menace regardless of its record. The Soviet leadership hasnan ideology and thus a mission. We only have a Constitutionnas a mere frame, with no picture in it. The Communistsnhave a picture, which attracts millions outside the USSR,nincluding willing collaborators from the highest social ranksnof the half-educated. Even a wicked picture is better thannnone.nTalking frequently to people in a variety of countriesnabout Chile, I’ve found so many who insist that Chilenshould revert to democracy and have free and unfetterednelections. “As Germany had in 1932?” I ask, whereupon Inget a blank stare. So it is really the frame which isnall-important. The democratic ideology—yes, it is, after all,nan ideology — is “numeralistic.” While the USSR, led by anglobal concept of an all-embracing utopia, advances innpower, we go on counting noses. What great altetnative,nwhat Utopia, has America’s traditional conservatism beennoffering the nation? Rightism ought to be the apostle ofneternal values in the light of divine revelation and the globalnhistorical experience, not just a spirited defender of thenstatus quo within a purely local horizon. HermannnBorchardt said in his The Conspiracy of the Carpenters:n”For we, too, my friends are partisans . . . We too … wenChristian conservatives, are, let us hope, an internationalnparty; and if we are not as yet, we mean to become one. Thendifference between the Urbanites and us is not, then, thatnthey are international and we national. I hope not: a nationalnparty in our day is about as important as a bridge club or annassociation of canary breeders. No, the difference is that wenare the party of God, while they are the party of Satan, thenLord of the World.”nNot a single tenet of democracy can be verifiednscientifically, and its only future can be its evolutionninto a secular religion.n221 CHRONICLESnThe trouble with American conservatism is its perplexitynabout the future, the lack of vision, the absence of radicalnalternatives. In a lecture I gave years ago at HillsdalenCollege, I dealt with this great weakness in Americannconservatism and reproached American conservatives fornnot having given young Americans a program, a blueprint, anUtopia. A movement that will really succeed needs anpictorial vision for which men and women will toil, makensacrifices, and, if necessary, die. To my delight, I receivednnot only applause but a standing ovation.nToo many conservatives, too many Americans believenthat with the Constitution of 1787 and the democratizingn(“gallicizing”) Amendments our political wisdom hadnreached its fullest and final maturity. However, as Disraelindeclared, “Finality is not the language of politics.” We mustnbear in mind that foreign affairs and defense — once merenfootnotes to the American political scene — are today keynproblems of our physical survival. In 1952, Dean Acheson,nTruman’s last secretary of state, told a friend of mine that itnhad been his tragic task in an atomic age to form and fashionnthe foreign policy of a superpower that still had thenconstitution of a small farmer’s republic dating back to thennn18th century. Acheson did not mention the “Frenchnconnection” of America’s constitutional development,nwhich brought the US the most government of the lowestnquality. Of course, the Founding Fathers wanted minimalngovernment of the highest quality. Andrew Jackson naivelyndeclared in his first presidential message that “the duties ofnall public officers are, or at least admit of being made, sonplain and simple that men of intelligence may readily qualifynthemselves for their performance.” Unfortunately, thenresults of this highly democratic conviction have beenndisastrous.nBoth the masses and the experts are unanimous in theirnopinion of the “peoples’ representatives” all over thenglobe — the words “politics” and “politicians” have universallynassumed a highly negative character. Unavoidably, thenabyss between the scita and the scienda, the actual knowledgenand the necessary knowledge for reaching soundnpolitical decisions, increases by leaps and bounds. This isnequally true of the voters and of those they elect. In the end,nthe uneducated elect the quarter-educated who, in turn,nreceive in total confusion the conflicting advice of thenhalf-educated. The lack of knowledge and resulting convictionncreate a parliamentary race of men and women whosensingle purpose in life is to be elected or reelected, even atnthe price of sacrificing everything — sanity, integrity, conscience—nfor that one purpose.nParliaments, we must remember, were created as legislative,nnot policymaking bodies. They might best be replacednby lobbies honestly and openly arguing in dialogue with thengovernment. Democracy (mentioned neither in the Declarationnnor in the Constitution) is not rational. Not a singlentenet of democracy can be verified scientifically, and its onlynfuture can be its evolution into a secular religion. There cannbe little doubt that a metamorphosis in that direction hasnalready taken place, vide the violent indignation of closednminds if the dogmas of democracy are challenged. Asndogma, however, it is bound to fail, because such a “faith”nhas to deliver its goods right here on earth.nThe German example shows that the ideological fabric ofnliberal democracy was (and is) terribly brittle. In the freenelections with proportional representation from 1930 ton1932, the German liberal democratic parties disappearednalmost totally, because their supporters and the habitualnnonvoters turned “brown.” The strictly ideological ornreligious parties kept their devotees to the bitter end.nMarxists, monarchists, and Catholics often paid with theirnlives for their convictions, while Jews paid for their race, andnCatholic Jews for both. But there were no liberal democraticnmartyrs in the Third Reich. Who in Russia fought thenBolsheviks in the civil war against overwhelming odds?nChristians, monarchists, and anarchists — certainly not liberalndemocrats!nGenuine liberals in Europe have always realized that antotal lack of ideological conviction is, in the long run,nincompatible with the human condition. Ludwig von Misesnshuddered at the possibility that the masses might choose thenwrong ideologies. Friedrich August von Hayek told us thatnwithout an ideology no society can exist longer than 24nhours, and he regretted that real liberalism was unable tonproduce a utopia. James Buchanan, another Nobel laureate,ndemanded the creation of a “mild” utopia. No sensiblen