would wear thin pretty quickly. Whennyou run a talk show, you have to say whatnyou really believe. There is no staffer tonhand you an index card with the appropriatenwords on it. In my case, there is nonstaff at all. So if I cannot muster a goodlynamount of evidence to support mynpoints, I look foolish. As a talk-shownhost, you have to sustain your argumentsnspontaneously and be able to defendnyourself against attacks from different directions.nThere is no time for rewrite.nYou have to have the facts right there atnhand, muster your arguments, and benjudged by the quantity and quality ofnthe audience you are able to attract.nThis is why some hardheaded conservativesndo so well in the job. They are sustainednby having facts and history andnreality on their side. Liberals have annempty quiver. Their arrows have all beennfired and have missed their mark. Liberalnnostrums have not worked. We live atnthe end of the Age of the Welfare State,nwhich can no longer be afforded, andnthose of us who understand this realitynare opposed to the statist insistence thatnthis is not so. Here we are, debating nationalnhealth care at the very same timenthat European states are facing the necessitynof cutting back on welfare benefits,nparticularly the universal one: freenhealth care.nTalk shows, along with the “religiousnright,” stand accused by an assortment ofnleft-leaning politicians and their servantsnin the press of fostering what the punditsnlike to call a “corrosive cynicism” amongnordinary Americans toward their government.nSeldom have so many editorialsnbeen generated as when the Presidentncomplained about the criticism he receivednon a St. Louis radio station. Thentruth is, we are not generating dissatisfactionnwith government. What makes thenpeople cynical is what the people withnreal authority are doing to this country,nnot what the critics are saying about it.nWhat breeds greater cynicism. Bill Clinton’snrepudiation of numerous campaignnpromises or Rush Limbaugh’s commentsnon these broken promises? Criticism ofnWhitewater chicanery or Henry Gonzales’nstonewalling the House investigationnof Whitewater? Moreover, the cynicismnworsens when the Establishment medianplay political football with the facts, asnwhen Washington journalists and Beltwayntalking heads made endless excusesnfor Dan Rostenkowski’s actions. My ownnview is that the growth of cynicism cannhardly keep pace with the lies andnshenanigans deserving of cynicism. Thenright, both religious and secular, throughntalk radio and Pat Robertson’s ChristiannBroadcasting Network, has found a waynto circumvent the political and medianelite, and the result is an Establishmentnon the run.nAnthropologist Jack Weatherford innSavages and Civilization: Who Will Survive?nargues that the ten-thousand-yearnepoch of civilization that began with thendevelopment of agriculture and continuednon through the rise of towns andncities is winding down. What Spenglernin his opus saw as the twilight of Westernncivilization, Weatherford sees as the collapsenot global civilization. It is this sensenof decline and degeneration that talknradio today reflects and that the Establishmentnmedia deny and ignore. Thisnhead-in-the-sand approach will notnchange the course of onrushing reality.nThe people know that disunity is ascendantnand that we desperately need leadersnwilling to tackle our country’s seriousnsocial and cultural problems. It is this realizationnthat accounts for the popularitynof Rush Limbaugh and talk radio, thenrise of the religious right, and the imminentndemise of the secular left.nRon Smith is a radio talk-show host innBaltimore.nWeil-RegulatednMilitianby Michael HillnLast June, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of MaricopanCounty, Arizona, loosed anposse of some 700 well-armed and iratencitizens to win back control of the streetsnand parking lots of Phoenix from the localngoons. The sheriff’s pronouncement,n”We’re going to get the bad guys,”nalarmed the local ACLU, which likenednthe militia to “a white citizens council,nreinforcing white versus dark and well-offnversus poor.” But such are the left’s reactionsnto healthy violence as the New Agennnmillennium approaches. When privatencitizens are actually permitted to donsomething about their own safety—npatrolling shopping mall parking lots orndriving hookers, pimps, and dope dealersnfrom street corners—the more sensitive,ngentle souls among us issue forth withnplatitudes about race and class oppression.nBut such action is our only realnhope of returning the streets and neighborhoodsnof urban (and if things getnworse, rural) America to law-abidingncitizens.nOur federal republic will not long survivennational gun control legislationnmeant to disarm good citizens like SheriffnArpaio’s posse. Presently, such legislationnthreatens the original American federalnsystem by preventing the states andntheir county subdivisions from defendingnthemselves against the tyranny of streetncrime or of “consolidated” government.nUnder the Constitution, the states andnthe citizens thereof enjoy the collectivenright of self-defense; but during the 20thncentury, the Supreme Court has underminednthat right by ignoring the SecondnAmendment. The Founding Fathersnunderstood the likelihood of periodicnfriction between the interests of thenstates and of the national governmentnand thus specifically recognized thenstates’ right to arm their citizens. Madisonnand Jefferson, among others, warnednthat the people might find it necessary tonresort to arms should the national governmentnoverstep its bounds, the salientnquestion being: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?n(Who shall govern the governors?)nJefferson’s answer was: “The treenof liberty must be refreshed from time tontime with the blood of patriots andntyrants. It is its natural manure.”nWhile Congress does have the authoritynto protect the states against foreignninvasion and domestic insurrection andnlawlessness by calling out the militia (ArticlenI, section 8 and Article IV, sectionn4), it cannot command a state’s armedncitizenry to do harm to that state. Despitencongressional authority to restrictnunder certain circumstances the states’nrights to exercise discretion over militarynforces within their borders (e.g. Article I,nsection 10’s prohibition against the statesnkeeping ships and troops in peacetimenwithout the consent of the national legislature),nthe states most assuredly retainnthe right of revolution. If states believenthat they have suffered a “long train ofnabuses and usurpations” designed “to reducenthem under absolute despotism,”nMARCH 1995/45n