The conclusion must be, then, thatnthere is some other desideratum besidesnthe three criteria of the minimal statenthat Crozier reveals to us. I would suggest,nwithout further elaboration, thatnthis desideratum consists precisely of anpublic orthodoxy that views man as bothnfixed and flawed and of the preservationnof a social and political structure fluidnenough to prevent the monolithic concentrationnof power. It is precisely thisnphilosophical legacy and this kind ofnsocial and political structure that characterizenthe West and which justify thenextension of “Western” ideas to geographicallynnon-Western polities that,nsuccessfully or not, try to emulate usnrather than models that have more inncommon with non- or anti-Westernnsystems. Whether Western societies willncontinue to exhibit these fundamentalnobstacles to totalitarianism remains inndoubt.nThe prospect of Western dissolutionnand incipient totalitarianism is a thing ofnjoy to Mr. Edward S. Herman of, oddlynenough, the Wharton Business School.nProfessor Herman’ s The Real Terror Networknis intended both as a reply to ClairenSterling’s 1981 The Terror Network,nwhich revealed covert Soviet support fornterrorist organizations and activities innWestern Europe and the Middle East,nand as an indictment of American “satellization”nof the Third World “NationalnSecurity States” (i.e., our allies). Mr.nHerman’s sources for his indictment includenvirtually every far-left lobby andnthink tank in the country, including thenInstitute for Policy Studies (IPS), CovertnAction Information Bulletin, and Counterspy.nAmong the individuals to whomnhe gives acknowledgements is the CIAnrenegade Philip Agee, and he cites annumber of other denizens of the anti-nAmerican left. It is not surprising thatnHerman’s book contains such gems asn”following the death of Stalin, torturensharply declined and in many forms disappearednaltogether in the Soviet Unionnand in the Soviet sphere of influence.”nHe wonders, too, why people like Lechn181nChronicles of CulturenWalesa are given so much attention innthe Western media while hardly anybody,nit seems, notices that “seriousncrimes in Guatemala are suppressed.”nHe blames the media for disseminatingn”claims without the slightest attempt atncritical evaluation” and for waxing “hystericalnwith humanistic concern” over thenPol Pot genocide in Cambodia. Henopines that totalitarianism is a modelnmore applicable to the National SecuritynStates (which include Israel as well asnChile and any other ally of the UnitednStates) than to Cuba or the Soviet Union.nPerhaps the most mind-boggling partnof Herman’s rantings is his inclusion ofnthe media as an element of the vast conspiracynof the CIA, the multinationals,nthe U.S. government, and the ubiquitousn”New Right” which is seeking toncontrol the world. He denies, of course,nthat his is a conspiracy theory—rather, henmaintains, imperialist anticommunismnis inherent in the “structure” ofnAmerican society. But the denial is simplyna tactic permitting him to disclaimnpolitical prejudice and still indulge innhigh moral dudgeon at the nefariousnIn the forthcoming issue of Chronicles of Culture:nPolitics & Good Tasten”Behind the debate on strategy is the realization—by both sides—that the oldndeterrence doctrine is dead. In trutK, it probably never existed. The Soviet Unionnnever accepted the idea of a ‘mutual suicide pact,’ nor did it have any compellingnlogic of its own. The peace was kept not by an arcane theory but by Americannmilitary superiority. The ability of the U.S. to inflict devastation on the U.S.S.R.nwithout suffering comparable damage itself (which was the condition of thenbalance of power through the 1950’s and early 1960’s) was a deterrent based on anwar-fighting capability, even if it was not characterized as such at the time. It is thendesire to prevent the restoration of this American superiority that motivates theninternational left.”n—from “The Debate on Strategy”nby William R. Hawkinsn”Few things are more important to the emotional well-being of humans than theirnsense of place, and few subjects are discussed so rarely. Perhaps because scholarshipnis normally an urban, if not always urbane, occupation; perhaps because the studynof psychology grew in urban settings and was conducted by cosmopolitan scholars;nperhaps because it is fashionable to praise cities as places of culture and see ruralnsettings as the home of rubes, the topic has been virtually ignored. … A sense ofnplace is one of the anchors that can hold our lives fast in turbulent times, remindnus that there are some things that do not erode with change. Even if the place itselfnfalls victim to the urban renewers’ wrecking tools, or is replaced with a nice,nprofitable parking lot, the memory of it can sometimes help.”n—from “The Sense of Place”nby Curtis StadtfeldnAlso:nOpinions & Views—Commendables—:In FocusnPerceptibles—Waste of MoneynThe American Proscenium—Stage—Screen—Art—MusicnCorrespondence—Liberal Culture—Social RegisternJournalism—In My Solitudennn