in time by an aggressive Congress, but as George Bush toldnthe Republican Convention, his mission is to carry out thenReagan agenda; and, whatever else President Bush is, he isnnot a liar.nWhat about the Republican Party in Congress? It is truenthat twelve House Republicans voted with the Democratsnhalf of the time last year, that nine voted with them 60npercent of the time, five 70 percent of the time, and one 80npercent of the time. Ten House Republicans actually votednin Congress against their party more than did any Democrat.nBut these liberal Republicans are an endangerednspecies. They are a score where they were a legion. In thenparty itself, whose structure in the 1970’s was undernconstant attack from the left, the annual liberal Republicannassault on the party organizational rules at the RepublicannNational Committee this year was so weak that its sponsornquietly admitted that he made the motion “simply to keepnup tradition rather than with any thought of victory.”nFor better of worse, there is no other home than thenRepublican Party for conservatives. The party already existsnlegally and organizationally in every state; no mean achievement.nTo recreate this would take an incredible amount ofnfunds and talent, and, more importantly, time and energy.nThe laws of every state, to say nothing of the federalnelectoral rules, are biased to favor the two existing majornparties. The option of having a third party, like thenConservative Party of New York, which has grown incrementlynby adding votes to major party candidate totals, onlynexists in one other state, Delaware.nThe electoral benefits of Republican affiliation are evenngreater than the organizational. Securing the nomination ofnthe Republican Party immediately gives a candidate,nthrough its “yellow-dog” vote, one-quarter of what isnnecessary to be elected. Indeed, over 40 percent of thenelectorate identifies as Republican, and they are overwhelminglynconservative by instinct and by policy preference. Tontoss away this legal structure and popular afl^ection would benmadness, when all that is needed is to fill the party’s legalnshell with a conservative vision at a time when there is nonreal competitor upon the scene.nOn the other hand, it is not enough just to polish up thenold Reagan banner, to simply live off the ideas of the past.nFor the rhetoric has lost its vitality and its ability to inspire thenpublic enthusiasm necessary to create a new mandate for thenfundamental reforms of government that are needed for thenfuture. Conservatives have a great luxury in being able tonrely upon President Bush to carry Reaganism to its logicalnconclusion; but resting upon status quo conservatism overnthe long run is a recipe for disaster.nThe 24th annual Survey of College Freshmen, conductednjointly by the University of California at Los Angeles andnthe American Council on Education, reported studentnactivism this year higher than ever before, even than duringnthe explosive I960’s-70’s. Nearly 37 percent of the freshmennsurveyed had participated in demonstrations the previousnyear, the highest proportion to date. Setting anothernrecord, 44 percent reported that it is “very important” fornthem “to influence social values,” while 35 percent (upnfrom 27 percent in 1986) cited “helping to promote racialnunderstanding” as an important goal. Finally, an all-timenhigh of 20 percent said that “influencing the politicaln22/CHRONICLESnnnstructure” will be a major goal for them in the future. Sonyouthful idealism is raising its head again, after several yearsnof quiescence. The only question is whether liberals ornconservatives will harness its energy.nThe general public is stirring, too. The 1990 WashingtonnPost focus group and poll — which in the last fewnyears has been remarkably professional and has provednaccurate — finds a public that feels uneasy about the future.nWhile most Americans expect their own lives to improve,nthey are very worried about whether their children will havena good life: 71 percent are concerned whether the nextngeneration will be able to find a good job, 86 percentnwhether they will be able to afford a house, and 85 percentnwhether their sons and daughters will be able to raisenchildren of their own. People are also worried about theirnoffspring today: their safety, the threat of drugs, and whethernthe moral fiber of the nation is strong enough to allow anpeaceful and prosperous life for them.nEven on the core Reagan issue of government spending,nwhen asked what they would do with potential governmentnsavings, only 5 percent said reduce taxes, while 24 percentnsaid improve education, 17 percent said help the homeless,n15 percent fight drugs, 10 percent increase health care, 10npercent improve the Social Security system, and 10 percentnsupport the environment—and they believe the DemocraticnParty is best able to deal with these problems.nIt is true that even Democratic political analysts havenconcluded that the public does not want to raise taxes to donmuch about “liberal” issues. As has been the case for at leastntwo decades, the people’s heads are with the Republicans, tonact prudenfly, but their hearts are with the Democrats, asnmost willing to solve social problems. The most dramatic ofnthe Post’s results is that people are extremely cynical aboutnWashington’s ability to solve, or even its interest in, theirnproblems. They see Congress, especially, as corrupt. Thenpeople have even learned that the President does not haventhe power: 53 percent saying that Congress has the mostnpower, and only 15 percent the President. They like GeorgenBush, but they realize that these problems are morenfundamental than a President. They want problems solved,nand they know that the government in Washington cannotnmaster them.nThis popular mood gives conservatives a marvelousnopportunity to showcase one of their most fundamentalnvalues, federalism. “Federalist” is the term the Foundersnused to describe their own enterprise, using it to tide theirnmajor work. Federalism primarily refers to a governmentncomposed of state and local governments that have independentnpower, but the concept easily extends to include thenidea of a national separation of powers and the limitednpurposes for which each branch of government wasncreated.nThe Founders emphasized divided powers because theynbelieved men were not angelic enough to be trusted withntotal power, but not so devilish that they could not choosentheir rulers or live their lives freely by caring for themselves,ntheir families, friends, and neighbors. As Thomas Flemingnhas reminded us, American government was created upon anprinciple of human nature, that human affection is naturallyngreater towards that which is closest: as Alexander Hamiltonn