socialist ideal treats us as a nation ofnkibitzers and contends that those whonhave been making decisions owe thenkibitzers a respectful hearing on thenoccasions that they do not get involved.nSuch openness to kibitzing presupposesna future without much accomplishment.nWith each proposal for actionncomes another round of debate, anothernround of studies, a consideration ofncounterproposals and a new decision,nfollowed by openings for new kibitzers.nWalzer’s socialism makes no provisionnfor accomplishment after the decisionnhas been reached. In the place of Marx’snman in the fields, Walzer has found thenfuture socialist in an eternal facultynmeeting.nThe most curious feature of this conceptionnof socialism as a continuousnkibitz is that the basic premises of socialismnare not open for discussion.nSocialism originates with a conceptionnof human history as class warfare innwhich the rich masters are overcomenA SPECIAL PUBLICATIONnOF THE ROCKFORD INSTITUTEnThe AlternativenMedia: DismantlingnTwo Centuriesnof Progressntakes an in-depthnlook at the originsnand developmentnof the alternativenpress, a largelyunrecognizednbutninfluential forcenin our culture.nUse the following coupon to order.nTo: The Rockford Instituten934 N. Main StreetnRockford, IL 61103nEnclosed is my check or money ordernfor copies of TAie AlternativenMedia: Dismantling Two Centuries ofnProgress at $5.00 each plus 500 fornpostage and handling.nADDRESSnCITY. STATE, ZIPn24inChronicles of Culturenby the poor slaves in succeeding sequencesnuntil finally classes are abolishednand a state of material equality isnachieved. Walzer adheres rigidly to thenidea of equality as a goal of politics andnconceives of this equality in materialnterms. He does not believe that moneynis an appropriate reward for the expressionnof diverse talents; pride of successnand satisfaction of achievement shouldnsuffice. Access to human needs shouldnbe distributed equally. The responsibilitynfor defining and meeting those needsnis society’s rather than the individual’s.nThus, the provision of “human needs”n(even private ones) becomes a publicnprovince. Walzer adheres firmly to thisngoal. He hopes that it might be reachednthrough democratic procedures, butnhe never addresses the possibility thatnit might be reversed through majoritynrule. He also fails to indicate where henmight find enough folks sharing hisnindifference to wealth as a reward tonbring about his first victory.nThe political theory of the Americannfounding, of course, moves in preciselynthe opposite direction. It starts with thenpremise of human equality, but recognizesnthat original equality as a rathernmiserable condition. Achievement requiresnequal liberty, but the diversentalents of free people do result in materialndifferences. The Federalistnclaimed that the first responsibility ofngovernment is to protect the naturalnrights, that is, diverse and unequal talentsnfor acquiring property, of differentnpeople. Different people will find theirnreward in different kinds of property—nsome in their religion, some in theirnstatus as prestigious professors, mostnpeople, most commonly, in the store ofnriches that they are able to attain. Thenonly equality required by democracy isnthe equality expressed when each citizennhas the opportunity to cast one votenon election day. The equality requirednif a democracy is to secure natural rightsnmust leave to each citizen the opportunitynto achieve as much inequality innwealth and status as he can, allowing usnto honor those occupations that we findnnnworthy and to overlook, or suppress,nthose that degrade the character ofndemocratic citizens.nINo government can safely remainnindifferent to the opinions formednamong its citizens. Garry Wills is rightnin observing that the authors of ThenFederalist recognized this and assumednthat the democratic form of governmentnrequired a decent people. Publius, however,nwrote to a people who were innclose contact with the roots of libertynand who understood the need to nurturenthose roots in succeeding generations.nThese three tomes record our distancenfrom those roots.nSecuring the American experiment innliberty requires an understanding of thenrelationship between the principles ofnliberty and the form of government thatnwe have, between the Declaration ofnIndependence and the Constitution. ThenFederalist provides that understandingnbetter than any other single book. Eachnof these volumes, in its own way, falsifiesnthat understanding. Boyte simplynassumes the virtue of those who arenactive in causes that he likes; he proceedsnon the assumption that democracyncan be decent if it degenerates into rulenby people pursuing policies that worknto their personal benefit, with no moderationnfor the concerns of the entirensociety. Walzer understands that he isnarguing against the American experimentnwith liberty, but he believes thatnthe equality that he espouses is preferablento liberty. Wills also understandsnthat he is arguing against the politicalnargument of the American founding,nbut he is clever enough to know that henmust disguise his argument to rendernit palatable. Americans simply will notnbuy an overt denunciation of their heritage.nThese volumes provide eloquentntestimony to their authors’ ingenuitynat wrapping the message in differentnbook jackets. The political question ofnthe coming generation is whether thenAmerican people have retained thencharacter to rise above these falsificationsnof their heritage. Dn