the light of the blanket assertion, repeatedlyrndisseminated by the leaders of thernCofCC, that they were responsible forrnthe victory in South Carolina. It is truernthe CofCC mounted a petition campaignrnwhich was useful and held ralliesrnwhich, as I observed them, were as I describedrnthem. This very conveniendy allowedrnthe media to play the question asrnone of civil rights versus bigotry, whenrnthe actual contest is between Big Businessrnand the people. The South Carolinarnlegislature has the power in this case,rnand it is too much to claim that the legislaturernhas acted at the bidding of thernCofCC. Rather, our flag is still flying becausernof the strength of tradition andrncharacter that still characterizes our people,rnas I pointed out in my article.rnI plead guilty, to my shame, to beingrnan academic. I am too old to changernnow. I have never claimed aristocracy. Irnagree that the academics and aristocratsrnof the South have largely abandoned usrnplain folk, though I see some signs thatrnthis may be changing. But even if we hadrnhad our academics and aristocrats with usrnduring the period of history to which Mr.rnSchmidt refers, it would have countedrnnothing against the frenzy of arousedrnYankee self-righteousness and absenteernmoralism backed by federal bayonets thatrnmarked those times.rnI used to know some Schmidts when Irnwas younger. They lived on Deep Creekrnjust this side of Browns Summit. Therernwere some pretty girls in the family.rnThey were some kind of Baptists, but thernchildren all married Presbyterians. I neverrnheard of any moving to New Jersey.rnBut I appreciate Mr. Schmidt standingrnup for us Southern plain folk. He mightrnbe more useful, however, if he resignedrnfrom the CofCC and joined a group thatrnis really concerned with preserving thernSouth — an organization that is concernedrnwith the real and living Dixieland,rnnot, like the CofCC, with somern”conservative white American majority”rnthat exists only in the imagination of itsrnleaders.rnOn Pat BuchananrnScott P. Richert’s endorsement of PatrnBuchanan’s candidacy (Cultural Revolutions,rnJanuary) is misplaced. At one time,rnBuchanan was a figure who could, thankfully,rnseparate the “Old Right” from thern”neoconservatives.” Now, Buchanan isrnthe candidate who will further divide thern”Old Right” into two camps, “paleoconservative”rnand “paleolibertarian.” If yournthink that this has already happened,rnthink again. While both camps clearlyrndiffer on trade and economic issues, theyrnagree that the real enemy is the Jacobinrncentral state. Not Pat, who has downplayedrnany discussion of seriously curbingrnLeviathan. How can he discuss thisrnissue, with his call for tariffs, his attacksrnon Corporate America, and his carryingrnof the “union card”? Wliile corporationsrnshould be roundly criticized for manyrnpolicies, none has carried out a crimernhke Waco and then put the victims on trial.rnPat is a man of passion and commitment,rnbut he wears the blinders of a manrnwho lived his entire life within the Beltwayrnand has only a comic book view ofrnindustry and how a business operates.rn— FredBimbaumrnCharlotte, NCrnMr. Richert Replies:rnIn my piece, I argued that a vigorous andrnviable Buchanan campaign could refocusrnpublic debate on the “questions thatrnmust be addressed if our nation is to survive:rnpreserving national sovereignty, renouncingrnour foreign adventurism, limitingrnimmigration, protecting what’s leftrnof our industrial base, returning powerrnto states and local communities, curtailingrnthe tyranny of the federal government,rnrestoring the Constitution of thernKramers.” That, it seems to me, is reasonrnenough to cheer Pat on. I would hopernthat most paleolibertarians would welcomerna frank debate on these issues andrnwould even agree with Pat’s position onrnall of them —with the exception, ofrncourse, of protecting our industrial base.rnSurely Mr. Birnbaum wouldn’t want tornforego a national discussion of these issuesrnjust to avoid the risk of further dividingrnpaleoconservatives and paleolibertarians.rnIt’s simply inaccurate to say that Patrnhas “downplayed any discussion of seriouslyrncurbing Leviathan.” (Compared tornwhom? George Bush? John McCain?rnAl Gore? Bill Bradley?) The centralrntheme of Pat’s latest book, A Republic,rnNot an Empire, is the dismantling ofrnwhat Murray Rothbard liked to call thern”welfare-warfare state.” The trouble,rnfrom Mr. Birnbaum’s vantage point, isrnthat Pat—like most paleoconservatives —rnbelieves that the “real enemy” is notrnsimply the “Jacobin central state,”rnbut Jacobin centralism in general. Pat’srn”attacks on Corporate America” are notrndirected at “Main Street” American companies,rnbut at highly centralized, globalist,rnmultinational corporations whichrntake advantage of American laws (passedrnby a Congress purchased with their lobbyingrndollars) to increase their profits atrnthe expense of American workers —andrneven, in some cases, of American nationalrnsecurity. The libertarian dream, inrnwhich the nation-state withers away andrnis replaced by Microsoft or Wal-Mart,rnstrikes me (and, I suspect, most paleoconservatives)rnas a nightmare.rnOn Hawaiian IndependencernGene Healy’s Cultural Revolutions onrnAmerican imperialism in Hawaii (Decemberrn1999), while doing full justice tornPresident Cleveland’s principled anti-imperialism,rnis not altogether fair to all thernAmerican sugar producers in Hawaii.rnThe smaller sugar producers, along withrnthe small businessmen of Honolulu, didrnindeed launch the 1893 rebellion againstrnthe queen, but the largest of the sugarrnproducers, the German immigrantrnSpreckels (the chief “robber baron” ofrnthe mainland sugar industr}’), remained arnfirm backer of the deposed monarchyrnand of Cleveland’s refusal to acceptrnHawaii as a colony.rnThis robber baron (whom I supposernwe would now call a leader of the globalrncapitalist New World Order) had made arndeal with the monarchy that gave himrnclear title to the islands’ best sugar land,rnwhich he then proceeded to irrigate extensively,rnmuch to the consternation ofrnthe community of smaller American sugarrncane planters and their suppliers in thernlocal business community, who couldrnnot match Spreckels’ much lower costs.rnThe moral of the story? Apparentiy,rncommunitarian movements can sometimesrnbe imperialistic, and soullessrninternational capitalists can oppose imperialism.rnEven toadies of British imperialismrnin Europe like J.P. Morgan opposedrnempire in Asia based on theirrnwell-grounded judgment that Asian empiresrnwould be unprofitable.rn—Edward H. KaplanrnBellingham, WArnAPRIL 2000/5rnrnrn