apparently matters little that Aristotle,nPericles and Socrates also were conceptuallynconcerned with them.nThe New York Times has attemptedna feat of rare sophistication: it enlistednthe services of a certain Mr. MichaelnCalabrese, a Ralph Nader associate, whonset out to prove that Reagan was fleecingnconservatives by selling himself asna conservative, which Calabrese believesnhis record as the governor of Californiandisproves: the consumerist principlenhas thus been successfully applied tonthe protection of the conservative principle—ofnwhich the Times suddenlynhas revealed itself as the most solemnnguardian.nTime magazine ran a story oozingnwith venom. “The ideas that the governmentncauses most inflation, that anbalanced budget is necessary and thatnthe U.S. needs a major defense buildupnhave become staples of politicalnoratory, proclaimed not only by conservativenRepublicans but by many Democrats.”nEven a mediocre mind, facingnthe evidence that someone had beennright for a long time, and was recentlynproved so by his opponents’ rush to acceptnhis points, would extend its recognitionn—as a matter of grudging fairness,nat least. Not Time. With a twisted liberalnrabidity. Time asserts: “Reagan’snideas sound less than compelling,” andngoes on squirting journalistically cosmeticizednvirulence.nNation, the organ of the Eastern establishment’snoldest procommunistnmoney, calls whatever Reagan saysn”Ferocious inanities.” “Bring Back thenPols!” laments The New Republic inna lead editorial which bewails the people’snright to choose and exhorts thenreturn (well qualified by disclaimers:n”We do not advocate a return . . .”)nto the more reliable smoke-fiUed-roomsnprocedures.nAlso in The New Republic, TRB, thatnoctogenarian tower of liberal rectitude,nwho if not always correct was alwaysnpolite, heaps upon Reagan wild invectivesnin lieu of arguments: “He is thenfirst Grade B movie star ever to seekn. . . the American presidency.” What’snwrong with that.’ Isn’t this a part ofnthe 20th-century endemic Americannexperience, quite culturally infectious,nif one only remembers that the currentnPope, too, tried his skills at acting.” Butntrying “something new,” which Reagannprofesses to do, is in TRB’s eyes nowna cardinal sin. He didn’t think so whennRoosevelt, Truman and Johnson triedn”something new,” he looked eagerlynto “something new” from Adlai Stevenson,nHubert Humphrey and even Mr.nCarter.nNothing can match the hypocriticalnvituperation of the Chicago Tribune,nan organ ready to rewrite the dictionarynin order to decree who is conservativenand who is not; mourning the demisenof the Wisconsin cheese liberalismnin its primary, the Trib wrote: “… evennin Wisconsin, with its tradition of politicalnsavvy and skepticism, votersnare willing—indeed, eager—to takenhim [Reagan] at face value.” And onnan ABC news program, a TV interviewer,nfuming with barely contained hatred,ncame just short of accusing Reagan ofnlying. One wonders at the tremendousnsense of mission a man must have tonendure that kind of hostility and agreento interviews.nMr. Michael Harrington, a solid authoritynon the subject, wrote not longnago: “In America . . . there is a Leftnbased on hatred alone.” We know it.nScholarly Responsibilityn’t, a newsletter for the Universitynof New Haven community, attemptsnto live up to its title by interviewingna certain Dr. Alfred Bradshaw,nan associate professor of sociology there,nand an “expert on death and dying.”nHere is what Prof. Bradshaw has tonsay about the Jonestown massacre:n”I don’t see anything that can benlearned from it… In order to maintainna society rich in cultural diversity,nwe have to tolerate values differentnfrom our own … You know, the onlynway to eliminate Jonestowns is tonforce all people to think the same.”nA few years ago a book appeared innthe English language, on both sides ofnthe Atlantic, entitled Social Sciences asnSorcery. It was written by an Englishnprofessor of sociology. Dr. StanislavnAndreski of Reading University (andnpublished in New York by St. Martin’snPress), and it claimed that modern sociologynwas run and manipulated to angreat extent by “scientists” whose sensenof mental and moral responsibilitynscarcely exceeded that of a shaman.nBut apparently Dr. Bradshaw’s reputationnis untouched by Professor Andreski’snargument. DnTournalismnSideismnnnMr. Cronkite, one of the modernnAmerican paradigms of integrity, whosenpurity of character projection (a newnbranch of ethics) children will soon learnnabout in school, specifies the role of hisnbeloved medium in the current Americannordeal:n”TV was just a ploy in the Iraniannhostage situation — used by bothnsides.”nIn other words: the hostages, and consequently,nwe Americans were a “side.”nThe Iranian bandits were another. AndnT’V^ was a third one —and the mostnabused, according to Mr. Cronkite’snproud complaint. And it was apparentlynon its own side, not ours. DnTeen-age Pregnancy andnthe MedianTeen-age pregnancy and precociousnmotherhood are now consideredn”a crisis issue” even by feminists—then••HMM39nMay/Jttne 1980n