sion and radio stations, liberated from the shackles of nationalrnregulation and the international economy, became focal pointsrnfor a cultural renaissance. Top 40 stations in Milwaukee andrnAustin and Toledo devoted half their time to local bands, andrnin Minneapolis, Albuciuerque, and Tupelo, TV soap operasrnand comedies with local settings were the training ground forrnthe dramatic explosion that would make the early 21st centur)-rna second Elizabethan era.rnAfter four years of renewal under Buchanan, the forces of reactionrnregrouped in “The Real Conservative Party,” led by a deflatedrnWilliam Bennett and former Democratic leaders likernTom Daschle and David Bonior. (Dick Gephardt had read thernwriting orr the wall and jumped on the Buchanan band-wagonrnin the second year of his first term.) Promising a restorahon ofrnDemocratic values —quotas (now termed “equality adjustments”),rnwelfare-dependency, and race war—they swept severalrnurban areas of the Northeast and almost split the black voternwith Buchanan. A slim majority of yfrican-Americans, however,rnfollowed the advice of leaders like Louis Farrakhan, whornpointed out that the Buchanan administration had given themrnhome rule in their own communities, the right to rear theirrnchildren the way they wanted, and the ability to use their taxrnmoney to support their own religious schools and African CulturalrnCenters. “If vou want to go back to being slaves, move tornMassachusetts.”rn”Then I awoke and found the dawn was grey.”rnRestoration of America is a dream, but it is not an impossiblernor futile dream. It will have to be based both on our own histon’rnof self-reliance and provincialism—traditions that antedaternthe Constitution, which strengthened and preserved them forrnas long as that ConstituHon was respected—and on the deeperrninstincts of our human nature that found expression, for almo.strn3,000 years, in the inshtutions of European civilization.rnThese institutions incorporate that moral philosophy ofrnChristianit}’ and Judaism which is deeply offensive to Mr. Sullivanrnand the future First Lady of Massachusetts. In his article,rnMr. Sidlivan admonishes his neoconservative “think-alike”rnfriends to regain their chipper optimism by taking inspiration—rnas “true conservatives” must—from the exairrples of MarkrnMcGwire and Sammy Sosa — as if the American obsession withrncommercial sports were not a symptom of our malaise. But if,rnhe says, they persist in their moralizing follies, “then they losernsight of what makes them both consenative and quintessentiallyrnAmerican. They lose sight of what distinguishes them fromrnthe darker histor)’ of European conservatism. . ..”rnIt is the mark of dishonest leftists that they can never be contentrnwith defining their own position but must define their opponents’rnas well. Consider the effrontery of an Englishmanrntelling us what it means to be American and a leftist instructingrnus on the principles of true conservatism. Ne.xt, he will berntelling us that reverence for AIDS is the ultimate Christianrnprinciple.rnBy turning to “the dark side,” American conservatives mightrnrediscover the facts of human nature and the limitations theyrnplace on our sexual and social experimentation; they would recoverrna sense of the history and literature of v’hich the}’ havernbeen deprived in the propaganda academies that pass forrnschools; they would regain pride in their ancestr)’ and faith inrntheir God; and they would refuse to listen to the Muzakrnmelodies warbled by the Sirens—leftists in drag who define thernAmerican right.rnDICTATIONSrn”Or Else a Little Consetyative”rnThe words conservative and conservatism havernbeen the subject of an ideological straggle that resemblesrnthe tussle over Patroclus’ corpse describedrnin the Iliad—as violent as it is ftitile: Both wordsrnare dead. Originally, conservatives were supportersrnof the establishment who did not like to berncalled Tories—a more full-blooded term. By thern1830’s, there were no real Jacobites to restore arnnon-existent pretender, and conservatives were outrnto preserve the fraits of a revolution that had madernthe fortunes of so many powerful families.rnIn America, “conservative” was applied to defendersrnof the status quo, which by the 20th centuryrnmeant plutocracy. Franklin Roosevelt could bernaccused of conservatism because he alwaysrnworked for the interest of his own class, whilernAlbert Jay Nock and H.L. Mencken rejected thernlabel because it meant little more than “shill forrnthe rich.”rnFor a brief period, roughly between the end ofrnthe Korean War and the election of Ronald Reagan,rn”conservatism” impUed a chaotic set of principlesrnthat included individual liberty, private property,rnrespect for civiHzed order, and morality, but by thernmid-SO’s, the term was legitimately applied to therndefenders of a status quo represented by multinationalrncorporations and the national bureaucracy.rnThe usual alternative to “conservatism” is “thernright,” which originally denoted the more tepidrnsupporters of red revolution in France. Both termsrnhave always represented the more moderate versionrnof the revolutionary movements that find theirrnfullest expression in Leninist Russia and the NewrnDeal.rnMarxists know what they are for; conservatives,rntypically, only know what they are against—rnsort of, because when “what they are against” becomesrnthe status quo, then they are for it, at least uprnto the point where it might have tax consequences.rnThe only real alternative to “conservatism”rnwould be a term like “Christendom” that stood forrnsomething positive and enduring, but that wouldrnmean taking a stand, Uke Martin Luther or ThomasrnMore or Charles A. Lindbergh, and taking a standrncan entail unpleasant consequences. It is muchrnnicer and much safer to be either a little liberal orrnelse a Uttle conservative.rn—Humpty DumptyrnJANUARY 1999/13rnrnrn