while jesuitically insisting that he had not performed this orrnthat specific act of treason or terrorism, he accepted fuh responsibiht}’rnfor the fictional crimes attributed to his non-existentrnconspiracy. Americans accused of racism display thisrnsame Patt}’ Hearst syndrome, acting like the kidnap victimsrnwho end up collaborating with their persecutors. They darernnot oppose the revolutionary mentality of the regime, preciselyrnbecause it is their mentalit)’. Until wc learn to throw off thesernleftist shackles that have been forced upon our minds, we canrnnever be free.rnThe great mistake the right has made, all these years, is torngo on the defensive. The federal principle that is illustratedrnby the traditional American insistence upon the rights ofrnthe states is not only ancient and honorable: It is, in fact, a universalrnprinciple of free societies and an expression of the mostrnbasic needs of our human nature. Wliat is sometimes calledrndevolution and sometimes subsidiarity is the principle that animatesrnsuch diverse societies as Renaissance Poland, 19th-centur’rnSwitzerland, ancient Athens, and the children of Israel beforernthey degenerated to the point where they had to settie onrnthe next-best fornr of government, namely, covenanted monareh-.rnI do not propose to go over the evidence again. My point isrnonlv that states’ rights, whether or not it is a particularly usefulrnconcept in these times, is a perfeetiy respectable doctrine thatrnshould not bring a blush to the cheeks of any Swiss or Pole,rnGreek or Jew; and no American, whether he traces his politicalrnaneestr)’- to Massachusetts or Virginia, should have to apologizernfor defending a principle that is the ver’ essence of our Constitution.rnTo defend, for example, the Tenth Amendment is a futilerngesture if we do not at the same time challenge leftists to justifyrnthe monopolization of power by a tiny oligarchy. Underrn”leftisf I include, in very crude terms, anyone who supportsrnthe New Deal, the welfare state, and the usurped powers of tiiernfederal courts. It is they who, as lackeys of a regime that has deprivedrnfamilies and communities of their responsibilities andrnliberties, should be in the dock explairnng their record asrnwreckers of society and destroyers of civilization. But in everyrnsociefy’, the victors write not just tiie history but also the theology,rnand in American political theology, which is scarcely distinguishablernfrom that of Robespierre, anyone who ever defendedrnhis people, respected his ancestors, and could tell leftrnfrom right and straight from bent is sent to Siberia.rnLeftist intellectuals have no Cjualms about going after any defenderrnof states’ rights, hammer and tongs—or rather hammerrnand sickle, because so many of them have spent years apologizingrnfor Stalin, Mao, and the architects of air American welfarernstate that has enslaved the poor. But even if we were—for thernsake of argument—to grant their point, false as it is, that states’rnrights is a codeword for segregation, a system that inflicted unnecessary’rnhumiliation upon millions of Americans of Africanrndescent, it is not as if ethnic prejudice is something new in thernworld. The Soviets, after all, did a preth’ good job of genocidernagainst the Jews, and both the Russian and the Chinese comradesrndid their best to eliminate the national identify- of subjectrnpeoples.rnOne of the greatest butchers of the age was Stalin, a politicalrnleader whom upright leftists and sainted liberals like the laternSidney Hook spent years defending—palliating his crimesrnwhen they could not be denied and lying about them wheneverrnit was possible. What sort of people have their morals sorntwisted that they can compare the slaughter of perhaps tens ofrnmillions of human beings—to say nothing of the war wagedrnagainst religion, ethnic identify, and family life—with segregatedrnrestrooms and then conclude that segregation is worse thanrnmass murder?rnThe only thing an honest ex-leftist can do today is to take arnvow of silence on all things political. Either defend the crimesrnof Stalin and Mao, we should say, or repent and shut up. Butrnthe only repentance I have heard is the boiler-plate confessionrnthat they were “mistaken” in their ideas. That is like Dr.rnBernard Nathanson’s confession that he did not realize abortionrnwas murder. What was he doing in embryology class?rnWhat were the leftists doing when writers like Camus and Orwellrnwere telling the truth about Stalin? They were too busyrnslandering Orwell aird denouncing the American system thatrngave them everj’thing they have. Their book contracts and professorshipsrnare stained with the blood of Stalin’s victims, and ifrnthey had a drop of decency or self-respect, they would devoternthe rest of their miserable lives to making restitution. Instead,rnthey are so busy pointing out the mote in another man’s eyernthat they do not see the gulag in their own.rnStalinists are far from being the only villains: Trotskyists, socialists,rnNew Dealers, limousiire liberals all played their part inrnthe demolition of civilized life, and now they (and their friendsrnand relations) want to whine about unintended consequencesrnand condemn the leftists who have kept faith with their ideology.rnIt is not that they want to close the barn door after the horsesrnare out. In fact, it is much worse: These leftists-turnedliberalsrnhave stolen the horses and now want to claim that theyrnare the real owners of the barn, which, if they ever do get theirrnhands on it, they will turn into a forced labor camp.rnThere is no point in denying that states’ rights can be madernthe pretext for fy’ranny—but so can republican government,rnthe Christian religion, and Mom’s apple pie. However, inrnessence, an apple pie is meant to be eaten and enjoyed; in principle,rnChristiairify- teaches us to love our neighbor; and both republicanrngovernment and federalism are rooted in the moralrnresponsibilify of ordinary’ men who refuse to trust either aristocratsrnor bureaucrats with unlimited power over their everydayrnlives. The federal principle, in particular, comes down to an either/rnor proposition ftiat only communists have had the couragernto face: Since no one else can live my life for me (whether I amrnspeaking as an individual or for a community), then no onernelse can make my decisions for me, and if it is hard for me orrnmy school board or state legislature to make morally acceptablerndecisions, it would be harder still, no, impossible for others tornmake them for us.rnSay what you will, talk all day, you will not find an argumentrnagainst federalism that is not reducible to the principle: I andrnmy sort are better than you and yours, and for that reason wernhave the right to manage your affairs. It is a simple eirough argumentrnthat goes back to Plato:rnThe best people ought to govern.rnWe are the best people.rnTherefore, we ought to govern.rnThe only problem lies in proving that the “you” in question —rna federal judge, a school superintendent, an EPA administratorrn—is really better, in any significandy moral sense, than anyrnof the rest of us. Wliat do we know about Justices Earl WarrenrnAPRIL 1999/11rnrnrn