Professor Warren, however, definednMARs in terms of a common attitudenthey shared. “MARs are a distinctngroup,” he wrote, “partly because ofntheir view of government as favoringnboth the rich and the poor simultaneously.n. . . MARs are distinct in thendepth of their feeling that the middlenclass has been seriously neglected. Ifnthere is one single summation of thenMARs perspective, it is reflected in anstatement which was read to respondents:nThe rich give in to the demandsnof the poor, and the middle incomenpeople have to pay the bill.”nThe white voters who elected Mr.nDuke to the state legislature last yearnfrom District 81 are virtual MARsnarchetypes. According to a survey conductednfor the New Orleans TimesnPicayune after the election.nDuke’s constituents live in anmicrocosm of white, suburbannAmerica. District.8Lis.ncharacterized by middlenincomes, fear of crime and andistaste for taxes. Moreover, thenvoters . . . express a smolderingn[there’s that word again] sensenthat, at worst, governmentnconfiscates the work of its bestncitizens and lavishes it, to nonapparent effect, on people whonare ungrateful or openly hostile.nAffirmative-action programs,nminority set-asides, racial quotasnand other efforts on behalf ofnblacks have tilted the systemnagainst them, the voters said.nWhen it comes to job andneducational opportunities, theynfeel whites increasingly arenending up on the short end ofnthe stick.nIn Duke, voters said theynsaw an opportunity to fightnback.nVoters won’t get that opportunitynfrom Mr. Bush, however, nor from DannQuayle, Jack Kemp, Newt Gingrich,nand the other luminaries of the Republicannfirmament, nor even from theirnideological mentors who shine undernthe labels of “neoconservatism,” “bigngovernment conservatism,” “culturalnconservatism,” and, most recently, “thenNew Paradigm.” Last summer the HeritagenFoundation published a report onnthe Kennedy-Hawkins Civil Rights Billnof 1990, and while Heritage properlyn12/CHRONICLESnopposed the bill and affirmative action,nit pronounced what is nothing less thannan abandonment of traditional conservativenprinciple regarding civil rightsnlegislation.nThe “conservative view of progress”non civil rights. Heritage informed us,ndemands that “government must prosecutencases of discrimination against individualsnto the full extent of the law.nTitle VII of the 1964 Civil RightsnAct . . . should be strengthened to includenremedy of damages against thosenwho willfully discriminate. Building onnthis enforcement strategy, the conservativencivil rights strategy would call fornaggressive court and legislative action tonchallenge modern-day Jim Crow lawsnthat stifle minority business development.”nExamples of such latter-dayn”Jim Crow laws” include “the 1931nDavis-Bacon Act, which freezes outnminority firms from government constructionncontracts, and onerous licensingnlaws for professions ranging fromncosmetology to child care.”nYet these laws, as the Heritage papernacknowledges, are “seemingly neutralnin their impact on the races,” and,nunlike Jim Crow laws, which explicitlyndiscriminated on the basis of race,nmerely have the effect of placing blackownednfirms under disadvantages.nThere are good reasons to repeal Davis-nBacon and many occupational licensingnlaws, but to do so because they have theneffect—rather than the intent—of racialndiscrimination is to embrace conventionalnliberal ideas that legitimizenaffirmative action and special privilegesnfor members of certain races overnothers. Through exactly the same logic,nuniversities require lower SAT scores fornblack applicants than for whites becausenholding all applicants to the same standards,nwhile “seemingly neutral,”nwould in effect exclude many blacksnfrom admission. Thus the new “conservativencivil rights strategy” winds up innthe same place conventional leftismnstarted out.nNor does Heritage explain why endingnand punishing “racial discrimination”nshould be legitimate goals andnactivities of the federal government atnall, or why the state should undertakenspecial efforts to ensure “business development”—nor home-owning, or an endnto poverty, or psychic contentment —nfor any particular group. Whatever thenflaws of Jim Crow codes before thennnI960’s, federal involvement in chasingnracial discrimination through the CivilnRights Act resulted in a massive expansionnof centralized power on behalf ofnthe therapeutic management of social,npolitical, economic, and cultural relationshipsnthat no real conservative canncountenance.nHeritage is not alone in demandingnfurther acceleration of the civil rightsnrevolution through the use of federalnpower. Last winter, conservatives gatherednsecretly in New York to discussnwhat they were going to do with theirnlittle empires in the coming decade. Forn”cultural conservative” Paul Weyrich,nthe agenda seems to be focused mainlynon helping the black underclass. Anneight-page memorandum circulated bynMr. Weyrich at the meeting centerednalmost entirely on measures designed tonhelp minorities in inner cities whilenlargely ignoring traditional white middle-classnconservative constituenciesnthat continue to face social, economic,nand cultural demolition.nYet it is precisely such constituenciesnthat supported conservative activism —nindeed, made it possible through theirndonations — and voted the current cropnof Republican politicos into office.nThey did so because the propagandanand rhetoric these activists and politiciansnuttered made them believe thatnthe continuing assault on their beliefs,nlifestyles, institutions, and aspirationsnwould be resisted. But except for campaignnapplesauce about Willie Horton,nthe Pledge of Allegiance, the Americannflag, capital punishment, and religion,ntoday’s “conservatives” have no seriousnintention whatsoever of doing so.nThere is a good deal of talk thesendays about the “conservative crackup,”nand much of it is justified. Butnwhat has cracked up is not the popularnradicalism of the right but rather thenphony “populism” of the conservativenestablishment, which has signed upnwith the other establishments that runnthe country. Even from their watchtowersnon the Washington Beltway, thenbarons of this establishment can smellnthe smoke of rebellion drifting in fromnthe prairie, and they know they didn’tn• start the fire, can’t control it, and can’tnput it out. It won’t take any more secretnmeetings in New York to learn thatnwhoever does control that fire willndetermine the real political agenda fornthe next decade. n