if he persists in being one, somethingnwill happen to his Presidency (somethingnNixonian, we presume.nThe CBS-New York Times poll (as ifnpolls were not the laughingstock ofnthis event) taken two weeks after thenelection which found out (with thenhelp of subtly contrived questions)nthat Mr. Reagan had better be a meeknand humble moderate and not dare tonimplement the ideas for which he gotna clear mandate from the voters if henwants to finish his term in peace andnharmony with the “people” who werenpolled (what “people” the Sixth AvenuenManhattan pollster had in mindnremains unsaid).nMr. AndersonnMr. Anderson—who, as we now seenclearly, was entirely fabricated by thenliberal media and a group of Hollywoodnradic-lib millionaires and pushed, vianthe television screen, into Americannhouseholds as a crossbreed of the Illinoisnversion of the Maid of Orleans and thenCapitol Hill version of Plato (originatornof ideas)—performed 50 percent worsenthan George Wallace did in 1968. HadnGeorge Wallace received the kind ofnfrantic support from the media that Mr.nAnderson had, Mr. Wallace very likelynwould have gone for two terms to thenWhite House—wheelchair or not.nSuggestionnThe American media have gone bananasngiving advice to the new President.nAs a rule they tell him what he shouldndo. We think it beneath our dignity tonadvise when we are not asked to. Butnwe would like to suggest something.nIt’s already obvious that the liberalnand radical opinion outlets are exertingnthemselves to cast Nancy Reagan into anMarie Antoinette role. Already there arenvoices predicting, with lethal sarcasm,nthe waltzing and reveling which will gonon in the new White House under thenChronicles of Culturenauspices of a lady who’s sort of infatuatednwith the tinsel and gloss of thenAmerican Versailles. They call it an”Glen Miller Presidency”—and thenvenom contained in this appellation farnexceeds the routine scorn. Nancy Reagan,naccording to well-wishers in thengossip columns of Manhattan publications,nis supposed to pirouette over thenworst outburst of inflation in the nation’snhistory, surrounded by Adolphocladnladies and gentlemen in long tails,namong buffet tables covered with thenmost refined hors d’oeuvres, while thenpeople will not be able to afford a Mc­nDonald’s cheeseburger.nWe would be glad if Mrs. Reagannwould find ways to render the liberalnlust for Schadenfreude moot.nMega-A bortionnIn the Village Voice of November 19,n1980, two full months before Mr. Reagan’sninauguration, a bemused readerncould contemplate an ad:nIMPEACH REAGANnOrganize now. Info: Write ImpeachnReagan FOB 1604, Camden, NJn08101. nnlournalism.nThe World of The NationnThe Nation is America’s oldestnjournal of opinion. It has always beenncommitted to progress, or to what itsnpublishers and editors see as progress.nAs such, it coalesced progressives fromnboth the populist spheres of the Americannculture and the privileged oligarchy,nplutocracy, establishment. The populistsnsupplied the ideas, the oligarchynthe money—they were unified by whatnwas once called the communion of enlightenment,nand is now called intellectuality.nToday, The Nation is not only pro­nnngressive but also gauchiste. This meansnit espouses radically leftish notions innpolitics and culture without beingnmoored in any codified, sectarian formula.nA furtive peek at the mastheadnsuffices to determine that the scions ofnthe former New England and New Yorknpatriciate may still be providing thenmoney. This enables The Nation notnonly to promote the subversion of domesticninstitutions that are still cherishednby simple-minded Americans but,nfirst and foremost, to undermine freendom in the world and facilitate the communistnconquest of this planet. Why thendescendants of Manhattan bankers andnBoston Brahmins would do such a thingnis an arch-American riddle.nThe world of The Nation is one innwhich free enterprise is an impoverishingnagent and Israelis are always aggressors.nIn its world, for any crimencommitted by Castro, Manley, Allendenor Mugabe there is an explanationncouched in blue-ribbon relativism.nNothing, perhaps, better exemplifies thenclassic, rampant, liberal Tartuffery ofnThe Nation than a recent article onnUruguay: it bewails the calamities ofnthat country’s ruling junta, which hasnbrought down what was “once a peacefulndemocratic welfare state . . . known . ..nfor its democratic stability.” Nowherenin the text could one find a word aboutnthe Tupamaros — the vicious, radicalnnew-leftist gang composed mostly ofnthe jaded offspring of the wealthy andnthe middle class—who turned life innUruguay, during the 70’s, into an anarchicnnightmare of bestial terror and endlessnkilling. The Nation does not paynattention to such details of history asnthe origins of military dictatorships.nThe Nation’s ideological dialectic isnrather like the call-and-response structurenof a gospel hymn or a blues. Younsay “America,” and the editors lament,n”Imperialism”; you say “Lenin,” andnthe choir bewails, “Good intentions, butnhelds!”; you say, “Middle Class,” andnthey sob, “Reactionary oppression!” Everynissue exudes a sort of spiritual incense,nfumes which emanate from then