the structures and functions of thenmegastate, and in this respect it wouldnnot be attractive to most paleoconservativesnor paleolibertarians. MiddlenAmericans would insist on a state thatnprotected their material security —nthrough such “middle-class welfare”nprograms as health insurance, unemploymentnbenefits, pensions, and labornregulations, as well as economic policiesnintended to secure their jobs,nfarms, and businesses.nYet, at the same time, a MiddlenAmerican agenda would involve a fairlynradical dismantlement and restructuringnof the megastate. As it is presentlynconstituted, the megastate existsnfor the purpose of social manipulation.nIts elite, trained in the techniques ofnsocial engineering and social therapy,ngains power and budgetary resourcesnby inventing social “problems” andn”crises” and then designing and applyingn”solutions” for them. Obviously,nevery “solution” creates yet anothern”problem,” so the mission of the bureaucraticnelite (and its cousins in universitiesnand think-tanks) is never complete.nThe solutions are characteristicallynegalitarian and redistributivenand assist the elite in delegitimizing,nreconstructing, and otherwise manipulatingntraditional Middle American institutionsnand beliefs.nMoreover, most of the “problems”nthe elite invents are located within ornabout the underclass — racism, poverty,ncrime, cities, AIDS, drugs, illiteracy,nillegitimacy and family breakdown,ninfant mortality, the lack of underclassnpolitical representation, etc., etc.—sonthat a vast amount of money, energy,nand attention is devoted to thenunderclass, not to Middle Americans,nwho nevertheless are expected to paynfor the underclass as well as for the elitenand the programs that support it. Thenmegastate, then, in its current form, isnan apparatus that largely serves theninterests of the elite and its underclassnally, at the expense, material and cultural,nof the middle class.nA serious Middle American politicalnconsciousness would therefore rejectnand seek to excise the problem-solutionnratchet that is the motor of thenpresent regime as well as other functionsnintended to manipulate andndeconstruct traditional institutions.nThus, the preoccupation of the incumbentnelite with racism, sexism, “civilnrights,” social “pathologies” that arenlittle more than normative MiddlenAmerican institutions and beliefs, andnthe whole apparatus in state and culturenby which white male “hegemony”nis challenged and undermined wouldnhave to go. This would involve morenthan simply formulating new policiesnand punching a few buttons on thenmegastate’s control panel. It wouldninvolve ripping the entrails out of thenelite itself by eliminating much of thenbureaucracy and its agencies and decouplingnthe elite of the megastatenfrom its Siamese twins in the culturalnorgans. Abolishing tax-exemptions,nsubsidies, and federal contracts for thenuniversities and foundations where manipulativensocial policy is born wouldnbe a practical way to begin.nIt is the radicalism of such a MiddlenAmerican consciousness that definitivelynseparates it from both New Deal-nGreat Society liberalism and from then”Big Government conservatism” andnneoconservatism that flourish today.nThe real goal of the liberal megastatenwas not to secure the well-being ofnMiddle America but to level and destroynits distinctive cultural identity bynidentifying it as the “social environment”nthat bred pathologies and dysfunctions.nThe real goal of “Big Governmentnconservatives” and neoconservativesnhas never been to dismantlenthe structures of the megastate andnredesign its functions, but simply toncapture them and make them worknmore efficiently, with “efihciency” implicitlyndefined as the more practicalnrealization of their liberal goals. “BignGovernment conservatives” do nothingnto challenge the orientation of thenmegastate toward the interests of thenelite and its tame underclass, and theirnwhole agenda seems to be centered onnlocking that orientation into place.nMiddle Americans have long piggybackednon mainstream conservatism,nbut they have done so only by obscuringn(or failing to understand completely)nthe differences that distinguish theirninterests and aspirations from the increasinglynrootless and fruitiess fixationsnof the conventional right. Withnthe collapse of the right and the obsolescencen(not to say the fraudulence) ofnits republican ideology. Middle Americansnhave an opportunity — and, indeed,nface the necessity — of articulatingna consciousness that morennnaccurately reflects their material interestsnand their cultural identity.nFor those who still adhere to classicalnrepublicanism, the emergence of anMiddle American radicalism would nondoubt be distasteful, but their own longnlack of success in reviving their politicalnideals ought perhaps to induce a certainnhumility among them, as well as anwillingness to postpone displays of ideologicalnpassion in order to consummatenlater an eventual and more enduringnfulfillment. If the classicalnrepublican ideal is ever to rise from itsnashes, it can do so only among thosenwho retain even now the vestigial moralnand social discipline that rendersnrepublican government possible. Thenonly remaining locus of such republicanndiscipline in the United States atnthe end of the 20th century is thenMiddle American stratum that is now anhammer without a head. If it cannconstruct its own head, it may be ablento forge a new civil order from which anrepublican phoenix can someday benreborn. <§>nISnTHE ROCKFORD INSTITUTEnIN YOUR WILL?nPerhaps a better question is:nDo you have a current will?nIf not, the laws of your particularnstate will determine what is to bendone with your estate upon yourndeath. What’s more, federal estatentaxes, unless there is proper planning,ncan claim up to 55% ofnyour property. If you would likento discuss elements of your estatenplanning, please write or call:nMICHAEL WARDERnLEGACY PROGRAMnTHE ROCKFORD INSTITUTEn934 N. MAIN STREETnROCKFORD, IL 61103n(815) 964-5811nSEPTEMBER 1991/13n