these continuities witliout regard for thernprice they have had to pay for tlieir candor,rnbeUevc they should be ob’ious tornanyone but a knave or a fool. Forcedrnbusing was mandated b the SupremernCourt as early as the Mecklenburg casernin 1956; Martin Luther King bv the earlyrn60’s advocated both reparations byrnwhites and racial quotas in hiring as soonrnas it became politically advisable to dornso. Contrary to an error in Kristol’s otherwisernpassable piece, “moderate” civilrnrights advocate Hubert IIumphre, likernsuper-liberal George McGovern, endorsedrnhiring quotas for blacks duringrnhis last term in the Senate.rnAllow me to express further whatrntimidity kept me from telling Krum.rnWhereas blacks were certainh’ withinrn////•: MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.,rnPLAGIARISM STORYrnA puhliemiiin nl 1 ]w Ki^’klordrnliiMiliili;. 107 |i;i!iL’srn(pa[vi 1. ()nl .SIO ishippiiij: .indrnluindlin!: chciri:i.- incliulali.rni roORniiRHYCKLDriCARD,rnC’Al 1.:rn1-800-383-0680rn()R SI.M) CHIK K OR M()NI;YrnOKfM.R (1 XDi: I’AYAHl.K TOrnTIIK ROCKIORD INSIlTinE)rnTO;rnKINCiHOOK.rny^tNORIUMAlNSIKI-l-r.rnROCKIORD. II filingrniDisn’unis.ivdikihl..’ lor hulk HHJL’I-. Irntheir moral and constitutional rights tornboycott segregated transportation servicesrnin the 50’s, it is equally defensiblernfor Americans todav to regret black politicalrnempowerment. William Buckley’srnominous warnings about the VotingrnRights Act of 1965 turned out to bernprophetic. Black voters have become increasinglyrnthe footsoldiers of the managerialrnclass, supporting directly and indirectlyrnthe growth of unaccountablernfederal power to deal with “discrimination.”rnBefore the civil rights revolution,rnas Frum undoubtedly knows, the welfarernstate was concerned almost cntirelvrnwith redistributing income and regulatingrncommerce in favor of its clients, particularlyrnorganized labor. Since thoserndays, an expanded welfare state has focusedrnon modifying social behavior, sensitizingrndesignated victimizcrs, and raisingrn—at public expense—the self-esteemrnof designated minorities. This newrnagenda is not unrelated to the civil rightsrncause that Frum sacralizes, even as hernrails against the welfare state. In fact, hernseems concerned less that “conservativernoptimist” Stuart Butler has asked thern”right” to modifv its opposition to minorityrnquotas than that Lew Rockwellrndoes not revere Martin Luther King.rnOn some points I agree with Frum, inrnopposition to my paleo friends. Likernhim, I balk at the paleo appeal to nationalism,rnthough I do respect Southernrnregionalism as a genuine conservativernforce. I also share John Lukaes’srnperception regarding the necessary conflictrnbetween regionalists and patriotsrnon the one side and nationalists on thernother. While one group is actuated byrnfilial pietism and reverence for an ancestralrnhome, the other is driven by expansionistrnambitions and consuming dislikernfor a national enemv. Like Frum, Irnthink that Pat Buchanan was inconsistentrnin calling for American support ofrnbesieged Dubrovnik while elevating nationalrninterest as the sole criterion of arnsound foreign policy.rnBut unlike Frum, I do welcome the effortsrnof those lonely few who ask usefulrnand even courageous political questions.rnAnd by these few, I do not mean Frum’srnpatrons and their zombie armies butrnthose he mocks as “conservative pessimists.”rnIt is they who stand defiantlyrnoutside of the orchestrated political conversation,rnmake nonprogrammed observationsrnabout self-government, liberty,rnand citizenship, and debate these mattersrnloudly and irreverently, as befits menrnof honor, without that legacy of democraticrncentralism that Frum’s circle haverntaken from their Eastern European leftistrnpast. I do not suggest that paleos arernalways persuasive in their arguments.rnWhat does render them indispensablernat this point, however, is the sharpness ofrntheir questioning—what the Greeksrncalled erotesis. In this the work of the paleosrncontrasts vividly with those neuteredrnor belated reformulations of their discoursesrnproduced by their neocon detractors.rnWhile the neocons were stillrncelebrating “The Reagan Revolution,”rnthe paleos were charting the growth ofrnthe managerial state in the Reagan years.rnIt was also the paleos who rejected thernneocons’ bogus dichotomy between thernmoderate and the radical civil rightsrnmovements. Paleos have never hesitatedrnto point out the overlaps between therntwo; they rightly insist, moreover, that allrnphases of 1960’s liberalism led in thernsame direction, toward a regime of therapeuticrnmanagers operating in defiancernof civilized political norms and of constitutionallyrnlimited government.rnFrum and his patrons are accustomedrnto pillaging in private those whom theyrnsavage in public. Thus Frum seems tornhave helped himself to the research ofrnJeff Tucker, done in preparation for anrnessay on Jack Kemp that appeared in NationalrnReview on August 1. ThoughrnTucker treated Kemp more indulgentlyrnthan he had in exposes written forrnChronicles and the Christian SciencernMonitor, I suspect the worst, having readrnboth men’s work in a single sitting:rnsome borrowing of statistical data andrneven of phraseology took place. And mrnstudying the welfare state’s war againstrnthe family, Frum may have gone to anotherrnpariah source, the published worksrnof Allan Carlson of the Roekford Institute,rnwhom he introduces as an eccentricrnantimilitarist as well as the president ofrn”one of the oldest, if least effective, ofrnconservative think tanks.”rnA final unpleasantness is Frum’s portrayalrnof the authentic political right,rnwhose members he depicts as physicallyrnrepulsive and generally corpulent. Inrnpoint of fact, these maligned hgures generallyrnhave the appearance of middleagedrnyuppies, while those who are overweightrnmay only be approximating therncondition of David Frum, as is evidentrnfrom his picture on the dust jacket.rnUnattractive and out-of-shape neoconsrnwould better employ their time in physical,rnrather than hterary, exercise. crn32/CHRONICLESrnrnrn