fects, in a gifted politician’s spiritualnequipment are nothing new: history isnreplete with impressive leaders whonhad to be forgiven for various moral feiluresnin order to accomplish their missions:nwe aU know, after St. Augustinenand Shakespeare, that there is anothernperson within a person, one who oftennmerits another hearing. However, thenconflict between a political double standardnand the democratic ethos shouldn’tnbe approached through open mockery,nthrough flaunting duplicity as an organicnelement of the social fabric. Unfortunately,nthat’s exactly what happened innChicago, and the villains are the liberalsnand the media. Black chauvinism shouldnnot be excused, but it is pardonable. Thenliberal cynicism—^touted as service tonsome kind of by-now-abstract justice—nis reprehensible. If we are heading towardna new American reality in whichnan examination of Nixon’s underwearnor Kissinger’s trash can, put on the frontnpage by liberal investigative reporting,ndetermines the fete of Presidencies, butnin which “forgetting” to pay taxes threenyears in a row is viewed with ideologicalnsentimentality, then some social convulsionsnare inevitable. Since our beginning,nthere have always been some instrumentalnand tenacious conventions innAmerican politics that, regardless ofntheir structural credibility, served usnwell: a politician must abide by somenstandard of lawfiilness in order to survivenas a democratically elected ofiicial.nThis time, the liberals and the medianshredded that principle, standing in thenlimelight and gleeflilly scofling at law.nWe’ll have to wait and see how we’ll livenwith this novelty.nFor some time, we’ve been reading innthe press about the political and socialnmaturity of American blacks, of thatnample minority’s newly acquired civicnskills, its ability to participate in thendemocratic process, its growing aptitudenfor working within and throughnthe system. Those analyses and observationsnare correct—^and very welcome.nHowever, the Chicago election seemednto us a sort of a setback. It is a dire truthnthat since the late 1960’s blackness hasnbeen, in the eyes of many, equated withncrime, welfere, and social decay. Thisnmay be a tragically unjust, even ugly,nstereotype, yet more-or-less overt revanchismn(“We want it all!” “It’s ournturn!”) will do nothing to defeat thatnimage as it should and must be defeated.nIn Chicago, black agonies, sensitivities,nand mosdy justified grievances havenbeen given a luxury cosmetician’s, or anchiropractor’s, treatment, while whitenethnicAvorking-class fears and perplexitiesnhave been approached with a clubnby the liberal media. People were bludgeonedninto embracing the “antiracist”nliberal platitudes. The result will be annever more pervasive feeling among anvery large part of this society that thenblacks will have to undertake an honestnreevaluation of their post-civil-rightsstrugglenattitudes, the same process ofntransvaluation that continuously occursnamong the \iiites since Dr. Martin LuthernKing made his ineradicable impact onnmodem America. If that rethitiking isnnot done, then two types of bigotry—nand antibigotry as well—will clash atnrandom, turning this civilization intona caricature.nThere was a lot of talk that PresidentnReagan’s triumph spelled the end of thenRoosevelt coalition One recession andn11 percent unemployment were enoughnto dispel such an illusion Yet in Chicago,nin April 1983, a sociopolitical phenomenonnmore important than the blue-collarnnndisenchantment with Carter seems tonhave occurred. What the bingo operatorsnof voting in both the Democraticnand Republican Parties will do aboutnthat phenomenon is h^d to predict,nknowing the narrow-mindedness ofntjoth. So actually, aside from the lakefirontnliberals, the most ominous force tonemerge from the Chicago spectacle isnthe media. A young acquaintance fromnPoland, a survivor of the persecutionsnagainst Solidarity, confided to us his impressionnof the first serious democraticnstru^e he witnessed in his new country.n”I escaped the unimaginable terrornof leftist mediocrities in Warsaw,” henmused, “only to wimess the victory ofnMr. Washington, an obnoxiously leftishnmediocrity. I heard him delivering a rebuttalnto Reagan’s address on educationnin which the President, with the supportnof unassailable statistics, proved thencatastrophic deterioration of the Americannschool system under the thumb ofnthe Federal bureaucracy. Mr. Washingtonnwas selected by the Democratic Party asnits spokesman, presumably to boost hisnimage before the election. He didn’t sayna word about Mr. Reagan’s figures. Henlambasted the President for his interventionnin El Salvador. Oh, how well Inknow this mentality and dialectics fromnJaruzelski’s newspapers and television!”nAnd how did the media, that supremenWhite Knight Defender of the people’snright to know, tackle this side of Mr.nWashington’s persona, career, posture?nNot a word about it. Instead, the newnnataral law—^that an imperfect blacknmust be rated as better than a not-tooperfectnwhite in America of the 1980’sn—Aras hammered into the cotisciousnessnof Chicagoans with all the brainwashingnpower of the Chicago Tribune’s hypocrisy,nthe Sun-Times’ greed, and countlessnelectronic commentators’ lowbrownbellowings. Their coverage slavishly reflectednthe liberal tenet that people isnnot people but what the white liberalnsays is people. That’s the same white liberalnfor whom cocaine is recreation,nwho sees hard-core pom on cable TV asna triimiph of the First Amendment, con-ni49nJune 1983n