposition only from shady quarters, not from decentnAmericans whom he cannot conceive as rationally opposednto liberal ideas and voting records. He, himself, thusnbecomes a mental victim of the liberal propaganda machinenwhose fibs he indiscriminately buys, having been taught bynlife that truth does not pay in politics. He seems not to understandnthat politics has become a function of culture, andncultural lies, tactical or not, have feedbacks difi^erent fromnpolitical ones. Which is exactly why, these days, strong antiliberalncurrents are suffusing all sectors of the Americannsociety.nUnder these conditions, to attain a primary effectiveness,nnonliberals and conservatives in America must begin theirnown tmthful and responsible muckraking. Without this unsavorynactivity it will be impossible to undo the harm done,nfor example, to the equal opportunity principle, which, afternall, still remains an arch-American ideal. We still live in anreality where someone better than average is put into a rigidndenominational box. “He is a great scientist,” you routinelynread in the press, “and a liberal,” which means good by connotation;nwhereas you also read: “He is a great writer,nbut a conservative,” which means bad by connotation,nthus you are asked to forget his name, it’s not even worthnmentioning’ in the future, because what he stands for cannonly be denounced. Such a state of affairs will not be reversednwithout some resolute antiliberal unkindness whichnwill eventually expose, for the benefit of the nation, modernnliberalism’s nature. The New American Review has, of late,ncome up with the term: “Gentlemen-Socialists,” meaningnthose victorious and celebrated sociobehavioral radicals innthe academe, arts and letters who can now afford to projectnthe air of lofty and benign gentlemanliness. I’m afraid manynnonliberals and conservatives have thus far not understoodntheir role. Although civility and honor are high on the listnof conservative tenets, the conservatives must first start pinningnon the liberals the latters’ obvious sins and aberrationsn