class rather than racial lines, that middleclassnblacks are quite as fearful of lowerclassnblacks with no stake in the system asnmiddle-class whites are.nAlthough American Journey resemblesnnothing so much as a disjointednpatchwork of information, it is possible tonfollow a few threads running through it.nOne such skein is the theme of responsibility,nboth personal and political. Anyncoherent society must have a locus ofnauthority and responsibility. In a societynunder a limited government—the sortnwhich Tocqueville found here—thatnlocus will be primarily within the individualnand the family, which yield onlyna small area of responsibility to the centralngovernment. By 1980 that sense ofnindividual responsibility had diminishedndrastically. Even Reeves was a bit shockednwhen a girl of about 20 declared shenwould not fight to defend her own countryneven if it were invaded, for nothingnwas worth dying for: she accepted nonpatriotic responsibility. Dr. EugenenGalanter of Columbia Universitynremarked that “the country changednprofoundly when people accepted SocialnSecurity and the idea that they weren’tnresponsible for their parents anymore.”nThe soaring American divorce rate alsonsignals a widespread refusal to takenresponsibility, first for a spouse, then fornchildren. Throughout history there havenalways been those who declined familynresponsibilities, but until recently theirnnumber was relatively small. And finally,nwith the spread of the welfare culturenand what one observer calls a “dirty littlensecret”—that “people don’t like tonwork”—too many Americans are evenndeclining to accept responsibility fornthemselves. If there is not a recovery ofnthe ideal of responsibility expressednthrough a commitment to the family—nto one’s parents, one’s spouse, one’snchildren, and one’s self—then our societynwill become inexorably more totalitariannas the state takes on these responsibilities,nthough it may continue to appearndemocratic.nThe flight from responsibility is visiblen3SinChronicles of Cttltorenin the political sphere, as well. For example,nas the old, internalized moral restraintsnare dissolved by the liberalnculture, citizens move to protect themselvesnwith locks, alarms, and laws, includingnrules and regulations imposednby security guards upon the entirenpopulation. A prominent judge admittednto Reeves that the courts “are makingnlaw . . . and there is already too muchnlaw,” as can be seen in the cancerous proliferatonnof lawyers in our society (accordingnto the American Bar Association, atnthe end of 1978 there were almostn465,000 practicing lawyers and almostnSixth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.n’You cannot get relief anymorenin the executive and legislativenbranches. .. .Judges may not want tonmake those decisions, but they don’tnshy away from them—especially federalnjudges who have life tenure’ [emphasisnadded].nThe tradition of life tenure for judges—ntheir absolute, almost monarchical, politicalnirresponsibility—has greatly contributednto the social convulsions thatnhave wracked our society in recent decades.nJudges have decided that childrennshould not pray at school; that abortionn”Reeves’ reporting and analysis compare well with Tocqueville’s own, which is to saynthey are first-rate.”n—Timen”Richard Reeves is our St. George.’n115,000 law students in the UnitednStates, as contrasted with only 12,000nlawyers in Japan). We desperately seek tondefine responsibility through laws enforcednby lawyers, courts, and bureaucraciesnas the individual’s sense of responsibilitynerodes.n1 he recent emergence of the theorynof “judicial supremacy” provides an illustrationnof the rise of political “irresponsibility”nin our system. The nationalnand state legislatiues are still “responsible”nto the people: elected officials maynbe voted out of office if they antagonizentoo many of their constituents. In a societynriven by deep disagreements on majornissues of public policy, elected officialsnmay decline to make controversialndecisions, and they may indeed be justifiednin refusing to act in the absence of anpublic consensus on certain issues. Butnthe judicial activists do not see thingsnthat way:n’The power of the courts is becomingnawesome because they have becomenthe only place the public can findndecision making,’ said J. VincentnAug, United States Magistrate for thennn—Commonwealnshould be every woman’s right; thatnthere must be school busing for purposesnof racial balance despite massive publicnopposition; that legislatures mustnallocate fijnds to improve penal systems.nIn short, the judiciary—along with thenunelected and equally irresponsible Federalnbureaucracy—now virtually mns ournsociety, and it governs largely in accordancenwith the fashionable liberal notionsnto which Reeves generally adheres.nTo be sure, even he is occasionally troublednby the means through which hisnegalitarian ideals are achieved. Others—nwho understand the present situationnmore accurately than he—are deeplyndisturbed by the judiciary’s usurpationnof political power, and have proposednmeans of limiting the courts’ authority:ndepriving them of certain areas of jurisdiction;nimposing rules for mandatorynsentencing; abolishing the custom ofnlifetime judicial tenure; forming organizationsnto focus direct public pressurenupon judges. In shott, the problem ofnthe judiciary’s political irresponsibilitynhas become quite acute and must benresolved.nFittingly, some of these problems maynbe alleviated in the short run through then