er lands how to behave. The 18th century saw in loyalty tonmonarch the essence of political virtue. Our Founding Fathersncame to think otherwise, but they did not proclaim the superioritynof our system to all others. It was better for us and thatnwas enough. It should be enough for us too. We should recognizende facto governments in all countries—Croatia, Haiti, Algeria,nChina, wherever. We do not know that military dictatorship isnworse for Haiti or Algeria than what democracy can offer them.nPresident Nixon tells us that “we cannot remain at peace in anworld at war.” We did so for a century, with occasional lapsesndue to clumsiness and inexperience. Nationalism has traditionallynneeded enemies to foster unity. A republic aims at attaining thensecurity of its citizens, and that effort takes all its energies. Givennour disastrous economic and educational situation, thenway of republican virtue is also the way of national prudence.nIf we devote ourselves to educating our citizenry, trading withneveryone not at war, and discouraging predatory trading withinnour boundaries—^and it is opposition to predatory trading thatnhas led some to call us “protectionists”—^we shall have done ournduty. We shall still need a standing army to defend our nationnin the dangerous period that is coming. Its commitment shouldnbe to defend the American Republic, however, not “democracy.”nEuropean nationalism developed out of the monarchiesnthat formed the nation-state. Citizenship was given to all bornnin the king’s domain, les regnicoles. Republics from Athensnon down have had another ideal. The citizen is chosen by thengroup. Parturition on alien soil after swimming the Big Rivernestablishes nothing. Even generations of habitation is not enoughnto validate the citizenship of a metic. Without this distinction,none implicit in ancient political thought and essential tonour national identity since Jefferson’s Notes on the State ofnVirginia, our nation cannot recover from the rinancial andncultural ravages of a dying national socialist regime foundednon and historically heir to an imperial ideal. Again, national pmdencenis linked to republican virtue. If the republican insightnneeds validation, let us hold a national plebiscite. We supportnstates’ or regional rights on many topics—abortion, education,npublic support for the arts—^but not on citizenship. There is nonarea where traditional republicanism has more to say to a newnAmerican regime.nSo we proclaim the restoration of the old Republic, knowingnthat we shall be founding a new state. Are we not Jesuiticalncasuists, perhaps even Straussians? Are we not hypocrites likenAugustus? Would it not be better to imitate Pericles, whonwas an honest man and a realist? Well, was he a realist? “Righteousnessnis an essential part of Realpolitik” the great Germannhistorian Hermann Strassburger tells us. Who molded a systemnthat brought prosperity and creativity to most of the known worldnfor centuries, and who led his country dancing the downwardnpath to defeat and ruin? Augustus forged a new system bynproclaiming its roots in and its loyalty to the old Republic.nPericles ruined his state by undermining its foundations inntraditional morality and religion. The new is bom out of the old.nNothing is born from a barren desert.nWe cannot expect the government that will emerge from thencollapse of the Roosevelt regime to resemble the ConstitutionnWashington helped create, never mind the loose confederationnthat won the tax revolt against the British Crown. As Augustusnsaw, the only basis for creating the new institutions we neednin the face of economic and moral bankmptcy is a commitmeritnto the ideals that served as the basis of national unity and personalncreativity in the past. The attainment of truth, freedom,nand creativity rests on belonging to a tradition that fosters thosenideals. Not all traditions do, but we have access to one that does.nI cannot predict what government will emerge from the confusionnof the near future. The American nation that we havento create may not even have the same boundaries as the UnitednStates of America. If we proclaim the ideals of classicalnrepublicanism and the public religion, ethics, and educationntypically associated with that tradition, our new governmentnwill win the hearts of the people and will serve as the basis ofnprosperity, creativity, and, yes, perhaps even of freedom. Wenmust not believe that a healthy society, or a creative individual,ncan live on bread alone or on scientific observations alone.nIn the end, men live by stories, by myths, by examples ofnvirtue and excellence, by religion. As George Washingtonnsaid, “Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refinedneducation on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experiencenboth forbid us to expect that national morality cannprevail in exclusion of religious principle.”nAs we strive to create a new government, we must never forgetnour duty to awaken our nation to anamnesis, to rememberingnwhat we knew. The laughter and slander of the lackeys of a dyingnregime must not deter us. “To keep it the way it was”-wasnthe motto of the Monkey Wrench Gang. These are not the wordsnof Responsible Conservatism. The pragmatist and the realistnwill mock them for their self-contradiction. We know in ournhearts and from history that these words, are the tmly pragmatic,nthe truly realistic motto for creating a future where our fathersncould have been at home and where our grandchildren will be.nNo matter what form that government will finally assume, ifnwe do our duty, we shall one day be able to look in our grandchildren’sneyes and say to them without blinking, “Whennwe had affairs in our hands, we restored the Republic.” nnnLIBERAL ARTS-n^inBUSING CpNTINUESnThe plan to “bus affluent pupils tonlow-income neighborhoods” in LanCrosse, Wisconsin, met with bitter opposition,nthe Los Angeles Times reportednlast March. The objective of forcednbusing “based on family income rathernthan race” was to provide “equal educationalnopportunities” and lessen then”burden” on teachers with low-incomenpupils. Instead, “the latest attempt atnsocial engineering” sparked a backlashnof heightened class division and a campaignnto recall members of the schoolnboard, which Kevin O’Keefe, a lawyernfor the opposition, said lacks “sensitivitynto the wants and desires of the taxpayers.”nJUNE 1992/25n