how can a counter-elite based on oldtimernrepublican values come to power?rn”The primary justification of its quest forrnpower,” Francis believes, “must be therncorruption, decadence, incompetence,rnoppressiveness, and alienation of the oldrnelite that it is seeking to replace.” In thernstruggle with this “old elite,” he offers arnrealpolitik for the right, focused less onrnwhat liberals profess as on how they holdrnpower.rnHis model is derived from JamesrnBurnham, the founding editor of NationalrnReview, who pioneered the theoryrnof the Managerial Revolution. Francisrnwrites:rnThe twentieth century, for thernUnited States as well as for the restrnof the world, has been an age ofrnrevolution of far more profoundrntransformational effect than anyrnthe modern world has ever experienced.rnPerhaps not since neolithicrntimes has mankind undergonernsimultaneous changes in economic,rnsocial, political, and intellectualrnrelationships of such far-reachingrnconsequences.. . . The characteristicrnfeature of twentieth-centuryrnhistory has been the vast expansionrnin the size, scale of transactions,rnand complexity and technicalityrnof functions that political,rnsocial, and economic organizationsrnexhibit. This expansion . . .rnwas itself made possible by therngrowth of mass populations andrnby the development of technologiesrnthat could sustain the colossalrnscale of organization. Just as businessrnfirms expanded far beyondrnthe point at which they could bernoperated, directed, and controlledrneffectively by individual ownersrnand their families, who generallyrnlacked the technical skills to managernthem, so the state also underwentrna transformation in scalernthat removed it from the controlrnof traditional elites, citizens, andrntheir legal representatives. Just asrnin the mass corporations a newrnelite of professional managersrnemerged that replaced the traditionalrnentrepreneurial or bourgeoisrnelite of businessmen, so inrnthe state also a new elite of professionallyrntrained managers or bureaucratsrndeveloped that challengedrnand generally becamerndominant over the older politicalrnelites of aristocrats and amateurrnpoliticians who occupied formalrnoffices of government. . . . A similarrnprocess occurred in laborrnunions, professional associations,rnchurches, educational institutions,rnmilitary organizations and the organsrnof mass communication andrncultural expression.rnEven for conservatives unversed in Burn-rn• ham, this analysis should strike chords,rnreminding them of how the old hardwarernstore their dad used to patronizernwas bulldozed to make way for a five-acrernstrip mall. Or maybe of their own family’srnbusiness, bought out a generationrnago by a corporate conglomerate thatrnwas itself soon swallowed by off-shorerninvestors.rnEven if some political liberals object—rnas many did in the NAFTA debate—torncertain consequences of this “managerialrnrevolution,” they have already abandonedrnthe key to countering it successfully.rnAs Francis writes in “As We GornMarching,” an essay critical of makingrnAmerican foreign policy a crusade forrndemocracy:rnLike the man who believes thatrnmilk comes from supermarketsrnrather than from the careful cultivationrnof cows, liberals andrndemocrats believe that freedomrncomes from the procedures themselves,rnand they ignore or take forrngranted the undedying and largelyrninvisible social and cultural substratumrnthat allows procedural liberalismrnand democracy to flourish.rnUnlike Hayek, they fail to recognizernthat “freedom is not a staternof nature but an artifact of civilization.”rnIn Beautiful Losers, Samuel Francisrnstakes his claim as one of the most importantrnconservative thinkers of ourrntime. His work compliments the effortsrnof an earlier generation of American conservativesrnwho focused on defining andrncelebrating the “social and cultural substratum”rnon which our freedom rests.rnHis unique and valuable contributionrnhas been to define the forces that threatenrnthat freedom, while offering a frameworkrnwithin which we can fight to preservernit.rnTerence P. Jeffrey is executive director ofrnthe American Cause Foundation.rnUprootingrnLibertyrnby Jeffrey TuckerrnGrassroots Tyrannyrnby Clint BolickrnWashington: The Cato Institute;rn194 pp., $12.95rnYou may have thought this country’srnproblems stemmed from runawayrncentral government, but Clint Bolick isrnhere to tell you that the real threat isrndown the street. “Local government inrnits various forms is today probably morerndestructive of individual liberty thanrneven the national government,” says Bolick,rnchief lawyer of the Institute for Justice,rna litigation group in Washington,rnD.C. In Grassroots Tyranny, he arguesrnthat decentralism is fine so long as norncommunity violates “individual liberty.”rnBut because every conceivable action involvesrnsuch liberty, old-fashioned federalismrnshould be thrown out as “an impedimentrnto freedom” and replaced byrncentralized power that would managernthe political affairs of every state and localityrnin America.rnSuch views are nothing new, of course.rnModern liberals—^like New Dealers, Progressives,rnand Radical Republicans beforernthem—have long made the samernargument (centralize state power) on thernsame grounds (to make people free). It’srnno surprise that Nadine Strossen, presidentrnof the ACLU, endorses the Bolickrnthesis; it is her own as well. What isrnboth surprising and maddening is thatrnBolick writes as a libertarian, a defenderrnof private property and the free market.rnCentralized government power, he argues,rnis the only way to protect them.rnWe’ve witnessed the ascendancy of “biggovernmentrnconservatives” in Washington.rnClint Bolick and friends are joiningrnthem as big-government libertarians.rnA former top aide to ClarencernThomas at the Equal Employment OpportunityrnCommission, Bolick is creditedrnwith destroying Lani Guinier, Clinton’srnpick to head civil rights enforcement.rnThat event catapulted him and his organizationrnto national fame. Only a fewrnyears before, he was prosecuting casesrnfor the Department of Justice, the mostrnfamous of which was against the city ofrnMARCH 1994/37rnrnrn