14/CHRONICLESndestructive regimes in history, from Mussolini to Mao,nfrom the Japanese warlords to communist cadres.nIn any primitive tribe, rule by male fighters is the mostnnatural form of government. Not only do they commandnforce, but they also exert a moral appeal. The idea that mennwho risk their lives to preserve and protect the state earn thenright to rule offers a seductive alternative to the sovereigntynof passing majorihes of voters. When this idea prevailsnamong large numbers of young men, democratic constraintsnare helpless against it.nThe history of the 20th century confirms the continuingnpotency of the warrior dream against all the codes andnsanctions of democracy. Dictators and demagogues, juntasnand caudillos, tyrants and revolutionaries, all supported bynyoung men in military or paramilitary groups, always posenthe greatest threat to civilization and peace.nMilitary despotism is the political counterpart of thensocial breakdown of monogamy into the disorders of polygyny,nhomosexuality, and female-headed families. The releasenof large numbers of young men from the bonds andndisciplines of marriage and family always leads to socialndisruptions. The punk rockers and soccer rioters of mid-80’snBritain reflect the loss of male roles through high tax ratesnand resulting levels of joblessness. The breakdown of lawnand order and the demoralization of the courts and policenin U.S. cities suggests the utter impotence of the superstructuresnof government when the infrastructures of sexualndiscipline collapses.nWithout a stable family order, in which adult menncivilize the young men, terror rules. No array of day-carencenters, police powers, social welfare agencies, psychiatricnor drug clinics, special schools, and prisons can have anynsignificant effect. William Tucker’s recent book. Vigilante,nvividly shows the imbecile bathos into which our legalnsystem has already fallen as a result of the decline of thenstark mandate of justice into the weasels and waffles ofnsocial liberalism.nAt a time when millions of young men are slippingnbeyond the reach of democratic institutions—indeed, outsidenthe social order itself—the drive to emasculate ournpolitics threatens the foundations of democracy itselfnDemocracy is not so secure a system that in a serious crisis itncan easily survive the loss of the instinctual appeal of malenleadership. A state in which the police and other governmentalnauthorities are heavily in female hands would notnlast a week. The very emergence of such a state would itselfnsignify either the massive estrangement of men from politicsnor the degeneration of democracy into some court-rulednsystem of quotas.nIt is part of Phyllis Schlafly’s genius to have persistentlynlinked the concerns of family with the reform of education,nthe conservative revival of our politics, and the rehabilitationnof our military. From her concern with the nationalndefense to her defense of the nation’s families, she espousesna fully coherent vision of the American predicament. Ansociety of families both constrains male aggressions andnchannels them toward the protection and support of familynand society.nSexual liberation chiefly liberates powerful men to leaventheir aging wives and marry young women. With manynmen taking the fertile years of more than one woman, largennnnumbers of single men are deprived of the possibility ofnfamily life, and large numbers of divorced women grow oldnalone. Released from the consolations and constraints ofnfamily, single men tend to afflict and demoralize thensociety.nEvery society is continually invaded by barbarians: thennew generations of young males. Unless they are tamed bynwomen and families and disciplined by adult male leaders,nthe barbarians will dominate the society. As in the ghetto,nthe defection of the men from family responsibilities leavesnthe women helpless to handle their teenage boys and thenpolice impotent to control them. The youth then bully andnterrorize the women and the weak.nThe economy also declines as the long-term efforts ofnmale providers give way to short-term and predatory economicnbehavior. An emasculated politics cannot defendnitself against male outiaws and exploiters, muggers andnterrorists, hijackers and assassins, nor can it provide for theneconomic growth to finance itself and the growing needs ofna welfare state in a time of chaos.nSimilarly in the international arena, an emasculatednpolitics is incapable of sustaining an effective nationalndefense. Rather than defend society, the young men attacknit and exalt macho foreign potentates and desperadoes.nAgain the captivation of ghetto and other youth by ThirdnWorld thugs and enemies of America illustrates the contemptnthat an emasculated politics and economics earnsnfrom its young men—and young women as well.nWith West Point and Annapolis forgoing the appeal andnpower of the masculine principle, the military ideal isndissolving into unisex mush. The Pentagon has swollen intona gigantic bureaucracy—honeycombed with equal opportunityngoo, sensitivity pap, and consciousness uplift prattien—that summons a martial spirit hardly more lively than thenDepartment of Health and Human Services.nBy joining the two issues of national defense and familyndefense, Phyllis Schlafly has tapped the energies that springnfrom the eloquent assertion of any long suppressed, evaded,nand fragmented set of primal truths. All politics is, on onenlevel, sexual politics. Defending the sexual constitution,nSchlafly is clearly America’s leading exponent and protectornof democracy and capitalism.nThe best sign of the continuing health of Americannsociety is the regular emergence of political leaders innunexpected places who are willing to commit themselves tona new defense of the values of civilization. Under perpetualnassault from the forces of decadence and decline, protectionismnand sloth, the American system still summonsnvibrant new tides of resistance and revitalization.nOur businesses and technologies are renewed by immigrantsnfrom around the world and by American entrepreneursnfrom rural and religious backgrounds. Our familiesnare restored by forces of regeneration from both fundamentalistnProtestant and traditionalist Catholic churches. Ournpolitics find new resources of American redemption in thenrise of moral majorities, immigrant patriots, tax rebels,nconservative educational entrepreneurs, and pro-familyncampaigners.nEven to conservative intellectuals, some of these forcesnseem crude: too passionate, too fundamental, too foreign,ntoo cultic, too populist, too unsophisticated, too lower-n