seeks tlie destriietion of the eiiltural andrnmoral eodes and institntions of the oldrnruling elass and its order beeanse thoserneodes and institutions are obstaeles to itsrno\ n power and interests and tend to exclndernand restrict the new elite. Hence,rnwhat is produced by Holl)’wood, the universities,rnthe publishers, the newspapers,rnthe electronic media—the cultural apparatusrnof the new ruling class —is the newrn”culture” against which Buchanan “declared”rnwar. The new cidture would notrnexist in die absence of the new class thatrnproduces it and uses it to subvert the oldrnruling elass and to build rationalizationsrnfor its own power and preeminence. Thernwar against the new culture cannot bernwon unless the new class that peddles it isrndislodged from power-by yet anotherrnreoluhon, or, if you insist on the term,rncounterrevolution.rnWhat remains of the old culture survivesrn—marginally—in the “beefy, 300-rnpound guys with tattoos up their armsrnand sleeveless T-shirts” who form therncrowds around Pat Buchanan’s tent, andrnit is riiesc gentlemen and they alone —rnnot “those Chamber of Commerce officersrnin golf shirts and tasseled loafers”rnwho probably read the Weekly Standardrne’erv week and find it interesting, norrnthe “black folks and Lahno folks and gayrnfolks and liberal folks” so beloved ofrnComrade Fulani—who are at least willingrnto fight the culture war. There mayrnnot be enough of them to w in it; theyrnmay not have much of a clue as to how tornfight it effectively; and they may ver’ wellrnlose it. But at least, unlike the suave andrndebonair Mr. Brooks and his neoconrnfriends, they do fight, and unlike Fulanirnand her allies, they’re on the right side.rnThe idea that the political conflict inrnthe United States is largely a cla.ss conflictrnis a concept that neoconservatives findrnmost offensive and disconcerting. Inrn1996, when Buchanan first used the imagernof “peasants and pitchforks” after hisrnictor’ in the New Hampshire primary torndescribe his own following in the politico-rncidtural conflict. Bill Kristol himselfrnrejected the image. “Someone needs tornstand up and defend the Establishment,”rnthe Washington Post quoted Kristol asrntelling its reporter:rnIn the last couple of weeks, there’srnbeen too much pseudo-populism,rnalmost too much concern and attenfionrnfor, quote, the people—thatrnis, flie people’s will, their prejudicesrnand their foolish opinions.rnAnd in a certain sense, we’re allrnpaying the price for that now. . . .rnAfter all, we conservatives are onrnthe side of the lords and barons.rnFor once, Mr. Kristol was entirelyrnright. “We conservatives” —i.e., thosernconservatives for whom he speaks andrnwhose mind he helps form —are in factrnthe “lords and barons” of the new ridingrnclass, or if not exactly the lords andrnbarons, then at least the high priests andrncourt buffoons of fliose who arc. Thernwhole political function of neoconservatismrnis to provide a moderate rationalizationrnfor the new regime of the new ridingrnclass, and in fact it docs provide a farrnmore sensible and credible ideologicalrnformula than Marxism, multiculturalism,rnor the other stale and unbelievablernisms that the left offers. Over the last fewrnyears, both Mr. Kristol and his faithful Indianrncompanion, Mr. Brooks, have comernup with a couple of different, rather lessthan-rneatchy slogans that try to encapsulaternthe magic and romance, if you will,rnof the New World Order: “NationalrnGreatness Conservafism” and, more recently,rnMr. Brooks’ “One Nation Conservatism,”rnwhich upholds the “compassionaternconservatism” of George W.rnBush and John McCain’s “New PatrioticrnChallenge,” both of which vow to helprnconstruct a “burbling civic life” for thernnation, although every burble seems tornbe funded by the federal le’iathan.rnThe reason the beef)’ guys with tattoosrnapprove of Buchanan is that, unlikernmany denizens of the Beltway, ftiey continuernto identif}’ themselves in terms ofrntribal particularities and not in terms ofrnideological abstractions, and they recognizernin Buchanan the only major politicalrnfigure who defends their tribal identitiesrnand also is willing, in contrast to thernapostles of economic liberh’ in the GOP,rnto offer material security for them andrntheir families and communities. Some atrnleast grasp that if issues of material seciiritv’rnare not of much political concern thisrnyear, they will be sooner or later. One ofrnPat Buchanan’s political problems inrnthese happ- days is to communicate tornthe rest of them that flic happiness willrnnot la.st, that ftie transnational economicrnand political system the ruling class isrnconstructing is designed without anyrnplace for fliem, and that the championsrnof the new order (like Mr. Brooks andrnMr. Kristol) in fact despise them, fearrnthem, and want them rendered impotent,rnif not altogeftier extinct.rnBut anoflier of Buchanan’s problemsrnthis ‘ear ma)’ be to make sure fliat the alliancernwith Miss Fulani and the importationrninto the Buchanan campaign ofrnrhetoric and ideology that directly contradictrnthe invocation of particularism dornnot subvert his social and political base inrnMiddle America altogether. That is whatrnis wrong with ftie “leff-right-center coalition”rnthat Pat Choate describes and withrnthe effort “to bring black and white Americarntogether” in a common politicalrnmovement. The elements of such coalitionsrncannot subsist together becausernthey are both ideologically and sociallyrnincompatible. They are ideologically incompatiblernbecause the “right” to whichrnBuchanan has alwa’s successfully appealedrnis a particidaristic identit)’, whilernthe “left” whose banner Miss Fulanirnwaves is a univcrsalist one. They are sociallyrnincompatible because the socialrnforces to which they tn,’ to appeal are differentrnsocial groups with different andrnusually contradietor- interests. If the Fulanirnalliance really is supposed to be arnstrategy and not merely a tactic, thoserncontradictions will become increasinglyrnapparent in the course of the campaign,rnas issues like affirmative action, immigration,rncivil rights, abortion, and homosexualit)’rnarise. Vhe bloodiest and most bitterrnbattles of the “culture war” may bernfought inside the Buchanan campaign itselfrnBut no man in the United States hasrnfought that yvar more intensely, morerncourageously, and more effectively andrnarticulately than Pat Buchanan, and onernmajor reason he has been able to fight itrnas well and as long as he has is becausernthe guys in the crowd who have supportedrnhim knew what he was fighting forrnand whom he was fighting against. Thernpotential flaw of his alliance with LenorarnFulani and her elevation within thernBuchanan camp may be to confuse flioscrnvery guys, the Buchanan base, and tornscud out a muddled signal that communicates,rnat best, nothing beyond the exigenciesrnof campaign tactics, and at worst,rnthe wrong message that alienates and demoralizesrnhis own supporters and windsrnup defining no political coalition able eitherrnto win or to endure bevond the currentrnelection. crnwww.chroniclesmagazine.orgrn. updated regularly . . . visit often .rnFEBRUARY 2000/33rnrnrn