South Africa thought these reformsnwould satisfy “legitimate” Black demandsnand undercut the appeal of thenfar left. In fact, the reforms have simplynraised expectations of further reformsnthat cannot realistically or immediatelynbe granted and have playedninto the hands of the violent left.nEveryone knows what happens whennunrealistic expectations are raised. AsnDaniel Bell puts it, writing of the civilnrights movement in the United States:n34/CHRONICLES OF CULTUREnThe classic illustration of thentrajectory of expectations, firstnThe Adulteries of ArtnEdward Banfield cannot seem tonstay out of trouble. When he suggestedn(in The Unheavenly City)nthat the problems of urban Blacksnwere not so much the result ofndiscrimination as their socioeconomicnclass, he was branded a racistnand virtually hounded out of hisnchair at Penn. More recently he isnbeing called a philistine for hisngentle proposal that the governmentnhas no business funding the arts.nIn The Democratic Muse: VisualnArts and the Public Interest (BasicnBooks; New York) Banfield makes ancompelling case that the arts do notnserve the public interest in a mannernthat entities them to publicnsupport. What is more, all thisnfunding, teaching, and collecting ofnobjets distorts the true purpose andnfunction of the arts, which Banfieldnconceives of as a sort of aestheticnentertainment. Banfield may notnknow much about art, but henknows what he doesn’t like: thenprecious snobbery of collectors, curators,nand art historians who turnnwhat might have been a pleasureninto a ritual of acquisition and ancult of the original.nThe worst abuses in public artsnpolicies are found, inevitably, at thenFederal level, especially at the NationalnEndowment for the Arts.nThe idea of a national foundationnwas already kicking around Washingtonnin the 1950’s. It was only anmatter of time before it was pickednREVISIONSnlaid down by de Tocquevillenand repeated tediously sincenthen by social scientists, tells usnthat no society which promisesnjustice and, having admittednthe legitimacy of the claims,nslowly begins to open the way,ncan then expect to ride out thenwhirlwind in a comfortablenfashion.nThe irony of the sanchons is that,nintended by their moderate sponsors tonaccelerate the abandonment of apartheid,nthey will, in fact, frustrate expec-nup by the well-schooled and wellheeledngroupies that clusterednaround Jack Kennedy. Like most ofnKennedy’s more damaging notions,nit took the heavy hand of LBJ tonmake it a reality.nWhy should tax money supportnthe visual arts? Banfield is at somenpains to document the answers: itnwill improve our image abroad, itnwill enrich our lives, and—here’snthe best—it will ease tensions innthe inner cities (which obviouslynexplain why our cities are so free ofncrime). It must be said that AdamnClayton Powell, who supported thenidea of the NEA, didn’t buy thatnargument. About the only prominentnpolitician to question the constitutionalitynof arts funding wasnStrom Thurmond, when he wasnyoung enough to be reactionary.nIn other countries, at otherntimes, Banfield’s arguments mightnnot apply (Athens in the age ofnPericles, Constantinople in thenreign of Justinian), but in Americanwe used to have a fairly limited ideanof what government could do. Perhapsnit was not the best idea,nbut—as he concludes—the principlenof limited government “hasnmade America what it is.” The pastn30 years (at least) have given us antaste of what sort of America thenmanagers, artists, and intellectualsnwould use our money to create.nFrankly, most of us could find anmore harmless way of wasting ournmoney. ccnnntations even more, if their effect is tonlower Black living standards and encouragenmore violence and discontent.nThis, in turn, will help the left innSouth Africa and offer an opportunitynfor its American comrades to press forntougher sanctions in the United States.nThere is no part of the anti-apartheidncoalition that can or will resist thenconcerted imperatives of the far left.nNone of the other components of thisnmovement has the will or the principlesnto resist effectively, and once thenpremise that we should enact sanctionsnagainst apartheid is granted, there is nonlogical stopping place on the longnmarch to revolution. America may notnprovide a sealed train for the revolutionaries,nbut it is certainly helping tonbuild the track on which the train willntravel. ccnSamuel Francis is on the staff of SenatornJohn P. East. His most recentnbook is Power and History (UniversitynPress of America).nLetter From Collegenby T. Harvey HoltnThe much-ballyhooed young conservativenmovement of the early 1980’snmay soon come to an inglorious andngrinding halt. While the early 80’snwere marked by a certain gusto on thenpart of conservatives fighting to overthrownentrenched liberals, the middlen80’s are a time of unwarranted complacency.nOne can almost hear cries ofn”Reagan is in and all’s well!” throughoutnthe land. But the hard fact is thatnwhile we have a conservative WhitenHouse, the Congress (not to mentionnmost state houses) is still in the handsnof the old establishment.nThis unwarranted complacency,nwhat I call “unsecure security,” has itsnmost devastating eflFects on collegencampuses, the breeding ground of activism.nThose who started the latestnwave of campus conservatism, thenpeople who founded at least 70 conservativennewspapers and hundreds ofnconservative forum groups in the earlyn1980’s, have all since graduated. Theynare no longer around to guide and rallyntheir campus troops. The new campusnleaders were just entering high schoolnwhen Ronald Reagan was first electedn