Obviously, the attitudes recorded bynthe Times Mirror survey do not constitutena coherent ideology, but they donpoint to profound dissatisfactions thatncannot be resolved within the frameworknof left-right politics. Attitudes thatnmight be classed as “conservative”nseem to coexist with those that wouldnnormally be called “liberal,” and whatnis significant is that not much of anyonenseems to support increased opportunitiesnfor minorities, more immigration,nspreading democracy abroad,nfreer trade, deregulation, and all thenother wise and wonderful gimmicksnthat pseudo-conservatives like to playnwith. Nor do very many people seemnto support what the left wants in thenway of increased taxes and a morenactive governmental role in redesigningnsocial institutions.nThe fundamental social and politicalnconflict that is emerging in the UnitednStates and to which the “alienation”nreflected in the Times Mirror surveynpoints is not between left and right,nneoconservative and paleoconservative,nstate and individual, black andnwhite, Jew and Christian, Yankee andnSoutherner, or rich and poor. All thesendivisions merely feed the main conflict,nwhich is between elite and non-elite.nThe former consists of the interconnectedngroups that predominate in thenbureaucratic organizations of government,nthe economy, and culture andnthat use their power to dissolve thennonbureaucratic social institutions thatnlimit and resist their hegemony. Thenelite makes use of universalist, progressivistnideologies that offer justificationsnfor its apparatus of power as well as fornthe functions the apparatus performs innmanaging the economy and environment,nredistributing wealth, buildingnthe new world order, and reconstructingnthe domestic social order by providingn”therapy” for every “problem”nfrom smoking cigarettes to practicingngenocide. The structure of power thenelite has built up is also used by variousngangs and subfactions of all kinds thatnseek no ideological goals but simplynwant to fill their pockets, stay in office,nor twist public policies for their ownnbenefit. The structure is thus tyrannicalnand corrupt at the same time,nseeking to destroy the social order asnwell as to exploit it on its way tondestruction.nThe non-elite consists of everyonenwho does not control or gain from thisnstructure. In the terms of abstract politicalntheory, the non-elite is the “people,”nbut today, in the wake of thencultural fragmentation the elite hasninflicted, it is difficult to apply thatnterm, which presupposes a shared bodynof institutions and beliefs. In the UnitednStates today, there virtually is non”people” any more; there are onlyn”clusters,” fragments that share onlynthe non-vocal perception that somebodynelse is in the saddle and is slappingnleather toward a precipice.nIt is precisely because of the deracinationnof the American people thatnthese fragments now constitute a radical,nperhaps a revolutionary, force, dispossessednof their traditional culture,ndenied political expression, and increasinglynendangered by the “globalneconomy.” But the clusters by themselvesnwill not engender a revolution ornform the myths, ideologies, organizations,nand agendas of revolt. Onlynleadership can accomplish that, whichnis why people like Mr. Duke and thosenwho may soon start emulating him arenimportant. They — if there is a “they”n— have the opportunity to build notnjust a coalition or a third party but annew people, as it were, by uniting thesenclusters and informing them with annew understanding of who they arenand what destiny they should seek.nThat, more or less, is what variousnblack leaders are trying to do todaynthrough articulating a myth of “Afrocentric”nhistory and reformulating politicalnand cultural issues in terms ofnthat myth. It ought to be rather obviousnthat “Afrocentrism,” whatever its othernvirtues, doesn’t have much to say tonnon-black Americans, and the myths,nhistory, and identity of white Americansnare increasingly suppressed andndelegitimized by the elite itselfnThe main task now for the would-benleaders of the Middle American Revolutionnis therefore to formulate a comprehensivenmyth able to express thenalienation that prevails among the culturallynimmiserated and economicallynthreatened Middle American proletariatnand hammer it into an effectivensword. The kind of myth that is neededntoday must raise this proletariat from anpassive state of disgruntiement to beingnan active force of social and politicalnpower. It is doubtful that orthodoxnpaleoconservative, traditionalist, or lib­nnnertarian ideas can be very helpful innforming such a myth, since the socialnand political order they were designednto reflect and defend no longer exists.nA new myth, to be effective, mustnsolidify the fragments of that order andnprepare them for a protracted challengento the incumbent elite’s apparatusnof power, with the ultimate goal ofndismantiing that apparatus, displacingnthe elite, and constructing a new order.n”Myths,” wrote Georges Sorel, “arennot descriptions of things, but expressionsnof a determination to act. … Anmyth cannot be refuted, since it is, atnbottom, identical with the convictionsnof a group, being the expression ofnthose convictions in the language ofnmovement.” Given the fragmentationnof the old order, much paleoconservatismnis today not the language ofnmovement but of antiquarianism.nBut it is certain that what now passesnfor mainstream conservatism has nothingnat all to say to those fragments. Thenevening before the election in Louisiana,nneoconservative guru Jack Kempnaddressed the 35 th anniversary celebrationnof National Review at a banquetnat the Waldorf Astoria in NewnYork Gity. Mr. Kemp boasted of hownhe had endorsed Bennett Johnston andnopposed David Duke, and he affirmednhis own dedication to the ideals andnprinciples of John F. Kennedy andnMartin Luther King, Jr. William F.nBuckley, announcing his retirementnthe same evening, proclaimed that henconsidered it his greatest achievementnto have driven “extremists” from thenconservative movement he led fromnthe 1950’s.nBut by purging itself of “extremists”nand seeking alliance with the urbannintellectual establishment of thenNortheast, movement conservatism effectivelyninsulated itself from one sidenof the major social and political conflictnof our time and now has been consumednby the elite itself, even to thenpoint of deluding itself into thinkingnthat John Kennedy and Martin LuthernKing were conservatives. Whether Mr.nKemp swayed any votes in Louisiananand whether Mr. Duke’s supportersncan really be called “conservatives” atnall anymore is doubtful. Down therenthey never had many illusions aboutnKennedy, or King, or Kemp, and theyndon’t need a weatherman to knownwhich way the wind is blowing. <§>nJANUARY 1991/11n