THE COUNTER-revolution is under way. I say so confidently, fully aware that the political expression of that revolt is only in its infancy. What is the political expression? Counting back, it is the 1994 election, the mayors' races in New York and Los Angeles, the governorships of New Jersey and Virginia, and the Senate races in Georgia and Texas.
Republicans and conservatives who warn that the electorate is fickle ("George Bush had 90 percent approval in 1990!" they recall darkly), that many of the races in 1994 were close (I've mentioned this myself), and that expectations for the Republican Congress are unrealistic, have a point, and they must make their political plans and calculations accordingly.
Still, that we are, as a nation, in the midst of a thoroughgoing course correction seems to me inarguable.
The world runs on ideas -- and at the moment, the excitement, the ferment and the abundance of ideas are to be found on the right.
Look at the world of book publishing. In just the past few months, a parade of serious, meaty books have been published challenging and disparaging key tenets of the liberal orthodoxy that has dominated American life for more than a generation. Some have become best sellers. All will influence the coming century.
The significance of Bill Bennett's "Book of Virtues" has been widely remarked. After a decade of lecturing about character and morals, Bill Bennett tired of answering the question, "But whose values shall we teach?" The book was his answer. Anyone who cannot endorse self-discipline, compassion, responsibility, friendship, work, courage, perseverance, honesty, loyalty and faith must be counted among the dead souls.
The title was also self-consciously old-fashioned, using the word "virtues" instead of "values." Values are relative. What I "value," you may not. Virtues are non-negotiable.
It was just that distinction, among many others, that Gertrude Himmelfarb was at pains to explain in her recent highly readable and germane history of the Victorians, "The Demoralization of Society." The Victorians faced many of the same social problems we do: crime, drunkenness and pauperism, among others. But their approach to them was marked by a belief in the moral autonomy of each individual. The Victorians believed that virtue -- often defined then as an admixture of sobriety, respectability, independence and responsibility -- was within the reach of everyone. Their remedies for social evils, like for crime, relied on shame and honor as well as more mundane rewards and punishments. Our own society, which has become literally "de-moralized," has much to learn from the Victorians.
David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values has written an impassioned indictment of American cultural trends called "Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem." It is a point-by-point refutation of every liberal idea about family life, from easy divorce to illegitimacy, and from child support to "equal" parenting. Mr. Blankenhorn rejects the idea of "parenting" altogether, maintaining that fathering and mothering
are distinct, complementary and equally essential tasks.
Christina Hoff Sommers weighs in on the conservative all-star book list with "Who Stole Feminism?", a tour of the loony precincts of academic feminism and a plea for a return to common sense.
And speaking of common sense, Philip Howard, a New York lawyer, chronicles its demise in the field of law in "The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America." Aiming anecdotes like smart bombs, Mr. Howard dissects what has become of the grand plans of the liberals to remake society. The web of rules and laws (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration alone has 4,000) has diminished our efficiency and curtailed our freedom, and it has led to absurdities. When Mother Teresa tried to open a shelter for the homeless in New York, she was told the code required the building to have an elevator. The nuns protested that their order forbade such conveniences. The rule stood. The shelter never opened. Like Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard, Mr. Howard argues that framing (( every dispute as a conflict of "rights" has paralyzed our country in important ways.
All of these books, and many more, are shaping today's debate. They represent the intellectual refutation of liberalism. The political and social sequel are all but inevitable.
Mona Charen is a syndicated columnist.