Persecution.” Devine errs saying thatnLocke “supported both a state churchnand toleration” because he was a minimalistnin Christianity. Burke was nonminimalist, yet supported the Churchnof England, attacked the casuistry ofnpersecution, and was genuinely tolerant.nThe differences between Burkenand Locke on toleration are religiousnand philosophical, not historical.nDevine’s claim that Anglicans had tonpersecute Catholics because they werennot obliged to be martyrs for Rome isnwhat Acton calls “the principle ofnaggressive intolerance.” Ironically,n0 Burke, a Protestant, in his attacks onnthe penal laws against Catholics innIreland, rejected the Protestant theorynof persecution, whereas Devine, a contemporarynCatholic, accepts it.nOn ‘Rodney King’nClyde Wilson’s article (Cultural Revolutions,nJuly 1991) on the L.A. policenvideo was gratefully received. First, becausenit was the only one that didn’t dripnwith tears big as horse apples over thenpoor “victim,” and second, because mynyoungest son is a police officer (as wasnmy grandfather, for thirty years).nThe media is quick to publicizenbruises on burglars but has little to saynabout blood on cops. I guess it’s OK tonpummel the police. Sure looks like itnafter viewing TV news reports of policenattempts to control riots and protesters.nBut, regarding the L.A. incident, it’snthe parole board’s fault. If they hadn’tnbeen so quick to send that guy back onnthe street, he could have been safelynwatching TV in the prison lounge.n— George SavagenAledo, TXnOn the Tersian GulfnWar’nAs Theodore Pappas pointed out (CulturalnRevolutions, June 1991), DavidnBrinkley celebrated the Persian Gulfnwar by saying that “Worid War II is nonlonger America’s iast great war.'”nBrinkley thereby gave conservativesncause to wonder about those two wars,nthe idea being what makes a liberal gladnalways winds up making conservativesnsad.nThat is a 20th-century reality. Onnthe issue of war conservatives part companynwith liberals. Worid War II was thenliberals’ war. Although Hitler was thenenemy who galvanized the West, removingnhim was less than a victory.nSince when does a nation fight a warnlike Worid War II to learn that one of itsnallies was on a par with or worse thannthe enemy? The answer: since then”new worid order” has charmed woridnleaders out of their senses.nThe Persian Gulf War, a U.N. war,nwas a step toward Armageddon. It hasnleft that area in utter chaos and is anwarning to Moslems that they havenbeen singled out to receive the treatmentnthat shapes populations to fit then”new world order.” A just war is one annation fights in the name of self-defensenor in defense of the moral order.n— Frank BroussardnOpelousas, LAnOn the ‘ConservativenMovement’nAs is discussed in the May issue, manynof the people now called conservativesnhave never been conservatives. The leftnhas managed to label anyone who is notna radical as a conservative. The Republicannliberals like Bush have gone alongnwith it because of the new popularity ofnthe term, a result of the work of realnconservatives plus the failure of liberalnpolicies. The idea that the RepublicannParty has become an organ of conservatismnis due to that hypocrisy and wishfulnthinking on the part of some conservatives.nThe fact is that we do have a realnconservative movement with a fewnstrong leaders, but we are a long waynfrom taking over one of the majornparties. The majority of Republicans arenmiddle-of-the-roaders and liberals. MostnDemocrats are radicals (those in office),nbut there are a few real conservativesnstill in that fold, too. Check the votingnrecord of, for instance, Ralph Hall fromnSmith County, Texas.nI don’t believe that any real conservativesnhave been led off- the track bynGeorge Bush. Realistic politicians willnaccept the endorsement of the Presidentnwhen it is offered, but they will notnsell their souls for it. Those Washingtonnconservatives you speak of are pretend­ners and should not be mislabeled. Realnconservatives never had any confidencenin them to start with.n—Dan WaltersnFletcher, NOnSamuel Francis’s thought-provoking essayn”Beautiful Losers” (May 1991)ncalls for “a new, radical Middle AmericannRight,” but someone has alreadynbeaten him to it. It is . . . hold on tightnnow . . . David Duke! Even though Incannot support Duke because I don’tntrust him, his ideas and his words andngeneral behavior “under fire” from hisndetractors (who are legion) certainlynmeet the standards outlined by Mr.nFrancis. Duke is loathed by the liberals,nfeared by blacks, and has caused thenestablishment folk to outdo each othernin rushing to denounce him. His KKKnpast is always mentioned in the samenbreath with his name; if only Teddy ofnChappaquiddick were so treated.nYet Duke is not afraid to say somenthings that Middle American conservativesnknow “in their bones” are wrong:naffirmative action, the welfare state,nsensitivity, politically correct behavior,ngay rights, womens’ lib, abortion onndemand, homosexual clergy, taxes, etc.nIf you can find a candidate moren”acceptable,” David Duke has alreadyntested the water for him, so to speak,nand found that there is a rousing receptionnin Middle America for his message.n— J.D. CalhounnRuston, LAnM O V I N G ?nLET US KNOW BEFORE YOU GO!nTo assure uninterrupted delivery ofnChronicles, please notify us in advance.nSend change of address onnthis form with the mailing label fromnyour latest issue of Chronicles to:nSubscription Department, Chronicles,nP.O. Box 800, Mount Morris, Illinoisn61054:nNamenAddressnat)’ —nStatennn^ip_nSEPTEMBER 1991/7n