mantical and historical framework hasrnbecome the new foundation for what isrnintended to be a respectable Americanrnconservatism. Rockwell’s spoof may alread’rnbe the catechism for young conserrnatics.rnPaul Gottfried is a professor ofrnhumanities at Elizabethtown College inrnPennsylvania. His most recent book isrnThe Conservative Movement: RevisedrnEdition (I’waync Publishers).rnJack Kemp’srnMistaken Identityrnby Jeffrey A. TuckerrnPresident Bush suffered fierce attacksrnfrom conservative quarters as thern1992 election year came to a close, andrnmany on the right even celebrated hisrnloss. Fine enough, but after the electionrnthe message on the conference circuitrnand on the nation’s op-ed pages wasrntliat conservatives’ great hope for 1996 isrnJack F. Kemp.rnThe conservative “leaders” who sayrnKemp is the natural choice includerncolumnists Rowland FAans and RobertrnNo’ak, for whom Kemp is a longtimernsource of information and leaks. “Outrnof the wreckage of George Bush’srnbotched campaign for reelection,” theyrnwrote, “Jack Kemp has emerged as thernclear Republican heir apparent.” Onlyrnlie can “pull his part} together.” Ivjurrndays later, syndicated columnist MonarnCharen chimed in. “Mr. Bush governedrnmore like Michael Dukakis than likernRonald Reagan,” she wrote in the WashingtonrnTimes, adding: “Now the partyrncan do what it ought to have done inrn1988—consolidate behind Jack Kemp.”rnKempophilia has spread outside conservativernquarters. Barbara Jordan, thernblack feminist lawyer with the hybridrnTexas-British accent and the most highlyrntouted speaker at the DemocraticrnConventioir, was asked her opinion ofrnKemp’s social programs in World magazine.rn”I know Jack Kemp verv well,” shernanswered. “I have no quarrel with therntype of in’estment Jack Kemp talksrnabout.” Henr Cisneros, his successorrnas Secretary of Housing and Urban Development,rntold the Waslwigton Times,rn”I admire a lot about Jack Kemp.” Suchrnopinions add credibility to Fred Barnes’srnclaim in USA Weekend that Kemp isrnthe “liberals’ favorite conservative.”rnKemp used the occasion of this postelectionrncoronation to go after possiblernchallengers to his presidential hopes. Forrnexample, he had this to say of Patrick J.rnBuchanan’s roundly denounced, but relativelyrnmild. Republican conventionrnspeech: “Not good, not good, not goodrnat all.” “The answer to L. A. is not morernguns,” Kemp said. Buchanan “soundedrnlike he wanted to line people uprnagainst the wall and shoot them.” Kemprnconfessed: “If that were my party, 1rnwouldn’t want to be in it.”rnIf by that Kemp meant that thosernwho loot private property should notrnbe punished by death, it is a positionrnheld with some degree of self-interest.rnJudged by his tenure as Secretary ofrnHUD, Kemp would already be six feetrnunder ground. According to the Officernof Management and the Budget, totalrnHUD outlays shot from $19.6 billion inrnhscal year 1989 to a forecasted $28.1 billionrnfor fiscal year 1993, for a 43 pcrceirtrnincrease. HIJD spending as a percentagernof the total budget increased fromrn1.1 percent to 2 percent in the Kemprnyears. In Bush’s last budget, HUD wasrnthe fastest growing cabinet-level agencyrnin government. Cleariy, Kemp managedrnto do what no liberal could haverngotten awav with. Yet on occasion, evenrnliberals balked at some of his free-spendingrnambitions, such as his plans to givernevery poor person a housing project tornmanage at taxpayer expense and to vastlyrnincrease spending on the “homeless.”rnHlID’s annual budget at the end ofrnLvndon Johnson’s full term in office wasrna mere 2.5 percent of Kemp’s. Whilernliberals like to complain of “cuts” inrnIIUD’s budget under the Reagan administration,rnthese were only minor.rnThanks to Kemp, howeer, the agencyrnnov’ spends well oer twice the annualrnamount it did at the end of the Carterrnera.rnMoreover, revelations of HUD financialrnirregularities under Kemp failed tornelicit the kind of scorn directed atrnSamuel Pierce when problems croppedrnup during his tenure as Reagan’s directorrnof HUD. In 1992, the Inspector Generalrndiscovered an unreported surplus ofrn$1.2 billion in the Section 8 housingrnsubsidy fund. Yet, to get more money,rnKemp had claimed a shortfall of $407rnmillion. It was the third consecutive yearrnthat billions went unaccounted for. Onernmonth after the 1992 election, the InspectorrnGeneral issued a new audit thatrnwarned “another IIUD scandal is a distinctrnpossibility.” Here’s to BusinessrnWeek, the only periodical I know of thatrntook note of Kemp’s poor managementrnpractices. “Kemp needs to spend lessrntime proselytizing on conservative causesrnand more on HUD’s books,” suggestedrnChristina Del Vallc in her column.rnIt’s no wonder Washington’s budgetrnanalysts were constantly shocked atrnKemp’s enormous budget requests andrnat his griping at Congress for not givingrnhim e’ery dime he asked for.rnGiven her soft-socialist views, BarbararnJordan is right to have “no quarrel” withrnKemp’s programs. For example, underrnthe label of housing privatization, hernarranged for the transfer of billions tornnonprofits to “restore” public housingrnprojects and then manage them, evenrnas he continued to build more housesrnat taxpayer expense. In the name of EnterprisernZones, which thankfully neverrnpassed Congress, he wanted to forcernstates and localities to pour more welfarerninto the inner cities in exchange forrnfavorable federal-tax treatment.rnAfter the L.A. (race) riots. Bushrnspokesman Marlin Fitzwater, in an unguardedrnmoment, criticized Great Societyrnprograms for making blacks worsernoff. Of Kemp’s alleged alternative tornthe Great Society, only the New YorkrnTunes came close to telling the truth.rn”Few seem to realize that Mr. Kemp’srnplans in some ways are quite similar” tornLBJ’s, wrote Times reporter Jason De-rnParle. His “housing proposals includernheav doses of social services like jobrnAPRIL 1993/47rnrnrn