ideas of someone else (and who’s to saynthat in the chain of command they didnnot ultimately come from him; shenwould not seem to have been in anposition to know) and put words tonthem.nIf the latter, then she seems to share andistressing attribute of conservatives thatnthis new conservative has observed: annNONCOMPLIANCE WITH then1990 census was massive: the WallnStreet Journal reported on May 21 thatnonly 75 percent of the forms had beennfilled out and sent in, “down from 90npercent a decade ago.” That’s good.nPassive resistance against such intrusionsnis the least we should expect ofnourselves as citizens.nThirty years ago I received thenlengthy sociological survey that wasnsent to every fourth house in the 1960ncensus, and I refused to comply. I alsonwrote an arficle thumbing my nose atnthe “Snooper State” (see “The FourthnHouse,” National Review, May 21,n1960). Although it is next to impossiblento get a constitutional challenge intonthe courts, I succeeded on the strengthnof what I thought at the time was rathernMenckenesque ridicule and mockery.nSomeone in the Census Bureaunclipped my article to an interofficenmemo saying he didn’t think “Rickenbackernshould be allowed to violate thenlaw in this manner.”nWe got to court, all right, but thengovernment wouldn’t produce thendocuments showing the connectionnbetween the article and the prosecution.nThere went our defense undernthe First Amendment. (Subsequently,na similar defense was mounted in anCalifornia case and carried the day, butnthe First Amendment defense is tacticalnonly.) We also pled the FourthnAmendment, and here I thought wenheld the high ground. After all, thengovernment had to show that then”search” was “reasonable.” To mynknowledge, nobody has ever shownnhow the Constitution authorizes thenungracious, rebellious, contentious andnoften bitter refusal to have respect fornanyone or care for someone’s reputation.nNow, one would hate to see thenmovement adopt some sort of pasnd’ennemi a droite mentality; still therenought to be some civility among us,nespecially when the eminences angauche are more than ready to get theirnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSnforcible extraction of information fromna householder concerning his toiletsnand so on, and as for “reasonableness,”nwe called as our witness Mr. RobertnBurgess, who had been director of thenBureau of the Census during the 1960ngo-around. The judge, knowing fullnwell that the government must proventhe search reasonable, tried to find outnfrom Mr. Burgess what the purpose ofnthe questionnaire was. The dialoguen(taken from the trial transcript) must benseen to be believed.nThe COURT: What is thenpurpose of it?nThe WITNESS: Well, itnseemed to be carried out as ansimplification of the training andnof the routine which becomesnenormous.nThe COURT: What was thenpurpose of getting that particularninformation?nThe WITNESS: Oh, thatninformation had been obtainednbefore 1950. It was on thencensus, and, some of the questionsnon the census, althoughntaken at the same timenby any given enumerator from angiven household, some of themnwere, as they came to thosenquestions, they would say thesenare — we will skip these for thisnhousehold and —nThe COURT: Well, whatnwas the purpose for this somewhatnextensive questionnairenin 1960?nThe WITNESS: Well, thosenquestions were asked before innnnammunition from us. After all, onenrarely finds a former associate of thengreat Kennedy or his late brother providingngossip about their personal defectsnor mocking their humanity orndenigrating their achievements.n—Bishop Max BroussardnPatterson, Louisianan1950; for instance, questionsnmostly asked. Only minornchanges from census to censusnin the question.nThe COURT: What was thenpurpose for getting all thatninformation? What was donenwith it?nThe WITNESS: Well, it wasnsummarized, as it had been inn1950 when sampling was donenin a different procedure. Thesenwere questions that werenexplored very carefully throughncommittees, one within thengovernment and one of expertsnoutside and one of usersnoutside, “What changes would •”nyou like and the informationnyou would get,” and we turnedndown a very considerablennumber of those questions,nrequests for extensions ofninformation, both within thenCovernment and outside thenCovernment. They wantednmore information for house —nfor guidance, as an aid to housing,nfor instance. By the way, ifnthat—nThe COURT: Was that thengeneral purpose of that questionnaire,nas an aid tonhousing?nThe WITNESS: You see,nthe Housing Administrationngives Government aid in certainncities for improving the housingnconditions.nBelieve it or not, that gibberish wasnallowed to stand as proof of reasonable-nNOVEMBER 1990/5n