EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnMANAGING EDITORrnTheodore PapbasrnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, ]r.rnASSISTANT EDITORrnMichael WashburnrnART DIRECTORrnAnna Mycek-WodeckirnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnHarold O./. Brown, Katherine Dalian,rnSamuel Francis, George Garrett,rnPaul Gottfried, Christine Haynes,rnE. Christian Kopff, ].0. Tate,rnClyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrnBill Kauffman, William Mills,rnJacob Neusner, John Shelton Reed,rnMomcilo SelicrnEDITORIAL SECRETARYrnLeann DobbsrnPUBLISHERrnAllan C. CarlsonrnPUBLICATION DIRECTORrnGuy C. ReffettrnPRODUCTION SECRETARYrnAnita CandyrnCIRCULATION MANAGERrnRochelle FrankrnA publication of The Rockford Institute.rnEditorial and Advertising Offices:rn934 North Main Street, Rockford, IL 61105.rnEditorial Phone: (815) 964-5054.rnAdvertising Phone: (815) 964-5813.rnSubscription Department: P.O. Box SCO,rnMount Morris, IL 61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.rnU.S.A. Newsstand Distribution b’ Eastern NewsrnDistributors, Inc., One Media Wav, 12406 Rt. 250rnMilan, Ohio 44848-9705rnCopyright © 1997 by The Rockford Institute.rnAll rights reserved.rnChronicles (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishedrnmonthly for $39.00 (foreign subscriptions add $12rnfor surface delivery, $48 for Air Mail) per year byrnThe Rockford Institute, 934 North Main Street’,rnRockford, IL 61103-7061. Preferred periodicalrnpostage paid at Rockford, IL and additional mailingrnoffices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes tornChronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris, IL 61054.rnThe views expressed in Chronicles are thernauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflectrnthe views of The Rockford Institute or of itsrndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot bernreturned unless accompanied by a self-addressedrnstamped envelope.rnChroniclesrnVol, 21, No. 4 April 1997rnPrinted in the United States of AmericarnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn Bernard Nathanson On the Ruling ClassrnAs a reader of your excellent magazine,rnI wish to take exception to C. JohnrnMcCloskey’s review (“Circles ofrnHell,” March 1997) of Dr. BernardrnNathanson’s autobiography. I think it isrnall very well to applaud Nathanson’s decisionrnto become a Christian and to rejoicernthat he no longer enriches himselfrnon the corpses of the dead babies he hasrnaborted, but what I do not understand isrnall the admiration being heaped on arnman who has so far shown neither contritionrnnor humility. Instead of acceptingrnresponsibility for his evil actions, actionsrnwhich from his new perspective putrnhim on a level with such mass murderersrnas Hitler and Stalin, he now blames anrnabusive father. Perhaps I have missed thernitem in the newspapers, but I have notrnheard of Dr. Nathanson going personallyrnto apologize to the famihes of hisrnvictims, nor have I heard of him giving allrnof his wealth away to an appropriaterncharity.rnThe reviewer’s motives are, in myrnopinion, beyond reproach, and thosernwho know him have the highest regardrnfor his character and intelligence. In thisrncase, however, an excessive zeal in a goodrncause has clouded his judgment, and itrnwas vour job, sir, as editor of this magazine,rnto censor his enthusiasm or rejectrnhis review.rn—Thomas FlemingrnRockford, ILrnDr. Fleming Replies:rnIt goes without saying that I agree withrnboth your strictures on the review andrnvour admiration of the reviewer, who isrnknown to both of us. However, I shouldrnpoint out that the integrity of our bookrnreview section is guaranteed by the autonomyrngiven the senior editor for booksrnand the freedom given to reviewers to expressrnopinions with which the editors ofrnChronicles may disagree. We seek balancernnot by moderating the excesses ofrnopinion but by printing both sides of therncase, which is what we are doing in thisrnexchange of letters.rnRight on, Sam Francis (“The RulingrnClass,” January 1997)! And if you wantrnto get an idea of who the oligarchs are,rnlook at the list of those who put up therntwo billion dollars for the recent election.rnBarbra Streisand, the Raidys, etc. As tornwhen the great American experiment ofrnself-government started falling apart,rnHenry Adams places it with the presidencyrnof Ulysses S. Crant. That, he said,rnwas when the good people left Washington,rnnever to return. If there was anyrnhope at all, it died when what was constitutionalrnbecame whatever effusions happenedrnto issue from Justice Brennan onrnany particular day.rnMr. Francis’s use of the term “elite,”rnhowever, bothers me. The OED definesrnthis as the “flower of society” in the currentrnusage (originally, but obsoletely,rn”the elect,” which would indeed be appropriate).rnSome flowers! There is still arntiny, diminishing real elite out there.rnPeople who were brought up in homes ofrngood taste, and who are old enough tornhave been around when you could get arndecent education. Believe it or not, evenrnthough I live in New York City, I actuallyrnknow such a family. But with Gresham’srnLaw at work, what good there is left willrncertainly be driven out in a generation orrntwo as weeds overcome an untended garden.rnWhere can their children get a decentrneducation? To whom can they lookrnfor enlightened role models?rnWe can take some perverse comfort inrnconsidering the trash this tasteless andrnill-educated “elite” wallows in. Theyrnhave no idea of what is good. Look at thernart they buy, the music they listen to, thernclothes they wear, and the quality of therncompany they must keep. Who wouldrnwant to be part of such an elite?rnOn the other hand, one takes littlerncomfort in Mr. Francis’s conclusion thatrnthe American oligarchy will be sent tornthe graveyard. If they are driven out, itrnwill be by persons who wish to take theirrnplace. Who will have been their rolernmodels? Where will they have been educated?rnThose new oligarchs will, if historyrncan be taken as a lesson, be an evenrntrashier bunch than the current crowd.rn—Winslow MaxwellrnNew York, NYrn4/CHRONICLESrnrnrn