fear that middle-class Americans experiencenthroughout the country—beatingnthe political drums in support ofnglobal democracy, the virtues of immigrationnand free trade, and free marketnpurism no more excites and attractsnvoters than the aforesaid controversiesnover holocaust revisionism.nYet, while Mr. Duke has proved thatnAmerican politics no longer swingsnaround conventional ideological pivots,nthe problem he has is that he lacks annaccessible and acceptable philosophicalnframework with which to elevate andnbroaden his appeal. Obviously, thenneo-Nazi effusions of Mr. Duke’s misspentnyouth are neither acceptable nornaccessible. But in the 1990’s, neithernconventional liberal nor conventionalnconservative ideologies offer such anframework either. The first is lockedninto appeals to egalitarianism and redistributionistnthemes that reflect the interestnof the underclass Mr. Duke isnresisting and are bound up with thencultural crumbling that verbalist andnintellectual elites welcome, promote,nand benefit from.nThe social and moral codes withnwhich conventional conservative ideologynis bound up are obsolete, and thenbourgeois business class to which conservativenideology appealed is eitherndefunct or so frightened of jeopardizingnits dwindling interests that its membersncouldn’t bring themselves to votenfor Mr. Duke even when they wantednto. In the week before the election, thenWashington Post interviewed a Louisiananbusinessman who confessed hisnattraction to the Duke campaign butnwho concluded that “business cannotnthrive with the radicalism that DavidnDuke portrays.” This is the class fromnwhich Americans can expect leadership?nCertainly it’s the class Mr.nDuke’s enemies succeeded in terrifyingnwith their threats of boycottsnagainst the Louisiana economy.nWhat Mr. Duke and others, conservativenor not, who understand thenmeaning of their approaching demotionnto a servile condition need to do isnbegin a process of reeducation that willnlift their minds out of both the tractnliterature of racism as well as the slogansnof bourgeois individualism andnopen a vision of a new popular nahonalismnthat can address the threats tonthe American nation, its people, andntheir way of life. Such a vision wouldnseek to do more than merely rehearsenhorror stories of the welfare state andnthe black crime rate. It would have tonmake plain that the threat to Americannnational identity is only in part ethnicnbut also cultural, economic, and political,nthat the threat comes from thendominance of elites that have vestedninterests in the dispossession of Americansnand in the dispersion of theirnculture.nUnlike convenHonal conservatism, annew nationalism would not dwell onnlimiting the size of government butnrather on the issue of who and whatncontrols the government. The conflictnis between a state (and the elite lodgednin it) that is currently committed toncultural destruction and dispossessionn— in education, fiscal policy, law enforcement,nsocial policy — and onenthat reflects the interests of the middlenclass that has long since become directlynor indirectly dependent on the statenand similar bureaucratic organizationsnin the economy and culture.nHence, Mr. Duke or whoever inheritsnhis political mantle will have tonarticulate a nationalist program designednto protect and benefit his constituency—nthrough an economic nationalismnthat protects the country’snjobs, technological base, and productivencapacities; a social nationalism thatnoffers an ethic of health, education,,nemployment, and retirement securitynas well as restraints on the hedonisticnethic of immediate gratification thatnserves as a formula for current deracination;nand a cultural nationalism thatnplaces the historic core of Americanncivilization at the center of publicnconcern and public policy.nObviously, it is doubtful that mostnAmerican conservatives — paleo, neo,nor pseudo — would find acceptablensuch an explicit appeal to ethnoculturalnidentity, or such a frank endorsementnof the use of the state for social andncultural ends. Yet, for the last decade,nmainstream conservatives have forfeitednany claim to ideological orthodoxynprecisely because they have enthusiasticallynsupported any variety of heresiesnthat accepted as legitimate the leviathannstate constructed by Americannliberalism for the benefit of the underclassnand the bureaucratic elites innalliance with it. If William Bennett andnJack Kemp can sing the praises ofnMartin Luther King, expand the budg­nnnets and staffs of the Education Departmentnand HUD, and welcome ThirdnWorld immigration as the salvation ofnthe country, all in the name of conservatism,nthere’s no reason why MiddlenAmericans can’t support governmentnpolicies that would benefit them insteadnof the forces committed to thenburial of their culture.nYet there may be a few on thenconventional right who will sign up.nThey may come to believe that whatevernthe virtues of the bourgeois ideologynof small government and freenmarkets, those institutions were mainlynprocedural or instrumental ones, intendednas the most effective means tonan end. The end, of course, was thensecurity of the underlying cultural corenof the civilization, not merely the preservationnof the legal and formal mechanismsnby which it was to be guarded.nIt is the survival of that core throughnreversal of the process of dispossession,nnot the preservation of obsolete proceduralnmechanisms, that is the elementalnproblem for those who seriouslynwant to conserve their heritage. Or, tonparaphrase Caspar Gutman again, wencan always get other procedures, butnthere’s only one American nation. nLIBERAL ARTSnDEATH SENTENCESnDefense attorneys for six reputed Chicagonmobsters called Chicago’s federalnprison “a warehouse of death.” Accordingnto the Chicago Tribune last summer,nAllan Ackerman and Patrick Tuitenargued for the release of their clientsnbecause the prison’s only dentist wasninfected with the AIDS virus. Thendentist treated 2,800 patients beforenvoluntarily withdrawing from practise.nThe infection risk to those patients “isnvirtually zero,” according to estimatesnby the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Butnthe attorneys disagreed, citing fears ofnAIDS as “the very real bogeyman ofnthe late 20th Century, and when it isnlurking in the corners of your cell, it isnimpossible to dismiss it from yournthoughts.”nFEBRUARY 1992/9n