Randolph, John C. Calhoun, the leaders of the Confederacy,nthe Populists of the late 19th century and the Southern Agrariansnof the early 20th, and in the Old Right conservatism of thenera between Charles Lindbergh and Jesse Helms.nIn the 18th century, when the debate between these two sidesnof the American political coin still sparkled, it was possible fornthe American people and their leaders to choose republicanismnand to institutionalize its ideals. Perhaps it was possible tondo so as late as the early 20th century, before the managerialnstate began to crystallize. Today it is no longer possible. The nationalnstate has long since triumphed, and with it, wedded tonit like Siamese siblings, multinational corporations, giant labornunions, universities and foundations, and all the titanic labyrinthnof modern bureaucratic organizations in both the “public” andnthe increasingly illusory “private” sectors have won as well. Tonestablish republicanism in anything like its classical form wouldninvolve a massive rejection and dismantlement of the main featuresnof the 20th century—the physical and social technologiesnby which modern, centralized, bureaucratically managed massnorganizations operate—and while the continued existence andndominance of such features are not inevitable in any Hegeliannsense, no one save a few romantic reactionaries seriously contemplatesndoing away with them. Not only do technologynand its organizational applications entice us with “luxury”—nwhat we today complacently call a “high standard of living”—nbut also they offer to those who understand how to manipulatenthem a degree of power unknown to the most imperiousndespots of the past. The elites that manage modern massnorganizations and master the technical skills that allow thesenorganizations to function cannot permit the decentralizationnand autonomy that characterize republican civic culture simplynbecause their own power would vanish, and these elites arenlodged not only in the.state but also in the dominant organizationsnof the economy and culture so that our incomes and ournvery thoughts, values, tastes, and emotions are conditioned andnmanipulated by them and their apologists. Short of a new DarknAge (or perhaps it would be a Golden Age), in which knowledgenof scientific and organizational technology is lost, therenis no prospect of reversing the trend toward mass organizationnand its absorption of local and decentralized institutions.nMoreover, as most students of classical republicanism understand,nthe distinctive principle of its theory is its concept ofn”virtue,” a quality that consists less in moralistic purity than innpersonal and social independence. Owning and operating hisnown farm or shop, usually producing his own food and clothing,ngoverning his own family and his own community, and defendingnhimself with his own arms in company with his ownnrelatives and neighbors, the citizen of the classical republic neithernneeded nor wanted a leviathan state to fight wars acrossnthe globe in behalf of democracy nor to pretend to protect himnand his home. Nor did he need or want a job in someone else’sncompany, or a pension plan or health benefits or paid vacationsnor five-hour workdays. He did not want to shop in vast shoppingnmalls where nothing is worth buying and nothing boughtnwill last the year. It did not occur to him to enroll himself or hisnchildren in therapy courses or in sensitivity and human-relationsnclinics in order to find out how to get along with his neighbors,nand he sought no edification or instruction from the mass medianto entertain him continuously or indoctrinate him with thencurrent cliches and slogans of public discussion or trick him intonbuying even more junk for which he had no use and no desire,nif the citizen succumbed to such temptations, then he hadnbecome dependent on someone or something other than himselfnand his extensions in family and community. Men who becomendependent on others cannot govern themselves, and ifnthey cannot govern themselves, they cannot keep a republic.nToday, virtually everyone in the United States is habituatednto a style of living that is wrapped up in dependency on massnorganizations of one kind or another—supermarkets, hospitals,ninsurance companies, the bureaucratized police, localngovernment, the mass media, the factories and office buildingsnwhere we work, the apartment complexes and suburbanncommunities where we live, and the massive, remote, andnmysterious national state that supervises almost every detail ofnour lives. Most Americans cannot even imagine life withoutnsuch dependencies and would not want to live without themnif they could imagine it. The classical republicans were right.nHaving become dependent on others for our livelihoods, ournprotection, our entertainment, and even our thoughts andntastes, we are corrupted. We neither want a republic nor couldnwe keep it if we had one. We do not deserve to have one, andnlike the barbarians conquered and. enslaved by the Greeksnand Romans, we are suited only for servitude.nClassical republicanism, then, is defunct as a serious politicalnalternative to the present regime, but this does not meannthat Americans should either embrace the old, Hamiltonian nationalismnor merely squat passively in their kennels waiting fornthe next whistle from their masters. Even though virtually nonone today subscribes or adheres to the classical republican idealnof virtue and independence, even though most Americansnare too “corrupt” (in republican terms) to support a republic,nthere remain a large number of Americans, perhaps a majority,nwhose material interests and most deeply held cultural codesnare endangered by the national (and increasingly supranational)nmanagerial regime. These “Middle Americans,” largelynwhite and middle class, derive their income from their dependencenon the mass structures of the managerial economy,nand, because many of them have long since lost their habits ofnself-reliance, they also are dependent on the services of the governmentn(at least indirectly) and the dominant culture. Yet despitentheir dependency, the regime does little for them and muchnto them. They find that their jobs are insecure, their savingsnstripped of value, their neighborhoods and schools and homesnunsafe, their elected leaders indifferent and often crooked, theirnmoral beliefs and religious professions and social codes undernperpetual attack even from their own government, their childrenntaught to despise what they believe, their very identity andnheritage as a people threatened, and their future—political, economic,ncultural, racial, national, and personal—uncertain.nThey find that no matter which party or candidate they support,nno matter what the candidates and parties promise, nothingnsubstantially changes, except for the worse. Although they •ndo the labor that sustains the managerial system, pay the taxesnthat support it, fight the wars its leaders devise, raise the familiesnand try to pass on the beliefs and habits that enable thenregime and the country to exist and survive, what they receivenfrom the regime is never commensurate with what they give it.nThey are the Americans sneered at as the “Bubba vote,”nmocked as Archie Bunkers, and denounced as the racists, sexists,nanti-Semites, xenophobes, homophobes, and hate criminalsnwho haunt the dark corners of the land, the “Dark Side”nof. America, even as their own energy, sacrifice, and commitmentnmake possible the regime and the elite that despisennn)UNE 1992/19n