fore Wills.nWills’s theme unifying the assessmentnof Jefferson’s Declaration of Independencenand this analysis of ThenFederalist is an argument that the politicalnthought of the American foundingnis more properly traced to the “commonnsense” philosophy of the Scottishnenlightenment than to the natural-rightnphilosophy of John Locke. The Federalistnclearly reflects the influence of somethingnbeyond John Locke, but thatnsomething is not limited to the Scottishnenlightenment. Wills ignores the classicalnroots of American order and hasnlittle to say about the Christian influencesnon American politics. Thesenomissions suggest that Wills does notnwant to tell a complete story.nWills would have us believe that thennatural-rights philosophy animatingnthe American founding was merely anresult of historical circumstances, somethingnthat might have been valid in then18th century, but that human knowledgenhas transcended, much as sciencenhas progressed, in the interim. As Newton’snphysics has been found inadequate,nsuch historicism would have us believenthat the principles of the Americannfounding must be superseded. At base,nWills’s project is an effort to underminenthe roots of American order.nvJarry Wills provides evidence ofnthe manner in which political roots arenloosened through distortion and oversight,nleading a people to forget the notionsnof right through which they couldngovern themselves and to embrace an”might makes right” theory of majoritynrule. Also called the Stephen DouglasnTheory of Majority Rule, this axiomnstates that one need not care what thenmajority decides; whatever they want isnthe politician’s duty. Politics, in suchnan atmosphere, is reduced to the clashnof different sides attempting to win officenin order to serve their selfish interests.nLosing an election becomes a problemnbecause “we won’t get ours.” In anfederated society such as the UnitednStates, those who lose at one level haven99:nChronicles of Culturenmany other levels of government tonachieve their ends. Harry Boyte’s ThenBackyard Revolution shows some ofnthe ways in which local groups are organizingnand acting to shape policiesnin their jurisdictions when nationalnleaders are indifferent or hostile to theirncauses.nWhere Wills attempts to discuss politicalntheory, Harry Boyte has no neednfor theory. In his universe, theoreticalnquestions are settled along a “left isngood, right is bad” axis, and we can proceednin the identification of heroes andnvillains. Boyte is captivated by a SaulnAlinsky-Ralph Nader faith that, if ordinarynAmericans organize, they will donso for purposes sympathetic to the politicalnleft. The movements of concern tonBoyte are consumerist-oriented efforts,nrent-control teams, local rebuildingnconcerns where funds are obtained bynlegal coercion to stop banks from redliningnneighborhoods, fights againstninsurance and utility companies, andnsimilar struggles that fit into this framework.nBoyte asserts that any movementnfrom the political right is animated bynan envy of what others are gaining fromnnnthe political process, a selfish desirento preserve property instead of helpingnpeople, and he alleges that such movementsnare financed by business-dominatednconspiracies. Boyte heaps abusenon those who led the tax revolts; he ignoresnthe right-to-life movement, overlooksnefforts to elevate the standardsnof teaching in public schools, and givesnshort shrift to other movements currentlynidentified with conservatism.nThe book relates organizational successesnand preaches (to those who can plodnthrough the jargon of academic sociology)nthat people can accomplish whatnthey want by organizing properly.nThe ability of Americans to combinenin private voluntary associations wasnconsidered by Alexis de Tocqueville tonbe one of the traits that would makendemocracy decent among us. Such organizationsnallow people the sense ofncontrolling some aspects of their livesnand train them, on a small scale, for thenresponsibilities associated with highernpositions on a national scale. Associationnand organization, of course, arentactics that can be used by both the virtuousnand the vicious. Publius knewnthis and contended that the large republicnwould enable people to containnvicious organizations, localizing themninto particular regions and preventingnthem from working their will with nationalnpolitical machinery. Boyte demonstratesnthat a good number of suchnorganizations exist at the local level,nthat the idea of civic involvement innAmerica is still strong and that somenpeople have won their way in such politicalnbattles. Others will have to addressnthe question of whether these groupsnpromote the public interest or workn”adverse to the rights of other citizensnand to the permanent and aggregateninterests of the community.”nWhether these organizations are ansign of the health or the decline ofnAmerican society, it is clear that theynare inevitably parochial in their concerns,nthus unsuited to address largennational questions. Boyte’s book assumesnthat local politics is the importantn