formers of trying to replace the informalnauthority of social and family institutionsnwith the formal power of anneducational and social-therapeutic bureaucracy.nHistorian ChristophernLasch, who for some years has beennemerging from the leftist cocoon of hisnyouth into the authentic conservatismnof his maturity, notes the process in hisn1979 classic, The Culture of Narcissism.n”The factory system establishednin the 19th century,” he wrote, “socializednproduction, but left other functionsnof the family intact. The socializationnof production, however, provednto be the prelude to the socialization ofnreproduction itself—the assumptionnof childrearing functions by surrogatenparents responsible not to the familynbut to the state, to private industry, ornto their own codes of professional ethics.”nThe idea of surrogate parents in thenform of non-family institutions wasnpopularized by Progressivist reformersnin the late 19th and early 20th centuries,nbut it had the full support of thosenin business and government who wantednand needed a docile and welltrainednmass labor force, electorate,nand consumer market.nMr. Lasch quotes two leading educationalnreformers of the era, AbrahamnFlexner and Frank P. Bachmarr, asnannouncing in 1918 that “Social, political,nand industrial changes havenforced upon the school responsibilitiesnformedy laid upon the home. Oncenthe school had mainly to teach thenelements of knowledge, now it isncharged with the physical, mental, andnsocial training of the child as well.”nProgressives deplored the wreckagenthat the “dysfunctional” homes of thenday wreaked upon their children, butnthey also wept over what any home did.n”In the social republic,” chirped thenfounder of social work, Ellen Richards,n”the child as a future citizen is an assetnof the state, not the property of itsn12/CHRONICLESnparents. Hence, its welfare is a directnconcern of the state.” Opponents ofnchild labor, pioneers of child psychology,nand most of all, the movement toncreate special courts and codes of lawnfor dealing with juvenile oflFenders,nwrites Mr. Lasch, show “the connectionsnbetween organized altruism, thennew therapeutic conception of thenstate, and the appropriation of familialnfunctions by outside agencies.”nWhat “some neoconservatives” arennow prescribing for education reform,ntherefore, is not so neo after all. Advocacynof the replacement or control ofnthe home and family by external andnformal organizations is common to thenProgressivists as well as to Mr. Finn’snconception of what schools should do,nand both are in close alliance withncorporate and managerial elites whonstand to gain from the bureaucraticnmanagement of the processes of socialization.nBut Mr. Finn is not the only neoconservativento warble over the displacementnof the family and its socialnfunctions by bureaucratic disciplines.nIn the Summer 1989 issue of thenHeritage Foundation’s Policy Review,nBen Wildavsky, son of neoconservativenpolitical scientist Aaron Wildavsky,nthrills to the virtues of McDonald’s as ansurrogate parent, a conscriptor ofnyouth for “upward mobility,” and anmanager of the assimilation of autonomousnparts of the American heartlandninto the managerial corporate-culturalnsystem.nReviewing the life history of a Mc­nDonald’s employee, Marion Forannfrom Helena, Montana, young Mr.nWildavsky bubbles with glee at thenwoman’s metamorphosis from an aspiringncollege student paying her ownntuition to a “professor of hamburgers”nat McDonald’s “Hamburger University.”nThe transformation wasn’t easy.nAfter learning how to make milknshakes for a year or so, she decided shenwanted to be a manager, “so shenmoved to Las Vegas and started worknas a manager trainee at a McDonald’snin a poor section of town, a far cry fromnsmall-town Montana.” Now, havingnbeen exposed to the pleasures andnrewards of hamburgerological cosmopolitanism,nMiss Foran teaches class innemployee retention and “also instructsnmanagers … in how to tame her oldnnemesis, the Taylor milk shake ma­nnnchine.”nIf the epic of Miss Foran’s ascentnfrom what young Mr. Wildavsky considersnMontana’s cow-paddy culture tonfollowing the star of her destiny innmastering the mysteries of milk shakesnin Las Vegas were all that McDonald’sndid for (or to) its employees, the socialnconsequences might be minor. Butnyoung Mr. Wildavsky has seen thenfuture, and it has milk shakes for everybody.nHe swoons over what he was toldnby Yvonne Willis, a manager at Washingtonn(D.C.) Gas. “Willis believesnworking at McDonald’s can help peoplenlearn ‘those skills we take for granted.nYou learn what it means to work, tonget up in the morning, to be on time,nto plan your day and plan your activities.'”nAnother manager, Kim Whittington,ntold him she looks kindly onnapplicants with “fast-food experience.”n”They learn people skills, cash handling,ngetting people in and out quickly;nthey could even learn some managementnskills if they’re training othernpeople.” In other words, McDonald’sn— and by extension, other bureaucracies—ncan do what families have failednto do or can’t do, and the gratitude andnloyalty inspired by bureaucratic disciplinesnand organizations displace whatnworkers once felt for their families,ntheir homes, and their communities,neven in such wildernesses as “smalltownnMontana.” Survivalists and thenPosse Comitatus can stash away all thenAK-47’s they want to, but they don’tnhave a chance against the Taylor milknshake machine.nRepublics, such as the one Americansnused to inhabit, don’t work whennteachers administer therapy for homesnand multinational corporations replacenfamilies and communities. Republicsnwork only when independent, selfsupportingncitizens know how to governnthemselves, both personally andnpolitically. If they don’t know how tonrule themselves morally through autonomousnsocial institutions, theynwon’t know how to rule themselvesnpolitically as.free men, and the morenthey neglect the discipline that selfgovernmentnteaches, the more slavishnthey will be to the kinds of bureaucraticnempires over which Lamar Alexander,nRonald McDonald, and their praisesingersnpreside.nn