Principalities & Powersrnby Samuel FrancisrnGleichschaltungrnWhen a new religion displaces an oldrnone, the gods of the old faith become therndemons of the new. So it is with therndemigods and heroes as well, and as newrncultures, races, and nations begin to blossomrnwhere once the fruits of Europeanrnand American civilization flourished, itrnis not surprising to see the myths of thernold civilization fade and those of the newrntake their place. As in all revolutionaryrntransformations, this one is not led by thernmass population of the new civilizationrn(if that is quite the right word for what isrnemerging) but by a vanguard drawn fromrnthe wreckage of the old civilization thatrnis being subverted and destroyed—or, asrnwe now primly put it, “deconstructed.”rnThe transformation is clear enough inrnreligion itself, with the conversion of thernmainstream churches and their clergyrninto active partisans of the enemies ofrntheir nation, people, and civilization, butrnit is increasingly obvious also in the redefinitionrnof the secidar heroes and iconsrnof the civilization. Thus, influential writersrnlike Conor Cruise O’Brien can nowrnattack Thomas Jefferson for his “racism”rnand his commitment to small government,rnlocalism, and states’ rights, and thernsubtext of last year’s reportage of geneticrntesting that supposedly “proved” (it didrnnothing of the kind) Jefferson’s paternityrnof a child by his slave Sally Hernings wasrnthe discrediting of Jefferson as an exploitativernhypocrite as much as it was thernlegitimization of President Clinton’srngoatishness.rnBut Jefferson is not the only hero ofrnthe old civilization to be demonized. Inrn1997, a public school in New Orleans removedrnthe name of George Washingtonrnbecause Washington was a “slaveowner.”rnThis immediately spawned a smallrncrop of columns by various neoconservativesrnwho whined that, yes, he was, butrnhe was a kind slaveowner, thereby missingrnthe whole point: Washington (andrnJefferson, too) violated the central doctrinernof the New Order, to which bothrnthe left and most of the right now adherern—the equality of human beings.rnThis was precisely the argument advancedrnby Columbia Universit)’ law professorrnGeorge P. Fletcher in an article inrnthe New Republic in 1997. Mr. Fletcherrnmaintained that the old Constitution,rnwhich such demons as Thomas Jeffersonrnand Timothy McVeigh supported, wasrnabolished by the Civil War and that Lincoln’srnGettysburg Address “signals thernbeginning of a new Constitution” inrnwhich “equalit}’, absent from the originalrndocument, comes front and center . . .rnthe United States evolves from an elitistrnrepublic into a democracy ‘of the people,rnby the people, for the people.'” Mr.rnFletcher’s argument is almost exactly thernsame as that of his “conservative” counterpart,rnHarr)- Jaffa, who has been spoutingrnthe same view for decades and whosernflawed interpretation now seems to berntriumphant on the mainstream Americanrnright, despite its refutation and rejectionrnby M.E. Bradford, WillmoorernKendall, Russell Kirk, and Robert Bork,rnto cite only the more eminent of Mr. Jaffa’srncritics. The main difference betweenrnFletcher and Jaffa seems to be thatrnthe former argues that egalitarianism wasrnthe product of war and revolutionary impositionrnfrom above, while Jaffa claims itrnwas present in the old Constitution fromrnthe beginning. Of the two, Mr. Fletcherrnis closer to the truth.rnWliat Mr. Fletcher calls the “reconstitutingrnof ‘We the People'” necessitatesrnan extended program of what the Germansrn(at least those who flourished inrnthe 1930’s) like to call Gleichschaltungrn—the disciplining of the opposition,rnh: Germany, Gleichschaltung meantrnyou got packed off to a concentrationrncamp (if you were lucky), and it may, inrntime, come to nrean that here as well.rnBut for now it means that serious dissentrnfrom—or political-ideological challengernto —the New Order is simply demonized,rnand the most effective means ofrndemonizing the opposition is to accusernits opponents of deviating from the egalitarianrnorthodoxy of the regime —in short,rnto denounce it as “racist,” “white supremacist,”rnor even “neo-Nazi.”rnThese terms, of course, were unknownrnto the English language beforernthe early 20th centur)’, and most them,rninsofar as they signify anything at all,rnmerely mean whatever those who lobrnthem want them to mean. Thev arernequivalent in every respect to what thernJacobins meant by “aristocrats” in thernReign of Terror (most of whose victimsrnwere drawn from the non-aristocraticrnThird Estate) and what the Bolsheviksrnmeant by “counter-revolutionaries” —rni.e., merely devil terms by which those tornwhom they are pinned are delegitimizedrnand branded for liquidation.rnThe ideological goon squads of thernNew Order have had themselves somernfine sport over the last year, pinning theirrnlabels anywhere they could stick them.rnThe labels came in useful for the Democratsrnduring the 1998 elections, whenrnthey tried to paste them on Republicanrnopponents. In Missouri, one DemocraticrnTV ad solemnly warned that votingrnRepublican would result in more burningsrnof black churches, while Republicanrncandidates in various districts werernaccused by their Democratic opponentsrnof being “white supremacists.” SenatorrnCarol Moseley-Braun (D-IL), desperaternto snatch victor)’ from her failing bid forrnre-election, even claimed that her opponentrnhobnobbed with “white supremacists”rnbecause he had (allegedly) once attendedrna function sponsored by ThernRockford Institute.rnThe name-calling was so irnich funrnthat the goon squads decided to keep therngame going. As Bill Clinton’s impeachmentrnloomed, the Washington Post ranrnan article claiming that RepresentativernBob Barr (R-GA), who had almost singlehandedlyrnpioneered the impeachment arnyear or so before, had spoken to a “WliiternSupremacy Group” called the Councilrnof Conservative Citizens (CCC). It alsornreported that Senate Majority LeaderrnTrent Lott, who was expected to play arnmajor role in the forthcoming trial of thernpresident, was an actual member of thernCCC, had spoken to it, and had endorsedrnits views. Both Mr. Barr and Mr.rnLott qinckly started to put some distancernbetween themselves and the Councilrn(on whose national board of directors Irnserve and whose meetings I regularly attend,rnincluding the one at which Mr.rnBarr spoke), and it soon turned out thatrnneither politician had the faintest idea ofrnwhat they had done, what they had said,rnor what the Council stood for. Mr. Lott,rnwhose spokesmen at first declared thatrn32/CHRONICLESrnrnrn