recognize the administrative state as arnpernicious parasite. Frum underscoresrntlic importance of conservatives’ insistencernon this hard truth, and the dangerrnof their reliance upon pubhc administratorsrnto instill “familv values” in thernAmerican citizenrv.rnhi much of this, Frum sounds suspiciouslvrnlike a paleoconservative, and hisrnborrowings from the enemies of his neoconservativernfriends and patrons are toornobvious to be dismissed. The characterrnassassination to which he resorts in chapterrnsix in describing the nationalist rightrnmay even be seen as necessary camouflage.rnFrum has obtained funding andrnprofessional advantage from his neoconservativernconnections. He was also, forrnthose who may have forgotten, the authorrnof an ugly smear directed againstrnthe neocons’ bete noire, Pat Buchanan,rnwhich was published predictably in thernAmerican Spectator. Having now producedrna book that cannot be entirelyrncongenial to his big government sponsors,rnhe offers insidious contrasts betweenrnthem and their hated opponents.rnIn chapter six he introduces “conservativernpessimists” Thomas Fleming, SamrnFrancis, Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell,rnPat Buchanan, and Clyde Wilson,rnafter having performed (in chapter four)rnthe same service for “conservative optimists”rnJack Kemp, Stuart Butler, andrnClinton Bolick. Frum leaves no doubtrnabout which side he prefers. While gentlyrntwitting the optimists for their excessiverngenerosit toward minorities, he portraysrnthe pessimists as unreconstructedrnheavies. Emploing a technique perfectedrnin Commentary, Frum smears everyonernon his right as a Nazi and dehumanizesrnsuch right-wingers by heapingrnupon them the epithets “demented,”rn”xenophobic,” “racist,” and “anti-rnSemitic.”rnhi these descriptions, Frum plays hardrnand loose with the facts. How does hernknow, for example, that Sam Francis’srn”bitterness against the neoconservativesrnwas aggraated” when Francis was bypassedrnfor an editorship at the WashingtonrnTimes? (Francis expressed more interestrnat the time in being a columnistrnthan he did in the editorial slot that wentrnto John Podhoretz’s former roommate.)rnhi am case, there is no evidence thatrnFrancis has castigated neocons more vehementlyrnsince that alleged incidentrnthan he did before. And what useful informationrndoes Frum intend to conveyrnby making Francis into “a huge man withrna l^right red face, who puffs cigarettesrnbelow anachronistic horn-rims”? Thisrnpurple prose immediately follows thernfirst awkward effort at creative writing: arnparagraph earlier, the author describesrnThomas Fleming as “a bearded leftoverrnfrom the 1960’s, an unsuccessful poet,rnbriefly a teacher of Classics at a smallrnSouthern college, who drifted into journalismrnand found himself in Rockford.”rnContrary to the snide innuendo, TomrnFleming’s academic credentials are notrnquestionable. Recipient of a doctorate inrnclassics from the University of NorthrnCarolina and a faculty member therernand at Miami of Ohio, as well as an internationallyrnrespected Hellenist, Flemingrnhas far better scholady claims thanrnany of the neocon authors of fictive orrnexiguous doctoral dissertations.rnOn page 148, Frum devotes more invectivernto misrepresenting a speech byrnMurray Rothbard, given at a John RandolphrnClub meeting in January 1992.rnHe maintains that Rothbard, a candidaternfor the “booby hatch,” delivered anrn”insane” defense of anti-Semitism,rnlamenting the expulsion of Jew-hatersrnfrom the respectable American right.rnHaving been present for that speech, Irnobserved none of the insanity attributedrnto the speaker. Rothbard merely observedrnthat on the unreformed OldrnRight, he, a Jew, had rubbed elbows withrnthose suspected of being—and possiblyrnwith some who were—anti-Semites. E’-rnervone, he assured us, had got along, butrnthere were no AIPAC or NAACP litmusrntests for those who wished to identifrnthemsehes as conservatives. While itrnmay be justifiable to scold the Old Rightrnfor its excessive tolerance, Rothbard didrnnot defend anti-Semitism, unless he gavernanother speech at which I was not present.rnThe one I recall, which Frum takesrnthe liberty to decontextualize, targetedrnthe neocon-Buckleyite inquisition; Rothbardrncomplained that this “smearbund”rnhad been unleashed against the resurgentrnOld Right. And on page 157, Frumrnintroduces the personification of hisrnworst fears, the reactionary xenophobernfrom “Nordic Sweden,” Claes R)n,rnwhom P>uni accuses of lia-ing taught inrnhis polemic The New jacobinism thatrn”nationalist conservatives must reassertrnthe truth of particularity.” hi all likelihoodrnFrum never read this tract, whichrndefends constitutional democracy andrnhas nothing to do with immigration.rnNot content with fraud, however, Frumrnmoves on to compound insult with injury.rnHe attaches to his misrepresentationrnof The New jacobinism a ringing defensernof cultural particularity, but onernwritten by Francis, not Ryn.rnEven more misleading is Frum’s depictionrnof the origins of Chronicles, arnpublication he reeentl)- denigrated onrnC-SPAN. According to his account, thernmagazine was designed as a vehicle for arncranky Eastern European “who thoughtrnAmerica was going to hell.” Chronicles’rnfounder Leopold Tyrmand, a Polish Jew,rnwas in fact a fervent American patriotrnwho never tired of praising his adoptedrnhomeland. What was wrong with America,rnTyrmand insisted, was the work of “arnfew intellectuals” and should not bernblamed on the American people. It wasrnonly after his death that Chronicles’ criticalrnfocus expanded to include Americanrnsociety in general.rnWe also learn that paleolibertarianrnLew Rockwell does not speakrnkindly of Martin Luther King, Jr. ButrnFrum supplies compelling reasons forrnRockwell’s hostility to the civil rightsrnleader, among them King’s plagiarisms,rnlechery, vulgar Marxist rantings, andrnforced elevation by the national media tornthe status of a deity. Most of all, Frumrnexplains, paleos dislike King as an advocaternof “forced integration” and of thernpolitical empowerment of Americanrnblacks. Here he happens to be right, andrnit behooves me, having dodged this issuernwhen he addressed a question to me at arnmeeting of the Philadelphia Society, tornprovide a straight answer. A onetimernTaft Republican driven to the politics ofrncultural despair, I must sadly agree withrnRockwell’s judgment of the civil rightsrnmovement. In a piece published by thernWall Street journal last August, IrvingrnKristol comes perilously close to joiningrnus on this point. Kristol emphasizes thernunavoidable connection between thernSupreme Court’s decision in Brown v.rnThe Board of Education and the forcedrnsocial reconstruction being pushed byrnjudges and government agencies. UnlikernFrum, Kristol, Rockwell, and I have troublernsquaring the aims of the civil rightsrnmovement with the dual federalism andrndistributed powers under which Americansrnonce lived. From this historical perspective,rnthere is a seamless web of proliferatingrnmandates, federal agencies,rnand claims advancing victim groups extendingrnfrom the landmark civil rightsrncases of the 50’s to the politically correctrnpresent. Paleos, who have underscoredrnFEBRUARY 1995/31rnrnrn