Right had existed at the time of the Third Reich, these intellectualsrnwould have been put in concentration camps, just as werernGerman conservatives. There is a ver)’ important difference betweenrna conservative revolution and National Socialism.rn—from Donald Warren, “Letter From Austria, Pt. U:rnA New European Identity,” October J992rnTHE NEWWORLD ORDERrn. . . [T]he central issue in American politics at the end of therncentury is what might be described as “The National Question”rn—whether America is that interlacing of ethnicity and culturernwe call a nation and whether the American nation-state,rnthe political expression of that nation, is going to survive. It’s arnproblem that’s difficult even to discuss because of a peculiar semanticrnaccident. American editors are convinced that readersrnwill confuse the word “state,” used in the rest of the Englishspeakingrnworld to mean a sovereign political entity, as in thernFrench etat or the German staat, with the component parts ofrnthe United States, like Galifornia or Illinois. So they make writersrnhere use “nation” instead. And this has undermined people’srndefenses against a heresy that has recently raised its head:rnthat America is in essence a purely political construct, with nornspecific ethnic or cultural content at all.rn—from Peter Brimelow, “The National Question,” ]une J993rn. . . [P]eople are adamant about globalism. They say the worldrnis getting smaller, nobody stays in one place anymore or evenrnone country, the times are changing and we have to changernwith them. Certainly the way technolog}’ and telecommunicationsrnhave affected our personal and working lives is astonishing.rnBut people who say these things want us to believe that wernhave little or no power to shape our lives, that we must bow tornfate in the form of internatioiral trade agreements and transatlanticrntelecommunications. And really, that is globaloney.. ..rnWe do not live in the “world.” Mostly we live, eat, sleep,rnshop, go to school, go to church, hang out at the mall, all withinrna radius of a few square miles. There is no such thing as arnglobal village; that is a phrase with no meaning. A village is arnfew hundred people living together, not a few billion. In a villagernyou can know everybody. We could not take in all thernnames and faces and personalities and problems in the worldrneven if we wanted to.rn—from Katherine Dalton, “Homegrown,” September J997rnIf it’s wrong to wipe a house or a neighborhood from the map,rnimagine all the homes and neighborhoods that would be lost ifrnan entire nation were erased. In 1975, the Kinks were invited tornplay a special “Fanfare for Europe” concert honoring the UnitedrnKingdom’s entry into the Common Market. And since Rayrn[Davies], as he put it in The Storyteller, “could give a toss for thernCommon Market,” the band performed a selection of songsrnfrom their 1968 album The Village Green Preservation Societyrnand their then-forthcoming rock opera Preservation. .. .rnBy the 1980’s, the band was increasingly concerned that, inrnDave Davies’ words, “there’s no England now.” With 1989rncame the anti-Thatcher, anti-E.C. U.K. ]ive, an angr’ albumrnbearing a burning Union Jack on its cover. . . . (“. . . Down Allrnthe Days to 1992” was adopted by some irony-challenged E.G.rnbureaucrats as the European Commission’s unofficial themernsong.) In 1992 itself, the Kinks performed at Fete d’Humanite,rna communist-sponsored anti-European festival in Paris. By thisrntime, Ray was also writing X-Ray, half memoir and half sciencernfiction, a book that posits a totalitarian world in which all nationsrnhave merged into a single corporation, in which “a countr)’rncalled England” is only a fading memory. .. .rnA man like Davies, able to discern beauty even in a dirty,rncrowded train station, need never search long for small signs ofrnvitality. “They’re trying to build a computerized comimmity,”rnhe sang in “Muswell Hillbilly.” “But they’ll never make a zombiernout of me.” So far, he’s right.rn—from Jesse Walker, “The Muswell Hillbilly,”rnMarch 1997rnOF THE LOBBY, BY THE LOBBY, AND FOR THE LOBBYrnMany who leave Main Street, U.S.A., to do good in Washington,rnD.G, remain on to do well for themselves. Since the beginningsrnof the American Republic, thousands of former congressmen,rnstaff assistants, and senior officials in the executivernbranch have trod that familiar career path. The bright and ambitious,rnas well as the foolish and indolent, discover gold alongrnthe banks of the Potomac River and succumb to “Potomacrnfever.” In the process, these incipient power-brokers and mercenariesrnshed local attachments and forget the common peoplernwho first selected them to serve. Over the last 20 years, however,rnthis pattern has changed in one significant respect. Previously,rnofficials departed government to extract gold fromrndomestic employers —banks, oil companies, railroads, manufacturers,rnand even some labor unions. Now, former bigwigsrnpimp and pluck for alien interests.rn—from Alfred E. Eckes, “Selling Out—Past and Present,”rnMay 1993rnWliat is most tiresome about the lobbyiirg culture of Washingtonrnare the self-serving contortions its practitioners go throughrnin describing their daily activities. Most lobbyists, of course,rnmaintain that they do not really lobby—saying the “1” wordrnpublicly is a subtie indiscretion. Euphemisms such as “advise”rnor “consult” or “suggest,” etc., are uttered instead. Wlien makingrnboastful proposals to prospective clients, lobbyists promiserneverything but the keys to the Oval Office. When criticism (anrnoccupational hazard but a relatively infrequent inconvenience)rnoccasionally arises in the press over the heavy-handed, strongarmrntactics used by lobbyists, the “Who, me?” modest)’ act isrnstrutted out—”All we do is provide information.” Most facilitatorsrnseem by nature to be perpetually auditioning to star in ThernInvisible Man and to prefer that their handiwork go unnoticedrnand undetected.rn—from Charles Lewis, “Fixers for a Fee,”rnMay 1993rn60/CHRONICLESrnrnrn