Making process integral to the deliberations of the republican citizenry

This policy cannot be implemented unless mass constituencies are integrated into the republican political organizations in precisely the way Nixon worked to avoid. The mass constituencies of this nation are centered in the trade unions and the ethnic minorities. Without defining the constituency of a republican Presidency as a republican labor party, there is no efficient form of republican party, and a republican President will always find his tenure and policies in jeopardy.

The labor-versus-industry nonsense must cease, at least in matters bearing on national policymaking, national political life. In the plant, ownership has management rights. Outside the plant, management is but the tiniest minority of the citizenry, with no inherent management rights. If we, as a nation, are to have a ruling, republican policy of high-technology, capital­intensive investment in expanded production, that policy must be in the consciously perceived interest, as well as the underlying, objective interest of the 'majority of citizens. The political power of the industrialist in the town meeting is not arbitrary property-right. It is the fact that the citizens of that town urgently need a profitable, and otherwise successful such plant. In the town meeting, the interests of management and labor are properly understood to be identical in the final analysis-at least, on fundamental points of policy­making.

Misconceived Conservatism

The reason Nixon and others erred so badly on the matter of "constituency-organizing" is, most immedi=ately, the weight of what is termed "conservatism" within the Republican Party (in particular). These "conservatives" repeat the exact same error which ruined the Federalist Party during the late 1790s under President John Adams, the same error which later wrecked the Whig Party.

The term "conservatism" is used among self-styled "conservatives" to mean two very distinct things. In its healthy employment, "conservatism" means defense of the republican principles of the American system against imported varieties of British liberalism and radicalism. In its foolish, destructive version, "conservatism" is identified with the tradition of British secret intelligence service agent Sir John Robinson's subversion of the Federalist Party during the late 1790s. The latter is "antilabor" conservatism: "trade unions are the cause of inflation, and most of our other problems."

The exemplar of the latter, rotten form of "conserva­tism" is William F. Buckley, the professed marijuana user. If one looks beneath the "conservative" label of Buckley and the National Review gang, the following

facts come prominently to the surface.

First, Buckley is a professed marijuana smoker, and a pot-headed agent of the same organization, NORML, whose activities have contributed so much to the destruction of the biological mental potentialities of a growing number of grammar-school as well as teen-age youth. Buckley's defense of his despicable behavior is a direct copy of the sort of British liberalism associated with the pederast Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, and the evil Bertrand Russell. Buckley's mind, such as he has one, is organized according to the principles of British "philosophical radicalism." Buckley the "conservative" is in fact a raving "radical." He is a "radical-conservative."

Second, this aspect of Buckley is not exceptional. It was raving radical-liberal Max Eastman and such Deweyite radical-liberals as James Burnham who are at the core of the Buckleyite National Review gang. This did not represent a conversion to radical liberalism by the Buckley family; the Buckley fortune was made in concert with City of London financial interests in Caribbean-centered operations. Buckley's money was essentially Rothschild-linked, and Buckley's politics de­veloped along the same lines as the promotion of the family fortune.

It is true, of course; that Max Eastman was a leading Trotskyite during the 1920s-even before Trotsky` himself became a Trotskyite. It is true that James Burnham was formerly a leader of the Socialist Workers Party. Perhaps Burnham did change his beliefs slightly in moving from the Socialist Workers Party and Karl Korsch's Max Schachtman to his present position at National Review. There was no significant change apart from a change in visible, professed associations. Eastman, Dewey, the Deweyites, and the co-thinkers of the treasonous Charles A. Beard were all of the same unwholesome stripe: anglophile political intelligence agents immediately af­fixed to the anglophile sort of financial interests dominant in Manhattan.