offering a tough diagnosis and recommendingntough medicine as the onlynroad to recovery. That is how the booknis intended — not to harm the party,nbut to help it.” Brown also realizesnthat, because of his frankness about thenpolitics of race, some critics will undoubtedlynbrand his book “racist.” “Inhope not,” he says, “for those who donwill be failing to hear the voices of thenAmerican middle class.”nBrown argues that middle-classnwhite voters — once the bedrock of thenDemocratic Party — have grown to resentnthe way the party now runs roughshodnover their needs and desires, anxietiesnand aspirations in an attempt toncourt blacks, gays, greens, and feminists.nWhat the party has entirelynmissed is that Middle Americans havengrown frustrated with a culture that nonlonger honors individual responsibilitynand moral accountability. They havenlost patience with the way criminalsncan blame their crimes on a bad childhood,nemployees can demand jobs onnthe basis of race rather than skills, andnwith the way, in Brown’s words, then”Democrats view their constituents asnvictims: blacks, feminists, gays, andnworkers are always the victims of discriminationnby the white-maleheterosexual-business-dominatedculture.”nBrown’s argument gives credencento Kevin Phillips’ 1982 thesis innPost-Conservative America that thenmiddle class is undergoing a kind ofnradicalizahon.nThe strength of Brown’s book lies innhis. scores of interviews with frustratednMiddle Americans. The reader meetsnLouise Renaud, whose experiences asna teacher at Detroit’s Kettering HighnSchool in the 1970’s led to her breaknwith the Democratic Party. With ansalary under ten thousand dollars at thenFor Immediate ServicenCHRONICLESnNEW SUBSCRIBERSnTOLL FREE NUMBERn26/CHRONICLESn1-800-877-5459ntime, “I would see the kids, whosenfamilies were on AFDC, walkingnaround in designer jeans, silk shirts,nalligator shoes. And I’m breaking mynbuns. What the hell is going on?” Andnthere is Geri Suma of suburban Detroit,nwho upon learning that the Democrats’nforced busing plan meant thatnher child would not be allowed tonattend the elementary school down thenblock but instead was going to be busednto an inner-city school miles away, saidn”At that point I could see the waynthings were changing. . . . Busingnmade me begin to think the Democraticnparty wasn’t for us.” “For twondecades,” writes Brown, Democraticnleaders have tried to pretend that thenfeelings of the Geri Sumas and LouisenRenauds “don’t exist, or that if they do,nthey belong to bigoted people whondon’t deserve to have their viewsnaired.”nBrown points out that not all Democratsnhave been blind to this exodus ofnMiddle Americans. Many members ofnthe moderate Democratic LeadershipnCouncil have recognized this problemnfor years, but like Democratic pollsternStanley Greenberg — whom the partynhired to study its poor showing innMichigan in 1984 — they have hadnlittle influence on the direction of thennational party. In the course of hisnstudy Greenberg brought togethernsome three dozen Democrats ofnMacomb County, Michigan, who hadnvoted for Reagan. As Brown describesnthe scene, Greenberg set the tone ofnthe meeting by reading a quotationnfrom Robert Kennedy, whom Greenbergnand fellow Democrats assumednthese Roman Catholic voters wouldnhold in high esteem. The quoted passagenwas RFK’s call for Americans tonhonor their special obligation to blacksnwhose forefathers had experiencednslavery. As Brown notes, Greenberg’snopening went over like a lead balloon.n”That’s bulls—t,” shouted onenparticipant. “No wonder theynkilled him,” said another. “I’mnfed up with it,” chimed in anthird. Greenberg was astonishednat their vehemence. . . . Thenvotes for Reagan amongnthese traditional Democrats,nGreenberg reported, stemmednfrom a “profound disillusionment,na loss of faith innnnthe Democratic party,” a sensenthat “the Democratic party nonlonger responded with genuinenfeeling to the vulnerabilitiesnand burdens of the averagenmiddle-class person. Instead thenparty and government werenpreoccupied with the needs ofnminorities. . . . They advancednspending programs that offerednno appreciable or visiblenbenefit” for middle-class people.nBut the party’s national leaders refusednto take Greenberg’s findings to heart,ntreating the study “like a mistress at anfamily funeral.” Some of them “rationalizednthat the school busing furor innMacomb had made it atypically racist.nOthers hoped it would pass, laying it tonthe phenomenon of Reagan’s personalnpopularity.”nBrown concludes that, in order tonregain the White House, the DemocraticnParty must not only adopt anplatform more conducive to the whitenmajority and to middle-class needs andnvalues — not just shake free of JessenJackson’s delusion that the party’s futurenlies with the registration and courtshipnof more minorities and poor blacksn— it must rid itself of the perceptionnthat it is the party of the Northeast.nBrown reminds Democrats that mostnMiddle Americans see the Northeast asnsymbolic of the nation’s past and itsnproblems and not its future and potential.n”This combination—the party’snNortheastern orientation and its refusalnto change its outmoded message — hasnkept [Democratic] presidential candidatesnfrom being able to communicatenwith middle-class voters.”nThe prospects, however, both for thenDemocratic Party and the voting public,nare bleak. Despite Brown’s sagenanalysis and advice, the Democratsnhave chosen New York City — the culturalnbane of Middle America—as thensite for its 1992 national convention.nNor have the Democratic candidatesnthus far announced shown much willingnessnto adopt the fundamentalnchanges that Brown suggests are needednfor capturing the White House. Onlynone national figure has shown seriousninterest in an agenda similar to thatnoutlined by Brown, and it comes notnfrom a Democrat but from a Republicannstanding on an America First platform:nPatrick Buchanan. n