center was kidnapped and murdered byrntwo worthies from the District ofrnColumbia. They pushed her out of herrncar and dragged her for nearly a milernand then pitched the babv out of thernmoving vehicle. This sort of crime isrnfairly common in the District itself, butrnthe woman’s neighbors in HowardrnCounty weren’t used to it. “One of thernthings the real estate agent said,” arnneighbor told the Washington Timesrnsoon after, “was that Howard Countyrnhas the lowest crime rate and that thisrnarea has the lowest rate of all.” Virginianrnsuburbanites expressed similar sentimentsrnin the aftermath of randomrnkillings by a wandering lunatic nearrnCIA headquarters during the height ofrnrush hour earlier this year in upscalernMcLean, Virginia. “I moved out herernto be safe,” whimpered a local clergymanrnto the Washington Post the day afterrnthe shootings. “Now I can’t evenrndrive in the suburbs.”rnThe emergence of routine rudenessrnand discourtesy and the eruption of seriousrncrime in suburbs as well as citiesrnare Irath part of the same pattern of socialrnand civil decomposition that thernUnited States is enduring, and the removalrnof force as a social control onrnboth of them is perhaps the major underlyingrnreason for their appearance.rn”Disguise it how you will,” wrote thernVictorian conservative theorist andrnlawyer Fitzjames Stephen, “it is force inrnone shape or another which determinesrnthe relations between human beings.”rnStephen regarded force as the foundationrnnot only of law and governmentrnbut also of social relationships, and hernwould have understood what is happeningrnin the United States today as quicklyrnand clearly as those police officersrnwho have to live—and die—with it.rnDonald Murray, president of the BostonrnPolice Patrolmen’s Association, told thernTimes in the wake of the Marylandrnkilling last year that “the criminal justicernsystem has gone soft. Nobody hasrnthe guts to pull the lever on the electricrnchair, histead, they tolerate increasedrnviolence, and every year the murder raterngoes up.”rnActually, Americans and even theirrnlawmakers are increasingly beginning tornrediscover the inverse relationship betweenrnthe level of force available andrnsocial disorder, but unlike Stephen theyrnpersist in the delusion that force belongsrnonly to and in the state and particuladyrnin the federal government. Lawmakersrnunderstand the use of force at least tornthe degree that they know it’s a goodrnidea to pretend to support more of it asrna means of controlling crime.rnThus, for the last couple of years arnfederal “crime control” bill has beenrnbouncing around Congress that promisesrnto inflict capital punishment for nornless tharr 51 different offenses. By votingrnfor it and bragging about it, congressmenrncan boast to their constituentsrnof how draconian they are on criminals,rnthough when you examine the bill’s provisionsrnclosely vou will find that therncrimes for which a convict can be hailedrnto the scaffold include such offensesrnas treason, espionage, and genocide.rnDeath is a reasonable penalty for thosernwho commit any or all of these, but executingrnthose con icted of them doesrnnothing to control the sorts of crimesrnmost Americans have reason to fear. Nornone is really afraid of being mugged byrnJulius Rosenberg or raped in the parkingrnlot by Pol Pot. In fact, most of thernrest of the bill’s sanguinary languagernmerely protects federal bureaucrats andrncongressmen, not the ordinar’ citizen,rnby inflicting death on the killers of justrnabout every professional political parasiternfrom visiting dignitaries of foreignrncountries to egg inspectors in the Departmentrnof Agriculture.rnWhenever using more force as punishmentrnor deterrent is discussed theserndays, it is almost always in terms of howrnto enhance the power of the mcgastaternitself and to strip average Americans ofrnwhatever means of force they have leftrnto protect themselves; it never involvesrnthe removal of political and legal restraintsrnon the use of force by social authorities.rnGun control and expansionrnof the number of policemen, prosecutors,rnand prisons are among the favoriterngimmicks advanced b’ what preens itselfrnas the “tough on crooks” school, and ofrncourse our friends the neoconservativesrnare in the forefront of peddling its doctrine.rnThe original plans of “drug czar”rnBill Bennett for the Bush administration’srnmuch ballyhooed “war on drugs”rnwere the prototype for a veritablyrnNapoleonic expansion of federal powerrnthat would hae placed Mr. Bennett atrnthe center of an iron web of nationalrnlaw enforcement, international diplomacy,rnthe coordination of militaryrnforces, and the dispensation of billionsrnof dollars to federal, local, and state police,rneducators, rehabilitators, and therapists.rnPresident Bush, perhaps sensingrnthe implicit coup d’etat the drug czarrnwas trying to pull on him and the nation,rnwisely gutted most of it, and Mr.rnBennett, his fun spoiled, eventually announcedrna tremendous but intangiblernvictory in the war on drugs and fled thernadministration .shortly after.rnBut the drug czar’s visions of a vastlyrnexpanded federal role in law enforcementrnlive on in the neoeonscrvativernmind. Last year, just after the Los Angelesrnriots, Terry Eastland, Mr. Bennett’srnone-time boon companion, mouthpiece,rnand ghostwriter, unbosomedrnhimself of a brainstorm for further enlargementrnof federal crime control.rnComplaining that Lyndon Johnson’s responsernto the Watts riot of 1965 hadn’trnincluded enough federal law enforcement,rnMr. Eastland wrote that Johnsonrn”believed law enforcement should remainrna local matter. Conservatives havernlong believed that too, but Mr. Bush willrnalso make a mistake if he rejects thernneed for a deeper federal law enforcementrnpresence in the nation’s innerrncities.” While neoconservatives shudderrnat the word “nationalism” when it refersrnto an America First foreign policy andrntrade doctrine, they smack their lipsrnwith glee when the term can be draftedrnto bolster federal power and implementrnBig Covernmcnt conservatism. “Nationalismrnmust prevail when the mostrnfundamental right of all—to self-preservationrn—can no longer be secured by localrnauthorities,” intoned Mr. Eastland.rnYet the lesson of the experience ofrnthe last 60 years or so of federal involvementrnin law enforcement is that there isrnfar too much of it. Think, for a moment,rnof the federal agencies alreadyrnengaged in police work; the FBI is thernmost obvious, but there is also the DrugrnEnforcement Administration, the InternalrnRevenue Service, the Immigrationrnand Naturalization Service and the BorderrnPatrol, the U.S. Marshals Service,rnthe Secret Service, the U.S. CustomsrnService, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,rnand Firearms, the Bureau of Prisons, andrnthe inspectors for the U.S. Postal Service,rnin addition to the whole apparatusrnof the military police and criminalrninvestigation services of the ArmedrnForces, not to mention divers andrnsundry interagency task forces, federalrnprosecutors, judges, court officials ofrnone kind or another, and the quietly enlargingrnrole of the Armed Forces themselvesrnand the CIA in enforcing the drugrnlaws. Does amone other than enthusi-rn8/CHRONICLESrnrnrn