how much we know about what is best for other peoples andrncultures. In the words of the great scholar Russell Kirk: “Therernexists no single best form of government for the happiness of allrnmankind. The most suitable form of government depends onrnthe historic experience, the customs, the beliefs, the state of culturern. . . and all these things vary from land to land and age tornWe are entering a fertile and exciting time in our politics.rnOur ossified two-part- sstem, which has managed to stifle seriousrnforeign-policy debate for a decade, is cracking up. Pressurernis growing from dissidents widiin, and this year, there will be arnmight)’ challenge from without. As Joe NamaHi said, I guaranteernit.rnThe Reform Part- will be on the ballot in 50 states, and, if Irnhae anvthing to sav about it—and I expect to —it will becomerna noninterventionist part}’, a peace part), that will reach out tornAmericans of right and left who reject the Third Way imperialismrnbeing forced upon us by the elites of both Belhvay parties.rnIn this new era, many of us are rediscovering the old distrustrnof crusading that was at the center of the worldview of the oldrnAmerican right. We are conscious of our love for this countrv.rnWe do not wish to isolate America from the world, only to isolaternAmerica from wars —the religious, ethnic, and territorialrnwars of less fortunate lands. There is a powerful body of Americanrnthought that flowed from Hie pens of George Washingtonrnand John Quiney Adams, William Jennings Bryan and RobertrnTaft—as well as all the nearly forgotten figures written about byrnJu,shn Raimondo and others —to help guide us. And their messagernis one I intend to stamp upon our banners in the campaignrnof 2000: A Republic, Not an Empire! America First! ^rnThe Millennium Conflict: America First or World Government?rnU ive years ago, historian Christopher Lasch publishedrnThe Revolt of the Elites. It was a book about how ourrnnational elite was literally seceding from America. Pointing outrnthe huge and growing gap in incomes between the elite and thernmiddle class, Lasch argued that a more ominous gap existed inrnhow each perceived America.rn”The old elite, Lasch wrote, had a sense of obligation torncountr}’ and communit}’. But the new ruling class, more meritrnbased, brainy, and mobile, congregates on the coasts and putsrnpatriotism far down the list in its hierarchy of values. Indeed,rnsaid Lasch, ‘it is a question of whether they think of themselvesrnas Americans at all’rn”Lasch did not name names, but the new elite is not difhcultrnto identify, A few years ago, Ralph Nader wrote to the executivesrnof 100 giant U.S. corporations, suggesting how they mightrnshow their loyalfy- to ‘the country that bred them, built them,rnsubsidized them and defended them.’ At the annual stockholdersrnmeeting, Ralph said, why not begin with a pledge of allegiancernto the flag?rn”Only one company responded favorably. Half did not respondrnat all. Many sent back angr}’ letters declaring that theyrnwere not American companies at all. Motorola denounced thernrequest as ‘political and nationalistic’ Other companiesrnlikened the idea of a pledge of allegiance to loyalty oaths of thernMcCarthy era. Vliy were the heads of these corporations outraged?rnBecause for years they have been tr)’ing to sever tjieirrnbonds to the countr)’ of their birth.rn”In 1997, the head of Boeing told one interviewer he wouldrnbe delighted if, 20 years hence, no one thought of Boeing as anrnAmerican company. My goal, said Phil Condit, is to ‘rid [Boeing]rnof its image as an American group.’rn”Back in the 1970’s, Cad Gerstacker of Dow envisioned arnday when Dow would be free of America. ‘I have longrndreamed,’ he said, ‘of buying an island owned by no nation andrnof establishing the World Headquarters of the Dow Companyrnon the truly neutral ground of such an island, beholden to nornnation or societ}’.’ A spokesman for Union Carbide agreed: ‘It isrnnot proper for an international corporation to put the welfare ofrnany country in which it does business above that of any other.’rnIn any test of loj’alties, for such as these, the company comes beforernthe country.rn”Early in the 1970’s, Zbigniew Brzezinski, later JimmyrnCarter’s national securit}’ advisor, wrote:rnA global consciousness is for the first time beginning tornmanifest itself… we are witnessing the emergence ofrntransnational elites . . . composed of international businessmen,rnscholars, professional men and public officials.rnTire ties of these new elites cut across national boundaries,rntheir perspectives are not confined by national traditionsrn. . . and their interests are more functional thanrnnationalrnThe one force that can derail the rise of this new elite, warnedrnZbig, is the ‘politically activated masses,’ whose ‘nativism couldrnwork against the cosmopolitan elites.’rn”Brzezinski knew that the creation of any New World Orderrnwould have to proceed by stealtlr. As Richard Gardner, Carter’srnambassador to Italy, wrote in 1974; ‘The “house of world order”rnwill have to be built from the bottom up. An end run aroundrnnational sovereignt}’, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplishrnmuch more than an old fashioned frontal assault.’rn”Advancing on little cat’s feet, they have done their work. Byrn1992, Mr. Clinton could appoint as Depufy Secretar)’ of Staternhis roommate from Oxford days who openly welcomed therndeath of nations and the coming of world government. WroternStrobe Talbott:rnAll countries are basically social arrangements. Withinrnthe next hundred years, nationhood as we know it will bernobsolete. All states will recognize a single global authority.rnA phrase briefly fashionable in the mid 20th centiir)’,rncitizen of the world, will have assumed real meaning atrnthe end of the 21st.rn”L,ast year in Istanbul, Bill Clinton declared himself ‘a citizenrnof the world.’rn”This, then, is the millennial struck that succeeds the ColdrnWar: It is the struggle of patriots of every nation against a woridrngovernment where all nations yield up their sovereignty andrnfade away. It is the struggle of nationalism against globalism,rnand it will be fought out not only among nations, but within nations.rnAnd the old question Dean Rusk asked in the Vietnamrnera is relevant anew: Whose side are you on?”rn—from a speech delivered by Patrick J. Buchanan to thernBoston World Affairs Council (January 6, 2000)rnlULY 2000/1 .Srnrnrn