of social institutions for alien ends, thisrnmanipulation being conducted covertlyrnin the name of the institution’s own values.”rnIn our own time, just as the managerialrnsystem was locking itself intornplace in the 1950’s, a cinematic explorationrnof the theme of “revolution withinrnthe form” appeared in Don Siegel’s Invasionrnof the Body Snatchers. For fourrndecades film critics have quibbled aboutrnthe real meaning of the Jack Finneyrnstory on which Siegel’s film is based,rnwhether the outer-space creatures whornhave the ability to replicate human bodiesrnand take over their minds and personalitiesrnare really communists or Mc-rnCarthyites. The larger point of Finney’srnnovelette and Siegel’s film, which bothrngroups of critics manage to miss entirely,rnis that the story represents a primal humanrnfear, the simple recognition thatrnthings are not necessarily what theyrnseem, that things, including people, canrnbe identical in shape, looks, intelligence,rnand behavior but vet not be what theyrnappear to be.rnWhen “revolution within the form”rnoccurs, the appropriate vehicle for thernrevolutionary party is a pseudoconservatismrnthat preserves the form even as itrnsubverts the meaning of the form, and inrnthe case of the present managerial system,rnthe system and its architects purportrnto be “conservative” in the samernway that Augustus purported to be a republican,rnthereby acquiring the legitimacyrnthat traditional forms impart.rnThus, Franklin Roosevelt supposedlyrn”saved capitalism” while in fact he engineeredrnrevolutionary changes in the relationshiprnof the national state to privaternproperty and enterprise that helpedrnsubvert traditional capitalism, and EarlrnWarren and his comrades on thernSupreme Court inserted revolutionaryrnmeanings into the words and concepts ofrnthe U.S. Constitution without ever alteringrna single letter of its textual form.rnIn the 1950’s, as the managerial systemrnthat Roosevelt imposed settled intornplace, there appeared such heirs to hisrnthrone as Dwight Eisenhower and AdlairnStevenson who actually called themselvesrn”conservatives,” while propagandistsrnlike Clinton Rossiter and PeterrnViereck set to work to show in their writingsrnhow characters like Roosevelt,rnStevenson, Eisenhower, and Warrenrnwere the philosophical descendants ofrnBurke, John Adams, and Metternich. Ifrnthe revolution takes place within thernform, then the revolutionaries have tornarray themselves in the robes of the kindrnof conservatism that preserves the formrnwhile making sure that the substance ofrnpower flows into their own hands.rnHence, genuine conservatives likernGarrett and most of his Old Rightrncolleagues, whom Justin Raimondorndiscusses in his recent Reclaiming thernAmerican Right, had to be vilified byrnthe revolutionaries of the new regimernand their pack of pseudoconservativernhounds. The story of how this occurredrnis familiar to Mr. Raimondo’s readers,rnbut today the same process of vilification,rncoupled with further adjustmentsrnin the meaning of “conservatism,” continues.rnAs evidence of it, consider the recentrn”Conservative Summit” sponsoredrnby the National Reiew Institute inrnWashington in March.rnI didn’t attend the “Summit,” butrnfriends did, and according to their accounts,rnthe chief consequence of thernmeeting, if not the real purpose, was preciselyrnto redefine and adapt the meaningrnof “conservatism” to the needs of thernmanagerial regime in the 1990’s. Yetrnanother purpose, by no means distinctrnfrom the first, was to reconfirm NationalrnReview itself as the main leader and voicernof the American right. That goal is clearrnfrom the very title of the meeting.rnOnly supreme leaders can convenern”summits,” and only subordinate leadersrnshow up to attend them. Civen thernideological fracturing of the right thatrntook place in the 1980’s and eariy 90’s, itrnis now necessary for its aspirant leaders tornpour the wine of the right into their ownrnbottles and to put their own labels on thernproduct. Thus, the “Conservative Summit”rnostensibly rounded up just aboutrneverybody whom the self-appointedrnleadership thinks is worth having in itsrncorral, including a handful of token OldrnRightists whose presence could be exploitedrnto prove that the summit wasrnreally inclusive and whose remarks, if mvrnsources are reliable, were strong expressionsrnof an authentic Old Right conservatism.rnThe Old Rightists might have beenrnuseful as ornamental twigs in the pseudoconservativernnest National Reviewrnwas trying to build, but they weren’t thernmain attraction of the summit. Thernmain attraction was a batch of neoconservativerngurus, politicos, policy wonks,rnand perennial presidential wanna-besrnwho spent the weekend trying to erasernjust about every syllable ever breathed byrnthe real Old Right. Those few Old Rightistsrnwho made the mistake of showing uprnat the summit soon found themselvesrnthe objects of the public scorn of thernneoconservative luminaries.rnWhen Old Rightist Llewellyn Rockwell,rnpresident of the Ludwig von MisesrnInstitute, dared to criticize Franklin Rooseveltrnin his public remarks, he was atrnonce corrected by none other than thernMinority Leader of the House of Representatives,rnthe Hon. Newt Gingrich himself,rnwho happened to be a copanelistrnof Mr. Rockwell. The chief Republicanrnin the House held up the DemocraticrnOld Rubberlegs as America’s “greatestrnpolitician,” the man who should be thernmodel for conservatives and from whomrn”we” can learn how to “build coalitions”rnand hov’ to “govern” (it’s interesting thatrnMr. C. prefers Roosevelt to Reagan inrnthese respects). As examples of how “we”rnshould govern, presumably, the leaderrnof the Stupid Party in Congress proposedrnfederal control of all law enforcement inrnthe country and “saving” the childrenrnof the underclass by federal programs.rnMr. Rockwell had criticized “bigrngovernment” and urged the adherencernof the American right to the tradition ofrnsmall government advocated by the Antifederalists,rnthe Agrarians, and the OldrnRight of the 1930’s. He received a goodrndeal of support from the audience, butrnKarlyn Bowman of the American EnterprisernInstitute, also a copanelist, madernhaste to disassociate herself from therndangerous Mr. Rockwell. The Americanrnpeople, she proclaimed, are supportive ofrnbig government, and she at once unbosomedrnpolling data to buttress this dubiousrnand irrelevant claim.rnJack Kemp, the ubiquitous favorite ofrnthe Stupid Party, was also on hand, thisrntime to deliver yet again his standardrnsermon on the joy of nonwhitcness. Hernpronounced that the high black crimernrate is due to the “root causes” of povertyrnand racism, a stale theme of 1960’srnliberalism and progressivism (not tornmention New Leftism), and held thatrnthe low loan rates of black businessmenrnare also due to white racism. Mr. Kemprnthen launched into a speech on WhatrnConservatism Means To Me, which infomicdrnhis audience that the first duty ofrnconservatives is to battle “anti-Semitismrnand racism.” He offered as exemplars ofrnthis fight Elie Wiesel’s attack on RonaldrnReagan for his visit to the Bitburg cemeteryrnand William F. Buckley, Jr.’s attackrnon the John Birch Society. The ex-rnHousing Czar added that, at next year’srn8/CHRONICLESrnrnrn