CULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnSACRIFICE, a word not often heard inrnthe nation’s capital during the pastrndozen years, is being spoken by Washingtonrnpohticians again. Since none ofrnthese gentlemen or ladies has been noticedrneven to observe Lent, much less tornabstain from newly acquired powers,rnperquisites, and salaries, the rest of therncountry may be likened to 255 millionrnturkeys nervously watching the BigrnHouse where smoke from ritual fires hasrnalready begun to ascend from the chimneyrnand trying to recall, like the charactersrnin the ethnic joke, whether Thanksgivingrncomes before Easter.rnMalcolm Muggeridge (I think it was)rnonce defined liberalism as Christianityrnwithout the Cross. This insight, thoughrntrue, is incomplete, implying as it doesrnthat secular humanism is willing to denyrnthe justification for suffering by the majority,rnexcluding only the usual designatedrnand preferred categories of victimrngroups. In fact, however, that is not therncase: what is lacking in liberalism is notrnthe Cross, it is the One who was placedrnon the Cross; not suffering itself but thernidentity of the Sufferer, the Priest as Victim,rnGod made man in reparation forrnman’s sins. Of course, liberals have historicallyrndenied that personal sufferingrnhas any value, while their determinationrnto be as gods themselves has led them tornresist the actuality of the Son of God.rnYet as Pascal said, nothing is more obviousrnthan the fallenness of man’s naturern—even to a liberal. And so liberalism,rnwhile rejecting the theologicalrnconcept of sin, retains nevertheless arnsense of human guilt requiring expiationrn—perhaps we should simply say punishmentrn—through sacrifice. And havingrnrejected out of hand the possibility of arnDivine Victim, liberalism recognizes arnsingle candidate worthy to serve for thernoblation: We the People, of course.rnThis—the chosen suffering that endsrnin death, not life—is the meaning ofrnwhat Muggeridge in a famous essayrncalled “The Liberal Death Wish,” thernexplanation for the otherwise inexplicablernand seemingly irrational impulse towardrnself-destruction of modern liberalrnsocieties, from their love affair with abortionrnto their commitment to immigrationrnpolicies that are certain, if implementedrnfor a sufficient period, tornwreck the so-called host countries andrnthe long-standing political institutionsrnthat govern them. Conscious of sin, butrnlacking a theological explanation for it,rnliberalism is a construction of self-hatingrnpeople seeking to destroy themselves andrnthe societies to which they belong asrnrapidly and effectively as they can manage,rnwhich turns out to be very rapidlyrnand very effectively indeed.rnAs I write, three months into the Clintonrnadministration, the alleged need forrnnational “sacrifice” has claimed: thern”moderate” positions adopted by thernDemocratic candidate in the monthsrnpreceding the election last November;rnhis promise of a tax break for the Americanrnmiddle class, as well as a number ofrnother solemn pledges and assurances;rnthe economic recovery begun during thernBush administration, which the Clintonrnadministration would like to reverse byrntax increases and spending bills aimed atrnrescuing and preserving the dream of socialismrnin America; millions of unbornrnchildren whose lives are to be offered uprnto the progressive shibboleths of feminismrnand no-fault promiscuity; and 60-rnodd nuts and eccentrics, plus 17 children,rnwhose lives were made forfeit byrnJanet Reno and the Bureau of Alcohol,rnTobacco, and Firearms to the majestyrnand prestige of the leviathan state. Notrna bad record at all, when you considerrnthat Easter was only ten days ago.rn—Chilton Williamson, ]r.rnJACK KEMP was the great championrnof freedom, according to official conservatives,rnwhereas Dick Darman was thern”Prince of Darkness.” In fact, whateverrnwas wrong with Darman (PresidentrnBush’s budget director), Kemp was farrnworse.rnThe Kemp-Darman battle camerndown to this: Kemp, a leftist Republican,rnconstantly sought to expand the budgetrnfor his “war on poverty,” and Darman, arnmoderate with twice Kemp’s IQ, wasrnsometimes able to stand in his way. Forrnexample, Kemp’s HOPE (Homeownershiprnand Opportunity for People Everywhere)rnprogram for the semi-privatizationrnof public housing was costing morernthan $100,000 per unit. According to JasonrnDeParie’s “Kemp Loses the War onrnPoverty” in the New York Times SundayrnMagazine, Darman pointed out that itrnwould be cheaper to buy poor blacksrntheir own condos, causing a temperrntantrum from Kemp. But even Darmanrndidn’t point out—as Jeffrey A. Tuckerrndid in Chronicles—that the units werernnot really sold to their tenants, since tenantsrncould not in turn sell them on thernopen market. Worse, a new unit of publicrnhousing had to be built for each onern”sold.” Darman did note that “enterprisernzones” were simply excuses forrnmore welfare spending, and that statelevelrnzones hadn’t worked. And Darmanrnwarned Kemp not to call them “opportunityrnzones” as he wanted to do, or peoplernwould be making fun of “the Land ofrnOz.”rnAt a meeting of cabinet undersecretaries,rnKemp called it “unconscionable”rnthat welfare recipients lose a dollar inrnbenefits for each dollar earned. His answer:rnlet them keep 85 cents in welfarernfor each new dollar earned. Darman,rnwho had just stepped into the room, didrnsome quick arithmetic in his head andrnpointed out that such a plan would allowrnpeople earning $70,000 a year to collectrnwelfare. There is a large “technical literaturernon welfare,” Darman noted. Kemprnshould read it. By this and other actions,rnDarman showed that he had a “reallyrnsick attitude,” said Kemp. Darmanrn”didn’t care about poverty; he caredrnabout what the budget looked like.”rnThere’s “not a single inner city of thernUnited States that even knows who DickrnDarman is” (to his credit, some mightrnsay).rnA nut as well as a leftist, Kemp “wouldrnflop in his cabinet seat like a beachedrnwhale, sink his head into his hands, rollrnhis eyes, and scribble exasperated notes.”rnHe would also lean back in his chair andrnstick a finger down his throat to show hisrnopposition to an idea or person. Thosernwho criticized him were “wee-weeing onrnme.” One of those wee-weeing was thernPresident, who refused to let Kemp callrnhis proposals a “War on Poverty.” Suchrna phrase conjured up visions of bigrngovernment even for Bush.rnKemp had had trouble from the beginning.rnOn his first day as HUD secretary,rnhe took an inch-thick stack ofrnspending proposals to White HousernJULY 1993/5rnrnrn