Washington Times, the paper almostrnfrom its beginnings has leaned towardrnthe neoeonservatives. The City Paper articlernacknowledges as much, noting thatrn”the Times has divested itself of paleoconservativesrnover the last five years” andrn”both insiders and media observers agreernthat the paper has drifted into neoconservatism.”rnThe Times has always shownrna penchant for hiring the young andrnlargely untested progeny of the seniorrnneocon sages and their pals, and over thernyears the paper or its sister weekly magazinernInsight has employed not only arnPodhoretz (and his roommate) but also arnKristol and a Wattenberg. One of myrncolleagues at the editorial page was arndaughter of Norman Podhoretz andrnMidge Decter whom Tod hired as a writerrnand who, I later found, had complainedrnabout my columns to Tod andrnhis deputy behind my back.rnThe Times seems to have absorbed thernneoeonservatives’ mentality of repressionrnalong with their offspring. I know of nornproof that the Chavez cabal or even Kaplanrnever influenced Wes or Tod in theirrndecision to give me the heave. But whateverrnthe conspiratorial hugger-muggerrnsurrounding my booting, what happenedrnto me is less the product of a conspiracyrnthan of the permeation of the mindsrnof the paper’s top editors by neoeonservativernright-think. Kaplan, actually arnliberal rather than a neoeonservative, offersrnthe most succinct expression of theirrnattitude; “There are certain limits beyondrnwhich you don’t go,” and if you dorngo beyond them, “you’re going to bernfired.”rnObviously, there are limits to what vourncan and should say and to what newspapersrnshould publish—on the use of obscenity,rntastelessness, inaccuracies, libel,rnand inciting to illegal actions—but thernneoeons’ cry for limits goes well beyondrnthese conventional boundaries. Thernlimits they impose prohibit expression ofrnvirtually any idea that challenges thernpremises protecting the dominant liberalismrnof American public life—ideasrnthat offer a different view of man, society,rnand the state from those includedrnwithin the now-defunct “liberal consensus”rnor “vital center” of the 1950’s. Of allrnthe constraints intended to preserve thatrnconsensus, none is more crucial for preservingrnliberal control of public expressionrnthan its taboos on open discussionrnof race.rnThose taboos block any challenge tornlegal and social egalitarianism, open immigration,rnsocially therapeutic uplift, thernsystematic rewriting of history, and therncoerced reconstruction of European andrnAmerican culture. Yet these are preciselyrnthe taboos I have challenged.rnBut neoeonservatives, posturing asrnconservatives, cannot afford to be veryrnopen about their real functions ofrndefending liberal control. To invoke thernspecific taboos openly would exposerntheir own hidden allegiances to thernfundamental assumptions of the left.rnHence, their constant tactic of covertrnsmears against paleos and their habit ofrnfalsely accusing their rivals of violatingrntaboos most paleoconservatives havernnever contemplated violating. Hencernalso Wes Pruden’s refusal to tell his ownrnreaders why he fired me or even admitrnthat I had been fired. The simple truthrnwas that I had “gone too far,” as he toldrnme in June, that I had violated thernboundaries that he insists his paper respect.rnBut if he had told his readers that,rnit would have been an admission that allrnhis thunderboxing about the ConfederaternFlag, the South, and Christianity isrnjust window dressing designed to deludernpaleoeonservative readers and make therngaping void of the paper’s dominantrnneoconservatism look pretty around itsrnedges.rnIt’s interesting that whenever thern”limits” on what one is permitted to sayrnare invoked, the examples of the limitsrntransgressed that are offered are alwaysrnfictitious and hypothetical, never the actualrnlimits. No one says “You can’t writernthat the Bible doesn’t condemn slavery,”rnbut rather that you can’t give what TodrnLindberg told the City Paper was myrn”theological defense of slavery.” No onernsays you can’t denounce the proposedrnArthur Ashe statue in Richmond, butrnrather that you can’t say “Hitler is therngreatest statesman of the 20th century.”rnLacking the courage (or capacity) torndefine the exact “limits” to free discussionrnit insists on enforcing, the self-appointedrnneoeonservative Thought Patrolrnsimply enforces the conventional constraintsrnthat liberalism has imposed andrnrefuses to challenge the basic premisesrnand power structure the constraints protect.rnAnd the mission of the Thought Patrolrnin protecting liberal hegemony fromrnattacks on its right brings us to the realrnreason why, however nutty, despicable,rnoffensive, monstrous, or dangerous thernideas I have expressed might be, the dangerrnthey represent shrivels beside the perilsrnneoeonservative repression embodies.rnAs long as neoeonservatives succeed inrntheir masquerade as the “official voice ofrnthe conservative movement,” at thernWashington Times or elsewhere, they willrnbe able not only to muzzle those who rejectrntheir leadership but also to preventrnthe right as a whole from challenging liberalrndominance, and there will be littlernprospect of serious challenges to thernliberal-left control of public discussion,rndespite the rejection of liberalism byrnAmerican voters. The whole mission,rnthe whole political function of neoconservatism,rnis to preserve the “limits” thernleft imposes and to discipline, by inflictingrnprofessional ruin upon, those on thernright who dare to question the boundariesrnthat protect the left’s empire.rnAs for me, my column has actuallyrngained newspapers since my defenestrationrnat the Times. It’s true I lost my jobrnand my Washington outlet, and that’s arnblow, but it’s far from death. In the comingrnyears, the Beltway right may bernamazed to discover how little it has to dornwith the direction in which the countryrnis moving, and I plan to be there when itrnfinds out that no one else is paying muchrnattention to its precious “limits” on whatrnyou can and cannot say.rnSamuel Francis is a nationally syndicatedrncolumnist.rnMaraudingrnMedia Mobrnby Marc MoranornAnewsman, being thrashed aboutrnin the middle of a media mob,rnshouted, “Don’t push me!” Anotherrnnewsman responded, “You gonna getrnpushed.” A shoving match ensued thatrnwould have made any schoolyard disputernlook highbrow. An exchange of expletivesrnfollowed. The press coverage of thern1996 New Hampshire primary was in fullrnswing. This year’s primary proved tornhave more intense media coverage thanrnany previous primary. Grizzled mediarnveterans were amazed at how the candidatesrnwere nearly inaccessible because ofrnthe sea of reporters perpetually followingrnthem. The invasion of New Hampshirernby legions of the fourth estate revealed arnnews media increasingly intrusive andrnMAY 1996/45rnrnrn