starting with frenzied “cosmopolitan”rnjournalists.rnIgnatieffs book also substantiates arngeneralization that Murray Rothbardrnand I have been testing for years: that allrnleft-liberals are obsessive Teutonophobes.rnIgnatieff hates hnperial Germany, whichrnhe intemperately attacks in a discussionrnof German and other nationalisms. Inrn1913, the German imperial governmentrnerected a monument commemoratingrnthe victory of several German states overrnNapoleon at Leipzig in 1813. This, forrnIgnatieff, shows the inevitability ofrnHitler’s victory in 1933: “The entirernerotic paraphernalia of Nazi appeal is alreadyrnthere in the Leipzig monument:rnthe same helmets, the same snakes, thernsame Teutonic ardor, the same ludicrousrncult of masculine harness; the same eroticallyrncharged confusion about nature—rnis it to be a life-giving force or carnalrnmalignity?” As hysterical as these passagesrnsound, they are shockingly typicalrnof Ignatieff’s digressions into Germanrnhistory. They also reveal the contemporaryrnAmerican media view of unsubduedrnaspects of European life. Whateverrnthere is in it that cannot be assimilatedrnto here-and-now American values andrnsensitivities is essentially evil—andrnshould be seen as such.rnAll over America there are commemorativernmonuments, many of them grimmerrnthan the German statue that offendsrnIgnatieff. Yet these monumentsrnare not supposed to give offense, inasmuchrnas they can be seen to presage therneventual victory of American pluralismrnand democratic cosmopolitanism. Molnarrnis right to protest against the uglyrnAmerican tendency, of relatively recentrnappearance, to ascribe diabolical motiyesrnto the national sentiments and memoriesrnof those who stood—or stand—inrnthe way of the imperial projects of ourrnpolitical class. Since the American Empire,rnas opposed to the American Republic,rnrepresents cosmopolitanism, anyonernwho resists that empire must berncrazed or evil. And the most aberrantrnnationalists, following this torturedrnlogic, were those who opposed or werernopposed by Wilson’s crusade to makernthe world safe for democracy.rnNone of this criticism is intended torngainsay the vicious and savage face thatrncontemporary nationalism often exhibits.rnOn this point, unfortunately, Ignatieffrnis correct. What he fails to note,rnhowever, is that cosmopolitans in thern20th century have been at least as mischievousrnas nationalists; reveling in controlrnand reconstruction, they will notrnleave others alone. The Bolsheviks whornpersecuted Ignatieff’s family claimed tornbe internationalists. Ignatieff may objectrnthat his internationalism is more benignrnthan the coercive kind preached by Trotskyrnand Lenin. Undoubtedly he wouldrnlike to think so, but the question doesrnarise: Exactly how far would he go to imposernhis own vision? Since the world asrnit now exists with its divisiveness and distinctionsrninfuriates him, what would herndo to ensure the nondiscriminatory,rnglobalist society he invokes at the beginningrnof his book? And what would he inflictrnupon those who resist his plan? Irnsuspect that what he has in mind is arnmore ambitious version of the Americanrntherapeutic state, but one thatrnwould make special provisions for stillunadjustedrnnationalities. In any case, Irnwould prefer to live in Thomas Molnar’srnfallen world than in the perfected onernenvisaged by Michael Ignatieff.rnPaul Gottfried is a professor of humanitiesrnat Elizabethtown College inrnPennsylvania.rnRace Mattersrnby Brenan R. NiermanrnThe Tyranny of the Majority:rnFundamental Fairness inrnRepresentative Democracyrnby Lani GuinierrnNew York: The Free Press;rnU4 pp., $24.95rnThis book is either irrefutable evidencernagainst a multicultural societyrnor the last-ditch plea of someonernwho is very concerned with the problemsrnposed by multiculturalism but: whornwants to make a go of it nevertheless. Itrnmay well be both.rnLani Guinier’s essays ask how farrndemocracy must go to accommodate itselfrnto groups that perceive themselves asrna permanent minority. Consequently,rnthe ghost of the greatest Americanrnstatesman of the 19th century, John C.rnCalhoun, hovers over these pages; yetrnCalhoun is not alluded to once in thernentire volume. One reason for this mavrnbe that Lani Guinier is—at least shernclaims to be—a democrat, while Calhounrnwas a republican through andrnthrough. Another may be the very differentrninterests for which they speak. ButrnCalhoun’s absence, given Guinier’s concerns,rnis strange nonetheless.rnAn ever-present theme in Guinier’srnbook—that race continues to matter inrnAmerican life—is something that virtuallyrneveryone acknowledges in privaternbut seldom addresses in public. This isrnnot surprising. Race all too frequentlyrnoverlaps cultural considerations, and thisrnmeans that anyone short of the abstractrnzombies one finds in the writings of JohnrnRawls (and John Locke) considers it inrnhis calculations of such things as wherernto live, where to take his recreation, andrnwhere to send his children to school.rnLani Guinier knows this. She also knowsrnthat, all too often for her tastes, blackrnAmericans come out on the short end ofrnthe stick. This is the situation she wantsrnto change. But her analysis of the presentrnsystem and its shortcomings suggestsrnyet one more piece of evidence forrnthe claim that multicultural America isrnnot working; indeed, it is falling apart.rnWe must ask whether the solution tornthis dilemma is, as Professor Guinierrnwould give us, what she calls morerndemocracy.rnThe fathers of the United States,rnthrough the framing of the Constitutionrnin 1787, created a constitutional republic,rndrawing upon their knowledge of therndualism implicit in human nature andrneschewing a plebiscitary democracy.rnSuch things bear remembering. For inrnconstituting the nation in this way, ourrnfathers rejected the view that man is intrinsicallyrngood and that all he needs forrnself-government is a voice in the legislature.rnThis latter view, which is found inrnthe work and disciples of Jean JacquesrnRousseau, finds exposition in the longrnline of American panderers to that abstractionrn”The People.” We find it in thernworst aspects of Jefferson’s thought, thernwhole political career of Andrew Jackson,rnthe impious blathering of AbrahamrnLincoln, and later on as an almost-literalrnarticle of faith for the Progressivernmovement and one of its favorite sons,rnProfessor Woodrow Wilson. Governmentrnby sentimental impulse picks uprnthe pace with the New and Fair dealsrnand really takes off with the New Frontier,rnthe civil rights movement, and thernGreat Society. Throughout this paradernof naivete, participation in the publicrn36/CHRONICLESrnrnrn