“consen’ative.”rnIn the course of his article, the ex-British former editor of thernNew Republic names two groups: establishment Republicansrnlike Trent Lott, Kenneth Starr, and Representative Bob Inglis,rnand the usual second generation neoconservatives—Bill Kristol,rnDaid F”rum, and Mark Helprin. Is Mr. Sullivan seriouslyrnasking us to believe that these movement leaders actually arerncommitted to a set of idenhfiably conservative principles? Thernmost important “conservatives” today are political operatorsrnwho combine the probit}’ of Warren Harding with the tacticalrnbrilliance of Harold Stassen. They can be ver’ good at raisingrnmoney and taking orders—whether from an Australian irrediarnmagnate or from Asian business interests—but since nothingrndistinguishes their fundamental principles from those of, say,rnAndrew Sullivan, these representatives of the respectable rightrnare of no earthl)’ use except to provide an acceptable shadow’rnopposition to the democratic socialists who call themselvesrn”liberals.”rnWhat would America be like if the editors of the WeeklyrnStandard joined forces with the leadership of the GOP and capturedrnthe Wliite House and both houses of Congress? There isrnno need to wonder, because it would be exactly like the Americarnwe are living in today. The only reason Bill Clinton can stealrnthe conser atives’ thunder is because that thunder is played onrna piccolo, and the time is what the Pied Piper of Hamelinrnplayed, a song guaranteed to attract every rat in the country:rnWall Street greed tempered with a Swedish socialism, multinahonalrnimperialism abroad sugar-coated with appeals to “Peacernon Earth” (for the one-world liberals) and with invocations ofrnTedd’ Roosevelt for the rubes back in Iov’a.rnSuppose —or rather imagine —that a coalition of rightwingersrncaptured the Republican Partv’ and took over therntwo elective branches of government. How would they dealrnwith the business that confronted the 105th Congress in its finalrndays? Obiously, President Buchanan would not always havernan easy time of it, crafting compromises with House SpeakerrnRon Paul and Senate Majority Leader Bob Smith. It wouldrnhave taken weeks to work out the “Ron Paul Tax ReductionrnAct” cutting income taxes by half, eliminating withholding,rnand requiring a simple, one-page tax form.rnFor the first time in years. Cabinet meetings are spent discussingrnpolicy instead of crafting carefullv worded statementsrnthat defend the President without implicating Cabinet membersrnas accessories. (The Clinton Cabinet was a highly exclusiverngroup that excluded anyone smart enough to know that Billrnwas a chronic philanderer.)rnOne fine spring day in the first year of his term. PresidentrnBuchanan summons his Cabinet to discuss the Kosovo question.rnSecretar’ of State Trifkovic (the job is, after all, reservedrnfor foreigners) explains (objectively, of course) the continuingrnthreat posed by the Albanian terrorists that Clinton had installedrnwhile the United States were still part of NATO. Thernnew CIA director, a legendary intelligence expert known onlyrnas the Admirable H., outlines the elaborate heroin connectionrnfunding the terrorists, but the new secretary of war recommendsrnagainst the use of American boys—kicking the womenrnout of the armed forces was his first official act—in the Balkans.rn”All we need to do,” urges Secretary Trifkovic, “is to showrna little moral support to our good friend. President Kostunica,rnwho is a little distracted with the trial of Mr. arrd Mrs.rnMilosevic.”rnThe subject changes to domestic policy, and when CommercernSecretars’ Traficant mentions federal programs designedrnto build more schools and hire more teachers, HEW Secretary’rnHoward Phillips snorts with contempt: “In four years therernwon’t be anv federal spending on education, and I’ll be out of arnjob and have to run for president.”rnT “•hink back, my loyal conservativernfriends, and try to recall arnconservative candidate for nationalrnoffice who kept his major campaignrnpromises after the election.rnNow that Clinton’s name has been dropped into the conversationrn—like a truckload of manure dumped on the WhiternHouse lawn —FBI Director Kauffman presents his full reportrnon the Clintons’ abuse of civil liberties, including the deprivationrnof the civil rights of several of their closest associates. (Thisrnclass of crimes was not covered in the immunit- granted byrnPresident Gore before his own impeachment.) PresidentrnBuchanan laughs: “We’re so busy cleaniirg out tire stables, werndon’t have time to chase that horse thief.” Besides, as he pointsrnout to Kauifman, “It’ll be hard to pin anything on any privaterncitizen, now that the FBI has shut down most of its domesticrnsurveillance.”rnI’aking advantage of the break in the agenda. SecretaryrnPhillips brings up ex-Congressman Hyde’s plan to track downrndead-beat dads. Attorney General Stephen Presser takes a fewrnmoments to provide a refresher course on American federalism,rnexplaining that the federal government has no authorib,- tornenforce child support. It is not just the fact that regulation ofrnmarriage and the family are not mentioned in the Constitutionrn—neither are nuclear weapons or Colombian cocaine, butrna good case can be made that both fall under the jurisdiction ofrnthe national government. But the essence of a truK’ federal system,rnthe attorney general goes on, is respect for the boundariesrnthat separate higher from lower authorities. In principle, eachrnlevel of society, from the family up to the nation, should havernthe power to regulate its internal affairs. The separate statesrnhave always had different laws on marriage, divorce, and childrnprotection because the states were always sovereign in thosernmatters. The onl- inference to draw from the Hyde plan is thatrnmarriage and the family are now national institutions.rn”Even the states,” adds an advisor of a somewhat sinister aspect,rn”are limited by nature in how far the’ can go in regulatingrnmarriage, procreation, and child-rearing. I know that it is fashionablernthese days to talk about family values, and we even usedrnsome of that language in the primaries, when we took what littlernwind there was out of the sails of Gary Bauer and AlanrnKeyes. But the fact is that ‘family values’ are simply anotherrnpretext to interfere in private life, and the end result will be torndestroy, not preserve, the family.rnJANUARY 1999/11rnrnrn