the “new immigration” as their dramaticnsubject matter are often creatednby immigrants — films like WaynenWang’s Dim Sum (1985) and LouisnMalle’s Alamo Bay (1985), or bynnative-born directors only a generationnor so separated firom the immigrantnexperience, such as Paul Mazursky’snMoscow on the Hudson (1984) andnBrian De Palma’s Scarface (1983).nThere is a certain irony in all this,nan irony akin to the dilemma Starrnidentifies in Lummis'”Mission Myth”nabout California. This influx of newnimmigrants and the beginnings of ancinema “daydream” based upon theirnexperiences are taking place at exactlynthe same time that social critics likenDaniel Yankelovich (New Rules,n1981), Christopher Lasch (The MinimalnSelf, 1984), Robert Bellah, et al.n{Hahits of the Heart, 1985), and othersnare trying to explain middle-classnAmerica’s “identity crisis” (perhaps an”dream crisis”) and account for thenseeming abandonment or radical redefinitionnof older notions of “success”nand other aspects of the traditionaln”American dream.”nClearly, the new immigrants arenenacting the traditional version of thendream, which forces one to ask: Whonis adopting the mistaken strategy here?nAre the immigrants hopelessly playingnout a misleading “daydream”? Or isnthe American middle class making thenfatal mistake of withdrawing from thenpublic culture of shared (and, yes,ndisputed) symbols and stories and retreatingnto highly privatized worldsnincapable of sustaining a personalnethic, much less a social one?nBoth the recent films and the socialncritics I mentioned earlier explorenthese questions in some interestingnways I shall not recount here. Mynpoint is simply this: that it is up tonthose who “mint and market” (asnRichard John Neuhaus says) the symbolicnstories and social metaphors ofnthe American experiment to addressnseriously the experiences of the newnimmigrants and to offer some insightsninto ways these newcomers reconcilentheir traditional home worlds and theirnlives in the American public culture.nThese stories, the new Americann”collective” (day)dream, can be annimportant force in the revitalization ofnAmerican society. The wisdom andntruths that will emerge from thesenstories will likely confirm neither thennaive optimism of some new immigrantsnnor the deadly pessimism ofnsome social critics. Certainly, whatnwill emerge will be a more complexnstory about America, one that mustnattempt to counter the racism andnviolence that seem to have greeted sonmany earlier immigrants. Sometimesnin the dialectic between the Americanof fact and the America of imagination,nto expand Starr’s perspective, it isnup to the imagination to instruct thenreality. ccnBetween Auschwitz and Armageddon by Will Moniseyn”Your fathers, where are they? and the prophets, donthey live for ever?”nNoam Chomsky: The FatefulnTriangle: The United States, Israelnand the Palestinians; South EndnPress; Boston.nSam B. Girgus: The New Covenant:nJewish Writers and the AmericannIdea; The University of NorthnCarolina Press; Chapel Hill.nPeter Grose: Israel in the Mind ofnAmerica; Alfred A. Knopf; NewnYork.nMost nations know all too clearlynwhat they believe about Jews.nAmericans are less sure. This beneficialnuncertainty inheres in the twonmajor traditions that shape Americannsouls: Christianity and modern politi-nWill Morrisey is the author ofnReflections on De Gaulle (UniversitynPress of America).n-Zechariahncal philosophy. Peter Grose writes thatnthe Puritans “identified with the peoplenof the Old Testament”; unhl 1787nHarvard College (which then promotednan identifiable morality) required itsnstudents to learn Hebrew. But in thenname of Christianity, Peter Stuyvesantnunsuccessfully tried to expel fromnManhattan 23 newly arrived BraziliannJews; in general, “the early Americannwas fixed in his belief that for [refusingnto worship the Christ] the Jew hadnforfeited his full rights in Christiannsociety.” Among the “moderns,”nThomas Jefferson unhesitatingly extendednhis principle of religious tolerationnto Jews while privately lamenting,n”among them ethics are so little understood.”nJohn Adams endorsed thenaspirations of Jews to return to Israelnbut imagined they might “possibly inntime become liberal Unitarian Christians.”nAmong both Christians andn”moderns,” this desire to convert Jewsnwas strong, exhibiting that mixture ofnnnesteem and hostility any proselytizernfeels for potential proselytes.nAmerica’s contemporary left has notnescaped ambivalence toward Jews andnthe Jewish state. Grose, Girgus, andnChomsky represent, respectively, thenDECEMBER 1985/ 11n