After the deluge.

Following the American Revolution, there was a burst of energy in American society so great that historians have likened it to an explosion. The energy produced propelled not only the great geographical expansion westward, but a vast entrepreneurial and even religious awakening.

According to Gordon S. Wood (The Radicalism of the American Revolution, Knopf), within a few short decades a new society had been created, a democratic polity unlike any other before seen in history.

What was the catalyst that powered this remarkable social and political development? According to Wood, it was the notion of equality, the most radical ideological force set free by the Revolution. So powerful was this liberating concept that Herman Melville went so far as to call it "The great God absolute! The center and circumference of all democracy."

Last month's midterm election was an explosion. Born of voter anger, frustration, and even enmity, it led to an earthquake in the political landscape. Across the land and across the board, Republicans gained not only parity but dominance. As one long-time Tennessee Democrat put it, explaining his defection: "The Republicans are the party of the people now." Deeply troubling for Democrats (particularly in the South), is that Republicans took command not only of the political momentum but of the farm clubs: statehouses and numerous legislatures. It is not going to be easy for the Democrats to recover the people's confidence.

But politics in America are anything but simple. All of the vows in the Republicans' "Contract with America" notwithstanding, Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and his young cohorts will not rebuild Washington in a day. Nor should they. Most Americans are still not against government. What they want is honest, efficient, responsive government; a fair shake, not a shakedown. Their main concerns are the pit-in-the-stomach issues: remunerative employment for themselves and their children; safety on their streets; and a renewed moral sense that will insure a coherent and enduring future.

President Bill Clinton, elected in 1992 to change the way Washington does business, failed to deliver and became the lightning rod of all discontent. Weakened and, we hope, chastened, he is not yet a lame duck. While he retains his office and his platform, both potent symbols, he will be met head-on by the opposition on issues from free trade to foreign policy (see, J. Bryan Hehir, page 9). How he responds to divided government will prove his mettle. Instead of reacting tactically and piecemeal to the majority's onslaughts, his only hope is to articulate a positive vision, one that speaks to the better instincts of,all Americans. He must stress hard work, the common good, planning for tomorrow, and equal opportunity for all.

To anyone who has seen Clinton at press conferences and town meetings, he comes across as smart and caring. He should use such forum to reach out to the American people. But it will do little goo unless he has first made up his mind what he wants to do Demonstrating discipline, tenacity, and enthusiasm in a difficult situation is the only way he will get people to take him seriously, and even that may not be enough.

Republicans claim a mandate, but, schooled in obstruction they must now learn to govern. The public will demand that they shrink the size of government - cutting budgets of congressional committees and staffs - and, at long last, reform campaign financing. With the latter in place, the need for mandating term limits - a draconian solution to a real problem - will be obviated. After all, the election of 1994 proved the Founder correct: an aroused electorate can clean house anytime it wants.

Welfare reform should come at the top of the legislative list Senator Daniel Moynihan (D-N.Y.) was right to have advise the president to undertake it before health-care reform. But here too, draconian measures - such as the harsh suggestion of Congressman James Talent (R-Mo.) to deny payments to children born of mothers younger than twenty-six, and to place such children in orphanages - must be vigorously resisted. Such radicalism would plunge the country into a bitter and divisive confrontation. The only reasonable possibility of an independent future for many people who receive welfare is a decent job. I will not do to offer them a stone.

President Clinton has already indicated he favors a line-item veto. He should make it a legislative priority, using its passage as a test of the new majority's professed bipartisanship. With it in hand, he will be able to save the Republicans from their habitual temptation to adopt Reaganesque deficit financing. Tax cuts may be possible, but they must be accounted for beforehand. Thus far, the Republicans' "Contract" comes nowhere near paying for what it promises. Alice Rivlin, director of the budget, has it right: "Now that the president has helped restore financial discipline, the last thing that we need is a return to the failed policies and soaring deficits of yesteryear."

The new Republican majority has set out a bold task for itself, but when it comes to cutting the size of government, the proof of the pudding will be in the swallowing. As Republican strategist William Kristol has rightly warned: "If a Republicanled Congress can't cut farm subsidies and big-business entitlements, then we forfeit any legitimate claim to being the party that wanted to cut government" (Wall Street Journal, November 10).

In a preelection issue, the Economist (November 5) devoted its cover story to the growing economic inequality within the developed nations. In the United States, it noted, the distance between the haves and the have-nots has reached a postwar high, a disparity more pronounced here than in any other major economic power. Such inequality, the Economist noted, leads to social stress and slower economic growth and productivity. Equality of opportunity, democracy's novel and most powerful means of encouraging equality of condition, is something Democrats used to talk about. It is time they rediscovered how to make it happen.

SATAN WHO? Professor Jon D. Levenson is the Albert A. List professor of Jewish Studies at Harvard and the author of The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism (Westminster/John Knox). He is also a very funny man. Recently Levenson spoke at the Jewish Theological Seminary on Manhattan's Upper West Side, and had his audience laughing during much of his lecture on the very heady topic of "Creation and Anti-Creation: God and His Enemies."

At one point Levenson recalled a discussion he had with a class about Satan, and reflected on how difficult it is these days to rely on a base of common cultural knowledge. Levenson was contrasting the Satan of the Bible with the Satan of Milton. He noticed, however, that only consternation was evident on the faces of his students. Finally, one student raised his hand and asked the inevitable question: "Who is Milton?"

Always eager to amuse, Levenson responded: "Milton Berle, of course." (See, Rembert G. Weakland, page 25.)

There were a few laughs, but then another hand went up. "Who's Milton Berle?"

That's just how desperate the cultural situation is, Levenson laughed.

RELIGION & THE MEDIA From a speech given by Archbishop Oscar H. Lipscomb (Pensacola, Florida, September 9, 1994): "I wish to say something concerning the attention paid by the news media to David Trosch, a Catholic priest who advocates killing abortionists. The media have restored to him the pulpit that 1, as his archbishop, have denied him. Trosch is not a newsmaker in any legitimate sense. In stating his views, he represents no one but himself....

"Why...should the media give this priest the kind of coverage he currently enjoys? Apparently, the sensationalism of a man in a Roman collar advocating killing is reason enough. That should not be so. David Trosch has never held any position of leadership in the prolife movement. Indeed, its leaders have repudiated his opinions. The media need to reexamine standards that permit them to ignore the many prolife leaders, representing millions, who speak compassionately and sensibly in the prolife cause, while giving enormous publicity to a figure on the fringes, in fact beyond the fringe."

AS LONG AS IT'S A LAW! If you are still wondering why the Vatican nixed the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible for liturgical and catechetical use, consider the following which had to be cut from Gabe Huck's "Rome Speaks: Inclusive Language Verboten" (November 18): The "draft" letter sent by the Congregation for Worship to Archbishop William Keeler in June gave this explanation. Following upon an examination of the NRSV of the Sacred Scripture by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and in fidelity to the principle lex credendi, lex orandi, it has been decided that this translation is not suitable for liturgical use."

What was that principle again? The Vatican letter has it, "the law of believing is the law of praying." But the maxim known to Catholic tradition is not lex credendi, lex orandi (which would let the CDF shape all liturgy from the universal catechism), it is lex orandi, lex credendi, "the law of praying is the law of believing." Well, it was only a tradition.