Principalities & Powersrnby Samuel FrancisrnRevolution in the AirrnIs it idle, or at least premature, to talkrnabout “revolution from the right”?rnWhether it is or is not, that is exactlyrnwhat leaders of the right have been talkingrnabout for some years, from PatrnBuchanan’s “Middle American Revolution”rnand his imagery of the “BuchananrnBrigades” and peasants with pitchforksrnrebelling against “King George,” to NewtrnGingrich and his now-forgotten jabberrnabout the “Republican Revolution.” Ofrncourse, when Buchanan and Gingrich invokedrnthe imagery of revolution, neitherrngentleman meant by it what most of thernmore infamous revolutionaries of historyrnmeant—the violent overthrow of therngovernment—but the mere invocationrnof the concept of revolution by leaders ofrnthe right today ought to tell us somethingrnsignificant.rnThe right, of course, is supposed to bernanything but revolutionary. The right,rnafter all, consists of those born to wealthrnand privilege who benefit from the statusrnquo, and conservative thought has alwaysrnflourished most in defiant responsernto calls for revolution from the left. EdmundrnBurke, considered to be a bit of arnradical throughout most of his politicalrncareer, actually founded classical conservatismrnwith his denunciations of thernFrench Revolution, and the renaissancernof conservative thought in the UnitedrnStates from the 1950’s through thern1960’s was largely a reaction against thernrevolutions preached and practiced byrnthe Progressives, liberals, communists,rnand New Leftists of the same era.rnWhat is significant about the invocationrnof revolution by leaders of the contemporaryrnright, then, is that it assumesrnthat the right no longer necessarily consistsrnof those who gain from the wayrnthings are; that the right, whoever it isrnand whatever it means, consists of thosernwho believe they would benefit from arndrastic and sudden, if not violent, alterationrnof the status quo. Moreover, it’srnnot just the leaders of the right likernBuchanan and Gingrich who use the imageryrnof revolution; they use it becausernthat imagery attracts a following, and itrnattracts a following because rank-and-filernadherents of the right (note I do not sayrn”conservatives”) share its assumption.rnTo a large extent, the right in America today,rnat least its more radical and populistrnwing, is defined by its attraction to thernconcept of revolution, violent or not, andrnthe left, for the first time in history, is definedrnby its opposition to the concept.rnOf course, not everyone on what isrnusually called the “right” harbors sympathyrnfor revolutionary change. Soon afterrnBuchanan started talking about peasantsrnstorming the castles with their pitchforks.rnBill Kristol was dragged forth byrnthe Washington Post to enlighten us withrnhis own cogitations. “Someone needs tornstand up and defend the Establishment,”rnhe whined. “In the last couple ofrnweeks, there’s been too much pseudopopulism,rnalmost too much concern andrnattention for, quote, the people—that is,rnthe people’s will, their prejudices andrntheir foolish opinions. And in a certainrnsense, we’re all paying the price for thatrnnow…. After all, we conservatives are onrnthe side of the lords and barons.”rnMr. Kristol is correct. “Conservatives”rn—those who want to conserve—rnare on the side of the lords and barons,rnand the fact that the delusions andrnpathologies of the left have long since acquiredrnpolitical and cultural hegemonyrnin the United States means that real conservativesrnlike Mr. Kristol wind up defendingrnthe achievements and interestsrnof the left. When he, his colleaguesrnamong the neoconservatives, and thernmainstream of the Republican Party denouncernBuchanan for his attacks on thern”Establishment,” they betray the realityrnthat all their right-wing affectations arernmasks for the defense of the incumbentrnsystem of power.rnNevertheless, the rhetoric of revolutionrnon the populist right persists andrneven seems to be blossoming. In the lastrnyear or so, some on the right appear tornhave taken it a bit more seriously thanrnwas perhaps warranted, and the FBI hasrnactually busted more than a few bandsrnof “extremists” who supposedly werernplotting bombings or stashing weaponsrnagainst Der Tag. There is, of course, norn”right-wing terrorist underground” suchrnas the Anti-Defamation League or thernSouthern Poverty Law Center insistsrnexists, a coordinated clandestine movementrndedicated to burning Negrornchurches, blowing up federal buildings,rnmurdering abortionists, and committingrnhate crimes, but there are random crackpotsrnwho have been captured by therncrumbling legitimacy of the system thatrnMr. Kristol and his friends are so zealousrnto bolster.rnAnd if there is any certain indicationrnthat talking about “revolution from thernright” is not premature, it lies in that veryrncrumbling. Opinion polls in the last fewrnyears have shown that increasing numbersrnof citizens simply do not trust therngovernment, and virtually any unusualrnevent, crime, or disaster is now immediatelyrnenveloped in labyrinthine webs ofrnconspiracy theories. The death of VincernFoster, the death of Ron Brown, therncrash of TWA Flight 800, the Waco massacre,rnthe Oklahoma City bombing andrnthe trials of its suspects, the O.J. Simpsonrncase, and even the killing of Bill Cosby’srnson have all been absorbed intornthese webs.rnThere is also now an institutionalizedrnnetwork by which these theories and therndelegitimization of the system that theyrnbreed are communicated. Talk radio,rnshort-wave radio, the Internet, militiarnmeetings and gun shows, and several nationallyrncirculated popular magazines,rnnewspapers, and newsletters devotedrnexclusively to the weaving of the websrnensure that the distrust of the system isrnnot going to abate. And the same sort ofrncommunications network exists for publicizingrnviews of the wodd that are profoundlyrnat odds with the worldview onrnwhich the system rests. They offer radicallyrndifferent views of religion, history,rnrace, government, economy, and evenrnthe universe from what is taught in mostrnschools and universities, discussed inrnmost mainstream media, and gabbledrnabout by public political figures. In addition,rnthere is the underground educationalrnsystem, consisting of homeschooling,rnprivate schools, and parochialrnschools that often instill these alternativernworldviews into students at an eady age.rnThe emergence in just the last fewrnyears of this populist underground andrnthe continuing and ever-escalating popularityrnof what it has to offer are perhapsrnthe best reasons to believe that the systemrnso beloved by Mr. Kristol and hisrnallies cannot long endure. What is oc-rnJULY 1997/41rnrnrn