I do not mean to imply that there is a conspiracy among the Clintons, their close friends, and some organizations to produce these results, although a number of organizations loosely linked to Clinton appointees may be actively involved in an effort to revolutionize the culture. Nor do I mean to suggest anything deliberately sinister, although the consequences of these efforts may well turn out to be disastrous.

       In one sense at least, Bill Clinton has been open about his intentions. He is, he says, fully committed to civil liberties. So are most of the opponents of his appointments. The problem arises when we attempt to specify what we mean by civil liberties.

       The Clintons no doubt see their definitions as the epitome of the American program that has its origins in the Declaration of Independence. However, their program, at least as I interpret it through the evidence of their appointments, would undermine the intentions of the authors of that document and confound the interpretations of most contemporary Americans.

       It is in the definition of the program that the Clintons have been apparently deceptive, although there is nothing unusual about political deception. The implementation of legislative programs often necessarily involves some degree of deception, and few political platforms can be taken seriously. President Roosevelt engaged in secret acts of war against Nazi Germany while publicly maintaining his intention to avoid war.

       Whatever argument may be made for presidential deception in the face of a clear and present foreign threat to our institutions, no philosophers or social scientists, let alone politicians, possess the kind of knowledge that could justify deception with respect to an effort to revolutionize our culture. Such an effort requires candor and extensive public debate. Its absence with respect to such a profound issue would negate any reasonable conception of what democracy means.