Anderson and his wife] concluded thatnhe had neither the wealth nor the connectionsnto rise very far very fast, theyncame home to try a different route tontheir dreams.” This route was to travelnas an archconservative from Rockfordnto Washington, D.C. Once there, Mr.nAnderson discovered, in the mid-60’s,nthat occasionally bending his course tonthe left could mean a voyage to felicitousnrewards. Finally, he found thatnforcefully directing his track toward thenliberal dogma promised success, prosperity,nadmiration and the friendship ofnthe opinion-making powers that be. Thenpress maintain loudly that Mi. Anderson’sncongressional record, zig-zaggynas it is, proves that he only voted hisnconscience. Curiously enough, his consciencenwas meticulous in seeing to itnthat he landed in liberal favor.nThe Nation, a magazine whichnstaunchly supports Marxism abroad andnsocialism at home (paid for with oldnbourgeois money), held a symposiumnof its contributors, sponsors and sympathizersnwho were supposed to expressnthemselves about Mr. Anderson’s candidacy.nThe majority of them enthusiasticallyndeclared themselves for it. Onenof them, Mr. Alan Wolfe, a member ofnNation’s editorial board, said: “LetnAnderson run . . . The more disruptionnthe man can cause, the better. To thendegree that America is divided, disruptednand disunified, the world is thatnmuch safer … .”(LT)nLest You Be Mistaken,nMr. President—nAfter the death of the ERA in Illinois,nPresident Carter expressed grave concernnfor this country, this democracynand this civilization. His statementnproved that he had completely misunderstoodnthe situation. The repudiation ofnthe ERA was not an act of ideologicalnand political retrogression, nor was it anpopular vote against women’s rights ornequal human rights. It was a rejectionnof one of the Liberal Culture’s tenets, toonmany of which have been rammed downnthe throats of the American people bynliberal social engineering, liberal elitismnand establishmentarianism. It is notnequality and fairness that have beennrepudiated, but the antihuman excessesnof the American Behavioral Left and itsntotalitarian encroachment in America.nGenuinely related to this event is anpiece of socioanalysis which appearednrecently in the New York Times SundaynMagazine. In this article, a couple ofnjournalists argue that Reagan’s currentnadvances are the result of the atomizationnand social indifference of the “MenGeneration,” urban narcissism, the antisocial,neven antipatriotic, mood of thenfreshly emancipated younger generation.nIt requires a lot of intellectual acrobaticsnto graft the “do-your-own-thing”nsocioideological motto to Reagan conservatismnand the forces behind it. Butnthis is what the Times and its subtlemindednopinionmongers tried to do. Andnthen they profess not to understand whatnhappened in Illinois.nPresident Carter, therefore, hasnproved himself as narrow-minded as thenTimes’s editors with their vaunted perspicacity.nNeither he nor they seem tonunderstand the essence of the oppositionnto the ERA. They refuse to listen to thenopponents’ arguments, in keeping withnthe best authoritarian tradition of NewnYork-Washington, D.C. liberalism.nThus, they fail to comprehend twonfundamental premises:n—that anti-ERA is a women’s movement.n—that at stake are privileges, notnrights, which the majority ofnwomen in this country recognizeninstinctively.nThe passage of the ERA would bestownenormous privileges on a minority ofnnnwomen with political afnbitions andnmostly left-radical inclinations—thenfeminist operators—and-welfare womennwho are victims of economic anomaliesnand mismanagement. The vast majoritynof middle-class women, however, bothnhomemakers and professionals, havenpractically nothing to gain and a lot tonlose from their most-often privilegednexistential and social difference.nBut have the liberal ideologists evernreally listened to an adversary’snargument? DnloiiriialismnFirst AmendmentnIn late June, a conference on drugnabuse was held at Columbia University’snCollege of Physicians and Surgeons. Thentitle of the two-day symposium wasn”Drug Abuse in the Modern World: AnPerspective for the Eighties.” It wasnsponsored by the Helen Clay Frick Foundation,nthe Alcoa Foundation and thenGelardin Foundation. Its program wasnorganized in cooperation with the InternationalnMedical Council on Drug Usenand the American Council on Marijuana.nAmong its 40-odd speakers werenrepresentatives from major universitiesnin the United States, West Germany,nSweden and Switzerland, widely respectednauthorities on psychiatry, neurology,npharmacology and social medicine,nlaw enforcement officers, militarynexperts, clergymen, social workers andncultural activists.nOne of the professions that couldnhave claimed involvement with the socialnreality of drugs and which had nonrepresentation was journalism. Nor didntfie conference seem to be considerednnewsworthy by news organizations.nNeither CBS cameras nor New YorknTimes reporters could be spotted. Thenreason for this omission may have beennthat the scientists and social observersnwho spoke were known to be firmly opposednto the recreational use of narcoticsni41nJuly/August 1980n