Jacob Neusner, in his “Letter From Germany” (December 1991), assesses the academic apathy of Germany, pointing out that “the National Socialists got rid of the talent as well as the entrenched mediocrity.” Which is to say that Nazism destroyed not just the “drags” of the old Germany, but also the society’s protected classes, and the true “aristocracy.”

This is a “truism” that, like most, is indeed true. And is brilliant in its simplicity. Indeed, the statement is very applicable to current events. It seems as if most Americans have now forgotten that a similar purge took place in the Soviet Union, as it does in all ideological societies. To simply presume that the people of Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia, could be remade without any lingering impact from the genocide of certain groupings of people, or more importantly, from living with “the idea,” is foolish.

With that said, I must strongly disagree with the final point of Neusner’s piece. Neusner says: “For our part, we never conceived a Marshall Plan of ideas, a rebuilding of the ruined intellectual life of a great country.” Not only does he imply that somehow America, and Americans, are responsible for the well-being of other nations, he also hints that “if something has gone wrong, blame America first.” Neusner would apparently have the United States accept the role not only of economic guarantor of nations like Germany, but also of intellectual provider.

Leaving aside the fact that, to a very real degree, the United States in the late 18th century did provide an intellectual Marshall Plan for the world (at least in the realm of governance) with such documents as the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and most specifically, the United States Constitution; there are other problems with Neusner’s statement. First, the economic “rebuilding” the United States engaged in after World War II really did not help any nation, save for perhaps Japan. It made Europe an American colony for an elongated, if not permanent, time frame. And worse, for America, it made Americans both responsible for maintaining an empire and for transforming a defeated enemy into an economic rival. One could only surmise that a Marshall Plan of ideas would not have been any more successful than was the economic one.

Also, with the morass in America’s mass cultural and intellectual life over the past fifty years, it is not only correct that it was best for America not to attempt to take on the responsibility for a Marshall Plan of ideas for Germany, it is also good for Germany that we did not force American ideas on German culture. Even the academic void that Neusner speaks of seems better than the academic devolution in the United States. Oh, our professors form “intellectual communities” all right, and they even engage in vigorous debate; the problem is they have nothing to do with reality, and no connection to unifying our society.

But no need to worry, for Neusner will get his way at last. The Marshall Plan of ideas is currently being exported, along with our taxpayer dollars, to the ;Soviet Union. It will probably have the same, or more likely worse, consequences for the recipients than the original Marshall Plan has had on Western Europe. America will get some relief: with our “intellectuals” gone to ruin the Soviets for awhile, at least we will be rid of them. Unfortunately, this is merely a cure for the symptom, rather than for the underlying problem. The real remedy will only be found when we have a Marshall Plan of ideas for America, or more accurately, a return to those ideas that made America a great republic, before the rise of the empire.

        —Thomas C. Lizardo,
National Vice Chairman,
Young Americans for Freedom,
Fairfax, VA

Dr. Neusner Replies:

I cannot disagree with Mr. Lizardo’s letter; we are on the same side on most issues. I meant the reference to a Marshall Plan of ideas to be a bit cynical, since, like Mr. Lizardo, I am not sure we have all that much to offer. That was the subtext of my statement; admittedly, 1t was buried altogether too deep to register. I certainly agree that we ought to take a modest view of our capacities, both economic and intellectual, and first of all to rebuild here at home. It is good to find in YAF eloquent and alert minds such as his; the coming generation will then have good ideas to export: the ones on which this country is founded, as he rightly says. We must first make them our own—once more.