training and anti-drug counseling. Morernpointedly, Mr. Kemp’s enthusiasm forrncommunity organizing bears a striking, ifrnunconscious, resemblance to the Warrnon Poverty.” In fact, the Great Societyrnrepresented a compromise position thatrnrejected the most extreme dreams of thernleft. More than welfare checks, the latterrnsector said, the underclass should get restrictedrnhome and business ownership.rnRejected by Great Society liberals at therntime, this extreme leftist view now hasrnits champion in Kemp.rnWould that Kemp’s welfare policiesrnwere “unconscious.” He consciously andrnfrequently met with representatives ofrnthe Association of Community Organizationsrnfor Reform Now (ACORN), anrnAlinskyite organization to the far left ofrnthe political spectrum that advocatesrnimposing race-based mortgage lendingrnquotas on banks and other financial institutions.rnIn the absence of explicit legislationrnto that effect, Kemp spent $1rnmillion, over the objection of bankingrnregulators, to hire teams of “testers” forrnsting operations on banks to check forrnracial discrimination. Hl.fD had donernthis to renters for years, but rather thanrnattack such invasion of privacy, whichrnresults in de facto lending quotas, Kemprnbroke new ground by dramatically expandingrnit.rnIf you complain about Kemp’s bigspending,rnbig-govcrnmcnt programs, hernwill snap and tell you, as he told the WallrnStreet ]ournal, that “the economy ofrnthe inner city” is more important thanrn”monomaniacally focusing on singleentryrnbookkeeping.” To think conserativesrnused to care about such things asrnliving within one’s means.rnYet with Kemp, it is not so much arnmatter of budget priorities as it is ofrnholding the wrong set of principles. Yournmight think, for example, he would favorrnprivatization of certain public assets.rnBut when Dan Quayle nearly had L. A.rnmayor Tom Bradley convinced that therncity should privatize its airport to raisernmoney to pay for the riot cleanup, Kemprnpersonally interceded to foil the plan.rn”1 have never recommended tliat LAXrnbe privatized,” he told the WashingtonrnPost, presumably because that just mightrnupset someone on the left who thinksrnairports ought to belong to everybody.rnOne of the many untold aspects ofrnKemp’s HUD tenure is how he used hisrnoffice to lead a crusade to rcinvigoraternprivate-sector labor unions. As only onernexample, he expanded the traditionalrninterpretation of the Davis-Bacon Act,rnwhich resulted in numerous housing projectsrnbeing classified as “de’elopment”rn(rather than “maintenance”) projects,rnso that more work must be done by laborrnunions at union wages. A small regulatoryrnchange such as this allows therntransfer of millions from taxpayers tornunion coffers, whereas a repeal of thernDavis-Bacon Act, savs RepresentativernCass Ballenger (R-NC), would save $1.3rnbillion. Only after relentless pressurernfrom Representative Charles Stenholmrn(D-TX) and the National Right to WorkrnCommittee (NRWC) did Kemp beginrnto retract his plan to grant unions newrnsubsidies. It is no wonder, then, thatrnKemp regards himself as “a labor unionrnleader,” as he told the Washington Post.rn”I’m from the Lane Kirkland wing of thernRepublican Party,” he continued. ReedrnLarson of NRWC sums up the problem:rn”Kemp has repeatedh’ used the powerrnof” his office “to advance the interestsrnof union officials at public expense.”rnFor all the criticism he levels at thernright, and especially at Buchananitcs,rnKemp cannot bring himself to criticizernanyone seen publicK as being on his left.rn”Am I going to attack Bill Clinton orrnHillary Clinton, or Al Gore or TipperrnGore?” he asked a Washington Post reporterrnwith a “no” shake of his head.rn”They’re all friends of mine.”rnPraise be to columnist Joe Sobran,rnwho, along with his colleague SamuelrnFrancis, is alone in expressing doubtsrnabout Kemp. Although Sobran supportedrnBush in 1988, he has sincernchanged his mind. “I wish I could feelrnthat Jack Kemp would lead the ReaganrnRevolution we still av’ait,” Sobran writes.rn”But judging by his record, he won’t.”rnGiven his record and his views, whatrncan account for Kemp’s popularityrnamong conservatives? Partially it isrndue to ignorance. In his turf battles withrnthe tax-increasing Budget DirectorrnRichard Darman and the negligentrnTreasury Secretary Nicholas Brady,rnKemp benefited from being seen as arn”free-market mole” inside the WhiternHouse, as the London Financial Timesrnput it. Many of his sincere supportersrnon the right have deluded themselvesrninto believing that his liberalism isrnstrategic and not principled. Othersrnagree with Kemp on the need to lowerrnthe capital gains tax; but shouldn’t conservativesrnbe more than a special-interestrnlobby working for a handful of marginalrnpolicy changes?rnThere is, I suspect, another reason forrnKemp’s popularity among conservatives:rnit is part of a quiet but profound ideologicalrnshift that has taken place overrnthe last se’cral years. Washington’s fauxrightrnhas moved ever leftward towardrnpositions on domestic issues that anyrnfree-market observer of the Old Schoolrnwould instantly recognize as socialistic.rnThe beginnings of this shift probablyrnbegan, as Murray Rothbard argues, inrnthe 50’s, accelerating in the followingrntwo decades; but by today’s standardsrneven early-80’s conservatism seemsrnreactionary, now that neoconservativismrndefines respectability on the right. Backrnin those days—imagine!—people talkedrnof abolishing agencies like the Departmentrnof Education and HUD.rn”My mama told me I was born to bernPresident of the United States,” Kemprntold the 1991 Conservative LeadershiprnConference, whose attendees gave himrna standing ovation after he delivered thernstump speech all his aides have sincernmemorized. I leaven forfcnd. Bush wasrna pragmatic manager of the old-stylernRockefeller variety. Kemp is a morernominous figure, a supply-side millcnarianrnwho imagines limitless possibilitiesrnfor social uplift through the exercise ofrncentralized state power. Pat Buchanan’srnobservation that Kemp has “gone native”rnshould properly be seen as an understatement,rneven if Kemp does get thernRepublican nomination in 1996.rnJeffrey A. Tucker is editor of the FreernMarket, an economics and policy reportrnof the Ludwig von Mises Institute.rnRoss Perot andrnMiddle AmericanrnRadicalismrnby Donald WarrenrnFor a few moments during last year’srnpresidential election, it appearedrnthat the American two-party system wasrnheaded for a meltdown. As the ineffectualrnBush campaign drew to its mercifulrnclose, the resurgence of support for RossrnPerot defied every principle of professionalrnpolitical punditry. In 1992, disaffectedrnMiddle Americans were key tornthe 19 percent of the popular vote garneredrnby the maverick independent can-rn48/CHRONICLESrnrnrn