Richard M. Weaver, M.E. Bradford,rnClyde Wilson, and Grady McWhiney,rnamong others. They believe that if therernis any hope of restoring ordered libertyrnand self-government, it will spring fromrnthis intellectual tradition. What seemsrnto them equallv evident is that the renewalrnof American civilization will notrnemerge from the Contract With Americarnor from any half-measure cooked uprninside the Beltway. Our forefathers knewrnthat good government worked its way uprnfrom the household through local communitiesrnand churches, the states, and finally,rnand only as a last resort, to Washington,rnD.C. They also understand thatrnwhen government ceases to serve householdsrnand the intermediate associationsrnthat shield them from centralized power,rnit is up to the people themselves tornput things right. By helping to reopenrnthe debate over the principles our imperialrnrulers hoped were long dead—states’rnrights, nullification, and secession—rnJames R. and Walter D. Kennedy havernstruck a decisive blow at the very heart ofrnthe American Empire. Doubtless it willrnnot be the last from these gentlemen.rnMichael Hill is a historian and presidentrnof the Southern League.rnSCIENCErnCrime Genes andrnOther Delusionsrnby Kevin LambrnIn his closing argument before jurors inrnthe O.J. Simpson murder trial,rnDeputy District Attorney Christopher A.rnDarden described Simpson as being “outrnof control” when he allegedly killed hisrnformer wife and Ronald Goldman. Mr.rnDarden pointed to a series of events inrnthe hours before the brutal killings that,rnhaving ignited the short fuse of Mr.rnSimpson’s unstable temperament,rnturned a “homicidal fit” into a “ragernkilling.”rnThe renewed concerns over a recentrnUniversity of Maryland conference onrn”The Meaning and Significance of Researchrnon Genetics and Criminal Behavior,”rncast new light on Mr. Darden’srnmetaphor. What ignites and fuels thisrnshort burning fuse? One’s environmentrnor genes? Is there a predisposition towardrnimpulsive violence or is violentrncrime simply a matter of poverty and oppression?rnSociologists like Dorothy Nelkin arguernthat “social factors” generate violentrncrime, although a growing amount of evidencernshows that violent behavior stemsrnfrom several interacting factors—bothrnsocial and biological. Sometimes referredrnto as “criminogenetic traits,” thernrisk factors of age, gender, race, personality,rnintelligence, temperament, childhoodrndevelopment, peer influence, andrnsocioeconomic status are solid and persistentrncorrelates of crime.rnBy focusing upon social forces alone,rncritics continue to ignore other importantrnfactors that contribute to violentrncrime. The line of reasoning that indictsrn”society” for the conduct of violentrnpredators is a fallacy of eady 20th-centuryrnbehaviorism, namely that the humanrnmind is like a blank slate, that all humanrnbehavior is determined by social conditioning.rnCritics also maintain that no onernhas identified a gene for “crime.” Thisrnis simply a red herring. Genes influencernbehavior indirectly. As ThomasrnBouchard, director of the MinnesotarnTwin Studies Project, points out, geneticrninfluences on behavior are mainly distalrnrather than proximate. Recent findingsrnfrom twin and adoption studies confirmrnthis. To contend that no “crime gene”rnexists does not discredit behavior geneticrnresearch, not to mention the fact thatrnthe discovery of a “crime gene” would astonishrnthe scientific community.rnAdvancements in behavioral geneticsrnover the past 20 years have changed thernway researchers view the effects of heredityrnand environment on behavioral development.rnOnce thought of as naturernversus nurture, hereditary and environmentalrninfluences are no longer viewedrnas rivals but interacting forces, or quiternsimply nature via nurture. The outcomernof this interaction takes the form of individualrndifferences in personality traitsrnand characteristics, which produces bothrnsocial and antisocial behavior.rnIt is not enough for critics to explainrnaway crime as merely the product of socialrnconditions. They must clarify howrnthese conditions produce violent behavior,rnwhy biological factors are irrelevant,rnand why behavior genetic research is unablernto determine the “root causes” ofrncrime. Arguably the most comprehensivernstudy of “root causes” to date, a leadingrnpanel of experts under the auspicesrnof the National Research Council foundrnthat both social and biological factors influencernviolent crime.rnOne of the findings corroborated byrnbehavioral scientists (one which sociologistsrnare reluctant to acknowledge) is thatrnthe demise of the traditional family environmentrnacts as a catalyst for juvenilerndelinquency. As David Lykken, a professorrnof psychology at the University ofrnMinnesota, points out in his recent studyrnof antisocial personalities, dysfunctionalrnparenting plays a major role in violentrncrime. The lack of moral guidance,rnwhen combined with individual differencesrnin personality and temperament,rnexplains delinquent behavior better thanrneconomic status alone.rnAlthough a disproportionate numberrnof violent offenders are disadvantaged,rnnot all disadvantaged people are criminals.rnWhat Columbia University psychiatristrnDavid Abrahamsen noted 50 yearsrnago remains valid today, that “so-calledrn’poor-environment’ cannot be consideredrna sufficient explanation for criminalrnbehavior, because a number of lawabidingrncitizens have lived and grown uprnunder unfavorable conditions. A poorrnenvironment can only be regarded asrncausative insofar as it is combined with arncertain disposition in the individualrnmaking latent criminal tendencies manifest.”rnBy the same token, a similar set ofrncircumstances may not always yield identicalrnresults. Anyone who unknowinglyrntouches a hot stove will flinch in pain,rnbut the difference between someonernwho immediately treats a blistered handrnor someone who violently strikes arnspouse for leaving the stove on may havernas much to do with one’s predispositionrnas with sheer circumstance.rnThe same holds true for understandingrnthe “root causes” of crime. Often,rnthese so-called “root causes” reflect inaccuraternassumptions about violent crime,rnsuch as that “society” is somehow responsiblernfor crime because of failed socialrnwelfare policies. As Dwight Inglernonce put it, lack of water is not the causernof fire. Individual differences in personality,rnintelligence, and temperament explainrnviolent behavior more comprehensivelyrnthan inadequate sociologicalrntheories.rnMoreover, survey data presented byrnLee Ellis, a professor of sociology atrnMinot State University, reveal that soci-rnDECEMBER 1996/45rnrnrn