ists, and atheists, venal bourgeois materialistsnenormously overattentive tonthe rights of the individual, with almostnno concern with the ethical goals onlynthe community can effect or valuesnother than those instrumental to thenmaintenance of a bourgeois regime.nIn almost all ways their values ornlifestyles were antithetical to thosenexpected to be found in authenticn”republicans.” But the most legitimaten”republicans” then and now, thenChristian commons of America, cannnever be recognized as such, for theynrepresent and bring to life an orderndiametrically opposed to the effeminatensecular elite now most amusinglynself-perceived as promulgators ofn”republican” values and masculinenvirtues.nConsistent with the class bias foundnin the search for exemplars of “republicanism”nin the American past andnpresent was the papers’ distortion ofnsubstantive content of both pagan “republicanism”nand its Christian Americannvariant. The expositors of thenclassic tradition invariably dredged up anneutered and sanitized version suitablenfor contemporary liberal consumption.nGone were the racist, elitist, unabashedlynsexist, xenophobic, and jingoisticnelements, along with classical republicanism’snoverriding concern with patriotismnand ethical intrusiveness in whatnwe call the private life of the citizenn(the true republicans might very wellnfind such a phrase solecistic). Whatnremained was a pretty, dressed-up simulacrumnwhich only showed an authenticnconcern with economic egoismnand a confused approbation of somensort of group ethical existence—nwithout, however, being oppressive tonthe individual, or exclusive in terms ofngroups to be accepted.nWhat this all too closely resemblednwas the oxymoronic class dream ofnWestern intelligentsia, the “liberalndemocratic socialist utopia.” Given thendistasteful reality that Western intellectualsnhave had to confront with each ofntheir successive socialist sweetheartsn(first the Soviet Union, then China,nand then Yugoslavia, and finallynCuba), these peripatetic dreamers havenfinally found an appropriate environmentnin which to invest their sympathies—na past that they can remake inntheir own chosen image and wherenreality need not necessarily intrude onntheir fantasies.nI also found the treatment of “republicanism”namong the papers to bendistinctly deformed in yet one othernadditional way. What was ignored,nconsistent with the kind of bias Vitznhas discovered in the textbooks writtennby a similar intellectual class, is thatnAmericans, except for a handful ofncoastal elite, were not pagan “republicans”nbut Christians. In attempting tonground American “republicanism,”nmost conveniently, in 14th-centurynFlorence or among the articulate deistnpopulation of 18th-century America,nthose proponents of a renewal ofnAmerican “republicanism” feel unencumberednby the American reality.nThe reality that American “democratic”nintellectuals so studiously avoid isnthat communalism in America has almostninvariably been Christian, andnthat even today articulate spokesmennwho wish to speak to the majority ofnAmericans of the necessity and centralitynof corporate ethical visions to anfully human life must continue to donso in the language of a Christiannmoralist.nIn sum, I must indict not just thenorganizers and paper givers at the variousnAPSA panels this past summer,nbut given their likely representativennature, I must hold responsible thenentire political science community fornits blatant and ugly class, ideological,nand religious biases. But maybe it isncompassion that is called for, instead ofnvituperation, since we must remembernthat the average liberal political scientistnis caught on the horns of a mostnunyielding dilemma.nThe antinomy they confront, thatnmight be worthy of empathy, is how toncontinue to write as if they were “democratic”n(as their self-image demands)nwhile insuring that the average ChristiannAmerican with antithetical politicalnand social values is either ignorednor never accurately represented (asntheir self-interest insists). Their solution,nas the papers and discussions thatnI witnessed indicate, is to bifurcatentheir minds. On the one hand theynloudly proclaim their democratic sympathies,nwhile on the other they continuento ignore the average historicalnand contemporary American or to fabricatena replacement whom they cannuphold. Isn’t it time that political scientistsnaccepted Americans as they are.nnnand finally invited them, at least innspirit, to the party that is annuallyngiven in their honor? Or is this anradical proposition much too dangerousnto the class interests of politicalnscientists?nBarry Alan Shain is Prize TeachingnFellow at Yale University.nLetter From thenHeartlandnby Jane GreernAnd the Skies Are Not Cloudy AllnDaynDeborah Epstein Popper is a graduatenstudent in geography at Rutgers University,nand Frank J. Popper chairs thenuniversity’s urban studies departmentnthere: in New Brunswick, New Jersey,nabout as far away from the Great Plains,nin every way, as you can get.nThe Poppers published a long articlenin the December 1987 issue oi Planningn(American Planning Association).nThe article was titled “The GreatnPlains: From Dust to Dust” and subtitledn”a daring proposal for dealing withnan inevitable disaster.” Their thesis isnthat we are presently acting upon “thenlargest, longest-running agriculturalnand environmental miscalculation innAmerican history.” The “miscalculation”?nThat the Great Plains can growncrops and sustain cattle.n”Over the next generation[!] thenPlains will . . . become almost totallyndepopulated,” say the authors,nat which point — or better yet, beforenwhich — the federal governmentnshould buy as much land as it can andnreturn it to shortgrass. The GreatnPlains would be at its best, in fact, as annational grassland, and the sooner thenbetter. The Poppers think that thennational grasslands we have today, usednmainly for low-intensity grazing andnrecreation, “rank among the most successfulntypes of federal landholdings.”nSo what’s the “Great Plains,” anyway?nJust the Dakotas and a littie bit ofnNebraska and Montana, which, ifnthey’re good enough for secret missilensilos and radioactive garbage, are certainlyngood enough to revert to grass?nWell, readers who live elsewherenJUNE 1988 j 47n