any sort? “Not compassion butnresentment . . . not the longing fornjustice but the desire for revenge; not anquest for peace but a call to arms . . .nnot altruism and love but nihilism andnhate. This is the poisoned well of thenradical heart; it is war that feeds thentrue radical passions.”nPowerful stuff; perhaps a little toonpowerful. Sometimes, when Colliernand Horowitz make generalized statementsnlike this, it is not quite clear whontheir exact targets are. I have tended tonuse the term “Hard Left” throughoutnthis essay, because that’s what I thinknCollier and Horowitz mean. But this isnmy formulation, not theirs; they are allntoo often satisfied with the simple termn”the left.” Yet “the left” in reality is anpretty big place, and Collier and Horowitznnever address the possibility ofnwhether there could ever be such anthing as a “responsible” American leftn— or rather, to put it bluntly, a patrioticnAmerican left. Perhaps the answer herenis “No,” because the moderate left hasnstopping for Death-April 1989-Philosopher JohnnGray on the religiosity of the peace movement, andnhow it is not a new paganism, but a decadent formnof Christianity; Thomas Fleming on the moralnbankruptcy of civil disobedience in the right-to-lifenmovement; Bryce Christensen on how deathneducation in the schools avoids the real issues of lifenand death; and poet Frederick Turner on the use andnmisuse of loaded language.nAmerican Fiction – May 1989 – A celebration ofnAmerican fiction writing that includes a lengthynaxcerpt from George Garrett’s new novel EnterednFrom the Sun. about the life and death of Elizabethannplaywright Christopher Marlowe. Plus novelistnWalker Percy on the writer as diagnostician, and anshort story by Fred Chappell.na very strong tendency to be pulledninto anti-American postures by thenhard-liners. But I don’t think that peoplenlike Irving Howe and MichaelnHarrington, however much one mightndisagree with their ideas, deserve to benlumped with Bernadine Dohrn ornKathy Boudin as potential totalitarians.nIn other words, the actual targets ofnCollier and Horowitz turn out uponninspection to be a much narrowerngroup than the general term “the left”nmight imply.nSimilarly, despite its dramatic title —nand despite the generalizations in thenlast, polemical essay — DestructivenGeneration does not have as its truensubject the 60’s generation as a whole.nThe book is really about a very smallngroup of people: around a dozen, allntold. And not every one of them isnultimately destructive: not Fay Stender,nnot the Vietnam veteran (now a policeman)nwho is the hero of anothernmajor piece, not Collier and Horowitznthemselves. I think it is true that thenRevolution: The Legacy of 1789 in France,nEngland and America – June 1989 – Revolutionsnaround the world: Geoffrey Wagner on Grenada andnthe Caribbean, Leo Raditsa on South Africa, DonnFeder on Israel’s religious revolution, and MichaelnWarder on glasnosl and the USSR. Plus GeorgenWatson on the English and French Revolutions, annupdate from Paul Hollander on political pilgrims,nand Jack Neusner reviews Profscam.nThe Burden of Liberalism – July 1989 – 1988nIngersoll Prize winner, sociologist Edward Shils, onnthe varieties of liberalism; historian George Watsonnon postwar Buchenwald: for the Soviets it was alsona death camp. Timothy Ashby reviews Hernando denSoto’s plea for unfettered capitalism in SouthnAmerica, The Other Path.nI BACK ISSUE ORDER FORMnEach issue $2.50 (postage & handling included)nTitle Date Qty. CostnStopping for DeathnAmerican FictionnRevolutionnThe Burden of LiberalismnNamenApril 1989nMay 1989nJune 1989nJuly 1989n. AddressnTotal Enclosednx$2.50 =nCity_n. State . Zip .nMail with check to: Chronicles • 934 N. Main Street • Rockford, IL 61103 CB489n32/CHRONICLESnnn60’s generation should be viewed withngreat suspicion. But this could andnshould have been demonstrated withnmore examples: for instance, the nastynthings the old 60’s radicals are doing tonour universities, where so many ofnthem have managed to take refuge.n(The fact that Bill Ayers, a centralnfigure in Weatherman terrorism, currentnhusband of Bernadine Dohrn, andna man who is still living in confidentnexpectation of the Revolution, is alsontoday a professor of education: well,nthis boggles the mind, but it is notnsomething one can find out from Colliernand Horowitz.) Similariy, many oldnunreconstructed radicals can be foundnnow on the staffs of prominent Democraticncongressmen: what a wonderfulnessay Collier and Horowitz could havenwritten on these people. But as thenbook stands, it is subject to the accusationnthat the authors have picked on —nand exaggerated the importance of—anfew particularly vulnerable targets.nBut Collier and Horowitz are correctnto point out that in the 60’sngeneration there are a fair number ofnpeople who have had second thoughtsnabout their old radicalism. These peoplenknow that the radical future is annillusion and that the American presentnis worth defending. So it is very likely,nas Collier and Horowitz indicate, thatnthe great political battles of the nextndecade will be fought out betweennthose who have had second thoughtsnabout their experiences in the 60’s, andnthose who have not. And for those ofnus who have to gird ourselves for thesenupcoming battles, Destructive Generationnis a very important book to read.nA final, personal note. This is a booknvery much about Berkeley, which isnone reason it moved me deeply —nsometimes to anger, more often tonsadness. For I have to confess thatnevery summer I go back there, to thatnspooky, living museum of 60’snattitudes — and have a wonderful time.nAnd it’s not just the amazing, clearnlight of the place, nor the use of thengreat libraries of the university. Berkeleynis also the place where I peernback — and with some sentimentalityn— at my sort-of-radical youth, to a timenwhen everything seemed humanlynpossible. It’s those “US Out of NorthnAmerica” bumper-stickers, though,nthat occasionally make me cough.nn