vital to destabilization. Every radicalnmovement, as Plato observed, must confrontnthe conservatism of the traditionalnfamily. Change in the deeply held values,nbeliefs, and loyalties of the present generationnis unlikely. Often that generationnis written oflf and the emphasis placednon its successor—the young. But thenyoung must be removed from the influencenof the traditional generation.nHence, through education, family influencenis deemphasized and public authoritynstressed. Especially crucial is thenteaching of history. History, by nature, isnubiquitous; there is something for everyone.nMost national histories can bentaught as exercises in continuity, patriotism,nheroism, and opportunity or, contrariwise,nas exercises in oppression, exploitation,nand violence. The hostile willnselectively parade the latter. The revisionistnrendition of American history,nfor example, highlights Puritan intolerance,nblack slavery, Indian massacres,ncolonial expansionism, labor violence,nMcCarthyism, and Vietnam. Minimal attentionnis accorded the building of viablendemocratic institutions, providing sanctuarynand opportunity for immigrants,npioneering unprecedented individualnfreedom and economic success. Thenyoung must be educated to questionnand scorn the patriotic myths that cementnthe society. Not all authority is tonbe questioned, of course, just selectednsegments. In the name of objectivity andncompassion, the goal seems to be to inspirenamong the youth a loathing of theirnown culture and nation. The result is ansuspicion of established authority andnan unwillingness to be inconveniencednor to sacrifice for the community. Thensociety is unworthy of defense.nNational myths are also selectivelyndisparaged. There are some patrioticnmyths that must be undermined, butnthere are others that must be entrustednto the holy of holies. One American mythntemporarily supported by many criticsnof the American system is a bizarre notionnabout the American Constitution. This isnthe belief that elevates the U.S. Constitutionnto the place accorded by religiousn16nChronicles of Cttltttrenfundamentalists to the Bible. The Constitutionnis treated as if it containednspecific solutions to all contemporarynproblems. Thus the Constitution has thenanswers to civil rights, affirmative action,nbusing, abortion, and all other topicalnconcerns. Virtually all divisive, emotivenquestions are removed from the democraticnarena and entrusted to the SupremenCourt to conjure answers supposedlynbased on the 18th-century charter. Lawyersnbenefit from this myth for obviousnreasons. Politicians gain too: by deferringnto the judiciary they can avoid takingnpositions on controversial questions.nThe democratic process suiOfers, andneventually the electoral process seemsnto become an exercise in fiitility.nIn addition to the domestic concern,nthe destabilization syndrome involves anforeign-policy ingredient that seems de­nsigned to weaken the target society innthe face of its adversaries. It casts doubtnon the competency of the defense establishment,ncontending that it has a faultynperception of reality. It suggests that then”military-industrial complex” is waroriented,nmakes irrational and unlimitedndemands, and squanders vast sums thatnwould be better spent on vital, necessary,nhumane social services. (Remembernall the biUions that were to be availablenfor social services when the U.S. disengagednfrom Vietnam?) Defense seems tonbe the one area where a bureaucraticncut would be tolerated. The critic chargesnthat the external threat is grossly exaggerated.nThe adversary state is picturednas conservative, pragmatic, and flexible,nconcerned only with its legitimate securitynneeds. Its peccadilloes are usuaUynprovoked. It is su^ested that the U.S.S.R,nChina, Vietnam, and Cuba would havenIn the forthcoming issue of Chronicles of Culture:nPhilosophy and Fashionn”One might think that philosophy would be rcl:iticlynimmune to fa.shion, foeusing, one supposes, on eternalnerities, or at le;Lst on timeless wistkim. Yet modem philo.sophersnhave been ;is subjeet to the iniperaties of noelrN’ asnhae those who determine the length of the skirt and thendepth of the deeoUetage.”n—from the Commentnby Lee CongdonnOpinions & Views—Commendables—In FocusnPerceptiblesnWaste of Money—The American ProsceniumnScreen—Art—Music—CorrespondencenLiberal Culture^oumalismnnn