unbounded confidence that the Americannpeople can accomphsh a greatndeal. Where people do not think ofnthemselves as victims, they are likelynto seek ways of contributing that mostnof us can barely imagine. Gingrichnrarely criticizes the institutions of thenWelfare State directly, in deference tonthe good intentions of legislators whonestablished them. He does, however,ndwell on many of the anomalies thatnhave resulted from the extended operationnof inshtuhons that view their clientsnas victims. It cannot have beennthe intention, for example, of thenplanners of Medicaid to spend countlessndollars on institutionalized carenwhen home care of comparable qualityncould be achieved at one-tenth thencost. The planners of AFDC programsncould not have intended to establish anprogram that encouraged teenagedngirls to get pregnant as a means ofnescaping parental guidance. Publicnhousing programs ought to provide thenhomeless with essential housing, notnconstruction subsidies to developersnwhere existing units are already vacant.nWhere such contradictions betweennintentions and operation of then14/CHRONICLES OF CULTUREnLiberal Welfare State come into view,nGingrich wants his fellow citizens tonlook for ways in which things could bendifferent. Then he strongly urges peoplento work for change.nGingrich draws freely from sourcesnrarely cited by conservatives. A conservativenciting John Naisbitt’s ninentrends as “inevitable”? A conservativentreating Alvin Toffler as a serious socialncommentator? A conservative invokingnCarl Sagan with approval? Fewnthings have united these observersnother than their hostility to traditionalnideas and their opposition to the principlesnthat Gingrich appears to embrace.nAt first glance, one is temptednto suspect that the ideas are linked bynan intellectual form of chicken wire.nUpon a closer reading, one recognizesnthat a Christmas tree is a more appropriatenframe of reference. Gingrichnhangs lots of ornaments here andnthere, but the trunk and the roots arenplanted in solid soil.nAlthough the reader can admire thendexterity with which Gingrich jugglesnthe ideas that he raises within thenframework that he creates, there arenstill elements of the overall packagenIn the forthcoming issue of Chronicles of Culture:nThe Arts of Lyingn”A related smptoni of media power is the fact that othernjMjncrs arc literally fighting for its attention and faxorablenjudgment. Might) Churches, States, corporations,nsndicatcs, uniers!tics, cultural institutions model theirn lews and actions in sich a \a as to present aspectsnapproed by the media. Nothing toda has status unless itnis affirmed or confirmed b the media—which can just asnrapidK take it a\a, too.”nideological icn )f the Media”nomas MolnarnMomcilo Selic deciphers the enigma of Milovan DjilasnArthur Eckstein reveals the “conservative” mind of George OrwellnBrian Murray examines the dwindling of short fictionnnnthat rest, at best, uneasily. Gingrichnrecognizes the disciplinary role of hardnwork, and stresses that true accomplishmentnrequires habits, inclinations,nand character that do not meshnwell with the perspective dominantnamong liberals in American society.’nIn affirming the necessity of disciplinednwork in developing opportunitiesnfor progress, the author believesnthat we will experience a restoration ofnthe more fundamental values of ournsociety. He never contemplates thatntechnological innovation might be anmixed blessing. His thesis is in sharpncontrast to Schumpeter’s argumentnthat capitalism presents an unceasingnseries of demands for changes in society.nWhere Schumpeter saw persistentnpressures for changes as society’s undoing,nGingrich sees such pressures asnsymptoms of the society’s efforts atnrenewal and reaffirmation of its mostnbasic principles.nGingrich never really confronts thenhard cases. Will the moral characternof our society improve if ann”effective” morning-after pill makesnabortion mills obsolete? Are we betternoff with more elaborate televisionncommunications if the tube communicatesnpornographic movies? In ThenGulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn recognizednthat modern technology isnessential for the Soviet Union to operatena prison and torture state on anmassive scale. Gingrich recognizes thencontemporary Soviet state as an abomination,nand stresses the contributionsnthat technology can make to improvednnational defense. One almost suspectsnthat his gaze is so fixed on opportunitiesnabove and beyond current limitsnthat Gingrich has neglected to considernthe darker inspirations of humannconduct. The authors of T/ie Federalistnshared, in a measured degree, Gingrich’snapparent confidence in the Americannpeople. They differed, however,nby acknowledging that serious politicalntheory must take account of the lessthan-beneficentnacts of some peoplenand provide appropriate remedies.nThese are strange times we live in,nwhen political cliches are turned onntheir heads. Gingrich and Kuttner providenan interesting spectacle of annestablishment calling itself liberal confrontednby a revolutionary calling himselfnconservative. ccn