by massive immigration from non-rnWestern societies, will, as Mr, Yardleyrnperceives, “inevitably” change the wayrnbusiness is done in this country, and notrnjust in the Senate. The change is inevitablernbecause it is inconceivable thatrnpeople who are not, and whose ancestorsrnwere not, part of the historic definingrncore of the American nation will adoptrnthe same norms, values, and beliefs andrnadhere to and respect the same politicalrnand social institutions that that core supported,rnand neither will they embracernthe same symbols.rnAs the historic nucleus of Americanrncivilization finds itself overwhelmed numericallyrn—indeed, well before it is overwhelmedrnnumerically—it will find thatrnit can no longer elect political leadershiprnwilling and able to offer the protectionrnand sanctions of the state to thernnorms and symbols that define its civilization.rnIt will find that new leaders,rnmore representative of the new demographicrncomposition of the nation, willrnseek to redefine the norms and institutionsrnof American life and that they willrnnot hesitate to use political power to dornso, and the only response that the newrnleadership will offer the older norms andrninstitutions is exactly the one offered byrnMrs. Moseley-Braun to the Confederaternflag. In short, when the country is composedrnof Mr. Yardley’s “people of a differentrnstripe,” it will be a country of a differentrnstripe, and the Confederate flag isrnmerely the first symbol of the “racist”rnand “repressive” old civilization to bernstruck from the mast.rnAs the Census Bureau has shown in arnrecent report, within 60 years the majorityrnof the American population will nornlonger be white. By that time, thernchange will certainly have been completedrnso far as the old American civilizationrnis concerned, but we probablyrnwill not have to wait that long to witnessrnit. One reason we won’t is that the revolutionrnwill enjoy the active assistance ofrnrenegades like Senators Heflin andrnMoynihan and Mr. Yardley. Thev willrnnot onlv welcome the revolution but willrneagerly seek to clamber onto its back,rnand, as Mr. Yardley’s own column aboutrnthe UDC suggests, they will be amongrnthe first to help the enemies of the oldrncivilization round up and hunt down therndwindling number of Americans whorndefend it.rnOf course, they may not succeed inrnthis tactic. If the demise of Americanrncivilization through racial and culturalrnrevolution is already apparent on ourrnhorizon, in South Africa it has ncarlv arrived.rnLast summer, just about the timernMrs. Moseley-Braun was blubberingrnabout the Confederate flag, some 12rnwhite churchgoers in an affluent suburbrnof Capetown were butchered by a gangrnof black terrorists. The church was Anglican,rnwhich has been one of the mostrnadamant foes of apartheid, and its congregationrnwas racially mixed, a rarity inrnthat country. Not for the first time inrnhistory the apostles of progress werernamong the first of its victims, and thernsame pattern can be expected to occur inrnthis country as our own apostles of “inevitable”rnchange see their propheciesrncome to life.rnYet the revolution Mr. Yardley perceivesrnand welcomes is “inevitable” onlyrnif its demographic and ideologicalrnpremises are granted. I happen to subscribernto the quaint belief that it remainsrnpossible for Americans who do not welcomernthe revolution to challenge andrnreverse those premises. But to do sornwould require more than congressionalrnresolutions and more than the monumentsrnand memorials the ConfederaternDaughters so generously bequeath. Asrnto whether the historic core of Americanrncivilization understands what would bernrequired and whether it can still musterrnthe strength to undertake it, I make nornprediction.rn”A devastating critique..,. If sociology is to savernwhat is left of its soul, it must listen to ProfessorrnHorowitz’s clear and challenging voice.”rn—ANDREW M. GREELEYrn’Horowitz has set forth clearly, and I believernirrefutably, the nature of the decomposition ofrnsociology.” —ROBERT A. NISBET,rnIN THE SOCIOLOGICAL TFLWITIONrn*A courageous book. Always objective, but neverrnc o l d l y d e t a c h e d , Horowitz’s analysis of sociology and itsrntributaries—from social movements to social policy—is the mostrnerudite contribution to the discipline that has appeared in decades.rnIt is his most seminal work.” —WILLIAM A. DONOHUErnTHE DECOMPOSITIONrnOF SOCIOLOGYrnIRVING LOUIS HOROWITZrn0 X F fl R I)rnhodkslorcs. In (•|iar<4(‘, I-S()()-4.”i I-T.^.K) IM-f. ‘)-rnU N I V E R S I T Y P R H S Srn10/CHRONICLESrnrnrn