look seemed preth- grim from the Marxistrnperspective, but—as Hardt and Negrirnpoint out—the end of the Cold War hasrnclear«:d the way for the rise of global Empire,rnand with it the new hope that allrniiia turn out well in the end.rnThis is the key message of the book.rnHardt and Negri are true revoluhonariesrnwho want to move beyond the Gramscianrn”long march,” wliich has yieldedrnample results but cannot deliver the couprnde grace, hi the apparent defeat of revolutionaryrnstruggle —epitomized bv therntriumph of liberal capitalism overbolshevismrn—they find the seeds of future victoryrnfor revolutionary Marxism, which Empirernmakes possible b- eradicatingrntraditional structures capable of makingrnone last stand. Empire admittedly introducesrnnew forms of capitalist commandrnand exploitation, but it is “objectivelv” anrnally of the revolution C’liberation”) notrnonlv because it destroys the remnants ofrnthe old order but because it contains therngerm of another form of globalization:rnthe counter-Empire of global communismrnthat will be made possible by demographicrnchange. The “political subjectivity”rnthat emerges within this phase ofrnhistor’ is the most cxpansie and fundamentalrnpolitical subject of all: The multitudernis about to come into its own.rnIn summary, Hardt and Negri rejoicernin all that we abhor. Read Empire to understandrnwhy Karl Marx is alive and wellrnand supports the emerging global orderrnof Albright, Blair, and Gates.rnSrdja irifkovic is the foreign-affairs editorrnfor Chronicles.rnLighting Outrnfor the Territoryrnby Philip JenkinsrnRestless Nation:rnStarting Over in Americarnby fames M. jasperrnChicago: University of Chicago Press;rn275 pp.’, $25.OQrnRestless Nation is an enjoyable explorationrnof the American nationalrncharacter. The book presents a plausiblernhypothesis, supported by the author’srnbroad knovledge of the nation’s historyrnand social trends and illustrated throughoutrnby aptly chosen literary referencesrnthat reflect admirabh- wide reading. Thernproblem is that, despite all these positives,rnI just don’t buy the central argument,rnhowexer much I have been forcedrnto define exactly why I reject the basic nofionrnof national rcsticssness.rnJames Jasper develops a familiar themernin the national self-concept, nanicK”, therncliche that a country born on the mocrnhas never really ceased bcliexing tiiat arnbetter life is to be found o’er the next hill,rnhisofar as there is a fundamental Americanrnmvih, it is this national cult of restle.s.sness,rnthe faith in movement and change.rnErom earliest times, ymericans hae believedrnthat their real dcstin lies somewherernelse, w here they will find the bigrnbreak, the big nroney. Americans switchrnjobs and houses frec|uentiv, they changernreligions, they adopt new identities. Notrnfor nothing is a en’ common hpe of indiscriminaternreligious enthusiasm knownrnsimply as “seeking.”rnAnd the concept of a nation of seekersrnis anything but new. As Tocqucvillernwrote in the 18^0’s,rnAn American will build a house inrnwhich to pass his old age and sell itrnbefore the roof is on; he will plant arngarden and rent it just as die treesrnare coming into bearing. . . . At firstrnsight, there is something astonishingrnin this spectacle of so man’rnlucky men restiess in the mid.st ofrnabundance.rnThe reference to “men” is appropriate,rnsince Jasper stresses faith in moenient asrna distinctiveh masculine trait, one thatrnappeals particularly to boys and oungrnmen. The shades of Buck and Jim arcrnneer far from the author’s mind, but werncould find countiess other examples inrnculture high and low. Road films such asrnWild at Heart or Thelma and Louise arernobvious updatings of the Huck Finnrnmyth, while Louis Malle’s classic AtlanticrnCity (1980) lovingly examines thernworld of those perpetual losers who havernwandered to seek their fortune in this latestrnEl Dorado. To take a sentence from arnmuch-less-reputable film, Sam Peckinpah’srnConvoy, “The aim of the con’oy isrnto keep on moving.” Eor Jasper, thisrncould be a national nrotto quite as validrnas E Pluribus Unum.rnJasper sees restlessness and movementrnunderlying political attitudes, the potentrnideas of individualism and self-sufficiencyrnthat cause so much distrust of goveniment.rnhrdeed, American history hasrnbeen shaped at least as much b- itsrnmodes of transportation, its opportunifiesrnfor seeking, as bv its political ideologies.rnThe successive societies created b’ thernsailing ship, the Concstoga wagon, thernsteamboat, the train, and the automobilerndiffered from each other t|uite as much asrnthe eras so often described by mercK’ politicalrnlabels. This is especially true of urbanrnlife. As Thoreau wrote in the 1850’s,rnBoston, New York, Philadelphia,rnCharleston, New Orleans and thernrest arc the nanres of wharves projectingrninto the sea (surrounded brnthe shops and dwellings of the merchants),rngood places to take in andrnto discharge a cargo.rnEortv’ years later, anotiier observer mightrnwell hac described the cities of that erarnas chiefly rail depots, while modern citiesrnhave been shaped by the automobile.rnAnd the nature of American cities has anotherrninteresting connection to nationalrnrestlessness, since the lack of an overwhelmingrnmetropolis such as London orrnParis prex’ented the kind of total concentrationrnof wealth and talent that occurredrnin other lands. People were tiius encouragedrnand enabled to spread out o’er therncontinent.rnhiccssantK’ on the moe, America hasrnal\as been a nation in tiie process of renewingrnitself, a process constantiy reinforcedrnby successive waxes of immigration.rnThough nrigration has occmredrnsince the dawn of humanit’, Jasper .stressesrnboth the astonishing volume of Americanrnimmigration and the fact that it liasrnnever dried up, not een in the years ofrnthe most strict legal controls. And immigrants,rnhe stresses, are by definition weddedrnto notions of novelts’ and rootlessness.rnThe’ have a natural comprehensionrnof the idea of constant flight, constantrnseeking, the fresh start. As D.H.rnLawrence explained, “That’s why mostrnpeople have come to America, and stillrndo come. To get away from everythingrnthey are and have been.”rnErom the national characteristic ofrnrestiessness, Jasper moves on to describernwhat he sees as the negative conseciuencesrnof the phenomenon in terms ofrnanomie and lack of connection, and tornwonder v’hether Americans arc read}rnnow to grov’ up and settie down. To arnsubstantial degree, he explains mobilihrn30/CHRONICLESrnrnrn