normally moderate “leaders” such as Senator Dole are “fallingrnin step”? Senator Dole is now presumably pondering the faternof his own valued respectability, the hint having been dropped.rnSo far, the campaign against the Christian right insurgencyrnhas appeared only to strengthen the resolve of the rebels, andrneven the party establishment has felt compelled to voice somernprotest over the hysterical reaction of the country’s cultural andrnpolitical elite to the insurgents’ victories. What remains to bernseen is whether the attacks will have the desired effect on thernvoters this November. Last year’s Farris campaign may be instructivernon that score.rnThe conventional wisdom is that Farris won a moral victory.rnDespite the propaganda and the enormous amountrnof time Farris had to spend defending himself, as well as the relativelyrnshallow pockets of his campaign and the fact that he wasrna first-time candidate, he was able to garner 46 percent of thernvote to Beyer’s 54 percent and to pick up more total votes thanrnwell-known politician Mary Sue Terry did in her losing gubernatorialrnbid. That is all to the good, and the Farris organizationrnis already gearing up for the 1996 Senate campaign.rnBut some Farris supporters noted that the smear campaignrnworked. Beyer did win, and the general Republican sweeprnmeans that a substantial number of voters split their tickets.rnSome of the same people who supported antigun control, lawand-rnorder, pro-life, antitax, pro-“family values” candidates allrnover the state rejected the most authentic, grassroots nonpoliticianrnin the race. The disturbing answer as to why so manyrnvoters rejected Mike Farris, who ran on a platform so similar tornthat of Allen and Gilmore, and voted for an Establishment, proabortion,rnbig-spending liberal is that Mike Farris’s open, honestrnChristianity, his defense of homeschooling, and his directrnconnections to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell were taken asrnproof by some voters that Farris really is an “extremist” whornwants to “impose” his will on others.rnHow this imposition was to work is anybody’s guess (a homeschoolingrngestapo, perhaps?), and how Farris was to accomplishrnhis will in the relatively limited confines of the office of lieutenantrngovernor remains a mystery. As far as force is concerned,rnjust what is it that liberal policies demand but a coercivernmegastate, one which will extract ever larger tax “contributions”rnin its efforts to impose broader and deeper controls on society,rnwhether it be gun control, school busing, affirmative action,rnforced acceptance of “alternative lifestyles,” abortion onrndemand, or the assault on traditional families that is the “children’srnrights” agenda? Mike Farris’s small “r” republicanismrnwould return questions of childrearing to the family; it wouldrndecentralize decision-making to the lowest level; in short, it isrnthe living memory of the principles and values of our forebears,rna philosophy that embraces local and regional differences asrnnormal and healthy. All the liberal talk of “diversity” is positivelyrnOrwellian, since liberal programs demand centralizationrnand standardization. That this may be news to a substantialrnpart of the electorate in the same state that gave us menrnlike Thomas Jefferson and John Randolph is no cause for rejoicingrnover moral victories. If a candidate like Mike Farris werernever able to communicate that message to voters, honest peoplernwho buy into some liberal value judgments just might seernthat he is no threat to them, unless they fear and loathe theirrnneighbors, which liberal hard-liners probably do.rnWhat differentiates Mike Farris from the usual run of Christianrnright candidates is precisely his ability to articulate a programrnthat is usually only implied, a program that, in a certainrnsense, is radical, in that it opposes a trend toward statism inrnWestern societies that predates the founding of our Republic.rnWhat Mike Farris opposes is the absorption by the state ofrnfunctions that once gave substance and significance to institutionsrnlike the family, church, and school and that therebyrnprovided the needed social glue to hold communities togetherrnby conveying a sense of belonging, purpose, and certainty torntheir members, something modern statist systems conspicuouslyrnfail to do. The modern state reacts to the social decay itrndoes so much to foster-whether it be soaring levels of illegitimacy,rnwidespread drug use, falling SAT scores, or skyrocketingrncrime rates-by spawning programs that further expand its ownrnpower at the expense of autonomous communities and institutions,rnabsorbing more of their functions, and detaching peoplernfurther from the associations that give their lives directionrnand meaning; it “liberates” the individual from the oppressivernbonds of family, church, and community and, under its ownrnbenevolent tutelage, fosters his self-realization.rnWhat Farris and his followers are resisting is the loss of controlrnover their own destiny, which is increasingly determined byrnauthorities both distant from them and remote from their experiences.rnIt remains to be seen whether he, or anyone whornsupports him, realizes that his ideas could very well be the keyrnto broadening the Christian right’s appeal, tying it to grassrootsrnmovements across the nation, and possibly forging a new alliancernthat could mount serious opposition to those who wishrnto turn over our families’, and our nation’s, destiny to a centralizingrnelite, whether it be a Washington bureaucracy or thernWorld Trade Organization, the Department of Health andrnHuman Services or the United Nations. That is exactly whyrncandidates like Mike Farris represent such a danger to Establishmentrnpoliticians, both Republican and Democratic, whorndepend in large part on the liberal cultural, educational, andrnpolitical elite for their own legitimacy and on political centralizationrnas the basis of their power. If such candidates stray toornfar, they are sure to be branded as “extremist,” or worse.rnIn an era when the American public by and large sees nothingrnwrong in the slaughter of the Branch Davidians, the assaultrnon Randy Weaver and his family, or, for that matter, the VirginiarnDemocrats’ partially successful attempt to suppress byrncourt injunction an election guide they deemed pro-Republican,rnthe successful smearing of Mike Farris should give usrnpause. The parameters of the “extremist” label are wide whenrnto resist an unwarranted assault by federal agents is consideredrn”extreme,” wider still when defending one’s family by force isrndeemed “extreme,” and frighteningly expansive when evenrnto reject liberal orthodoxy and resist the tentacles of the everexpandingrntotal state is seen as “extreme.” If Mike Farris isrndangerous in the eyes of the political elites and a substantialrnportion of the general population, how long will it be before wernare treated to a dramatic story of a heroic assault by the combinedrnforces of the FBI and the Department of Education onrnthe homeschooling “cult” compound in northern Virginia?rnThe struggle is just beginning. <&’rn32/CHRONlCLESrnrnrn