pulsive, and how one might “resist” suchrnpermissive laws is never clear. Pourrnchicken blood on abortion clinics? Killrnabortionists? By embracing the subjectivistrndoctrine of disobedience of Garrisonrnand King (to whom Neuhaus himselfrnwas an aide), the First Thingsrncontributors come very close to embracingrnthe very dangerous logic of that position.rnOnce you have decided that thernstate does not conform to the “higherrnlaw” as recaled to your own consciencern(which is easily confused with your ownrninterests, preferences, and passions) andrnthat you have the duty to make it conform,rnthen there is no limit to how farrnyou will go. Thoreau and Garrison leadrnineluctablv to the terrorism of JohnrnBrown; King leads unavoidably to thernreal bomb-throwing of the Weathermen.rnFinally, for all the tremulous insinuationrnof desperate deeds in the Neuhausrnsymposium, none of the contributorsrnbothers to explore er’ seriously the obviousrnlegal and political remedies for thernwoes of which they complain. JudgernBork does indeed comment on the futilityrnof both reason and reform in trying tornrestrain the courts in recent decades, andrnhe suggests some constitutional amcndment,rns to correct the courts, but he isrnnone too sanguine about the prospect ofrndoing so. Yet in truth there are many correctivernmeasures that neither the neoconserxativesrnnor the Republican Part}rnhas even attempted to sponsor. Theyrncould seek to limit the appellate jurisdictionrnof the courts; they could encouragerngovernors and local officials simplv to ignorernand disobev illicit court mandates;rnthe)’ could impeach justices and judges;rnthey could e’en muster more oppositionrnto judicial nominations than the Republicansrnin the two years of their majority inrnCongress have shown any disposition torndo; and they could also make life veryrnunpleasant for the courts, reducingrnjudges to salaries of one dollar a year, terminatingrntheir clerical support, andrnthrowing them out of their offices intornthe streets. The fact is that the judges,rnlike the Pope, have no battalions, no instrumentsrnof force with which to back uprntheir decrees, and without such instruments,rnthey can construct a tyranny onlyrnwith the passi’e or active cooperation ofrnthe slaves they seek to rule.rnIndeed, manv of the complaintsrnlodged against the courts by the FirstrnThings crowd are hardK’ new. The courtsrnhave been abusing the Constitution andrnhanding down illicit commands to statesrnand localities for at least 50 years, andrnwhile paleoconservatives have dc elopedrnan extensive and sophisticated critiquernof these trends, neoconscrvativcs havernbeen largely silent. Where was RichardrnJohn Neuhaus when conservatives werernpeppering the countryside with billboardsrndemanding the impeachment ofrnEarl Warren? I le was at the side of “Dr.”rnLIBERAL ARTSrnSIR DICK, DAME JANErnhi an effort to boost the self-esteem of underachieving 16-year-olds, the Britishrngovernment has approved a new examination. According to the Sunday Telegraph, thernnew test awards points to students for getting their names, the names of their schools,rnand the date correct. In die math section, teenagers are shown five pencils and askedrnto count them and identif} tlie longest one. Nick Seaton of the Campaign for RealrnEducation said: “This exam is hopeless. An average seen-year-okl sliould be able torndo it. It is a waste of time and totalK stupid, just part of the ‘all must have prizes’rnsyndrome.”rnKing, helpmg that fanatic destroy thernfabric of constitutional government atrnthe behest of the Warren Court and itsrntwisted reading of the Constitution. Ifrnit’s an “illegitimate regime” you’re lookingrnfor, you don’t have to wait for courtrndecisions on abortion and euthanasia; wernhave had nothing but an illegitimaternregime in the United States for the lastrn50 years, a government dedicated to destroyingrnthe Constitution, gutting the restraintsrnon federal power, and subvertingrnthe cultural norms and institutions ofrnAmerican society. Now, when the courtsrnhave at last touched on the religiousrndogmas that Father Neuhaus and hisrnsymposiasts find untouchable, they havernhnally concluded that the “regime” reallyrnis illegitimate and are full of all sorts ofrnill-considered instructions as to whatrnthey and the rest of us must do about it.rnBut the principles of constitutional subversionrninvented by the W^arren Court inrnits decisions of the 1950’s (and indeedrnthe New Deal Court of the 1930’s andrn40’s) arc the very same principles appliedrnin the cases to which Neuhaus and hisrncolleagues object today. It’s about timernthey arrived at what should have beenrnclear and was clear to man- Americansrnvcars ago. Their stumbling perceptionrnthat something is wrong is welcome, butrnto tell the truth it’s just a few decades toornlate.rnNevertheless, it is a perception tornwhich more and more Americans, conservativesrnor not, are being driven. FatherrnNeuhaus’s neoeonservative criticsrnno doubt sense this and know wherernsuch perceptions will eventually lead,rnand that is why their response to thernsymposium sounds so much like thernshrill screaming of a trapped and dyingrnanimal. The value of the First Things debaclernis that it once again rips the maskrnaway from the real face of the movementrnto which the American right has attachedrnitself, and it offers some hopernthat in the future diosc who remain weddedrnto that movement vill be exposed asrnthe apologists for the regime that theyrnare. As the socially destructive and politicallyrnrepressive character of the federalrnleviathan becomes increasingly obviousrnto more and more Americans and tornmore and more “mainstream conseratives,”rnthose who insist on standing withrnPodhoretz and his allies as defenders of arnpower structure that everyone else hasrncome to reject will find their footholdsrnincreasingh’ slippery and their companyrnincreasingly small. <-‘rn34/CHRONICLESrnrnrn