persistent racism, sexism, and homophobia. The increasing globalization of our eco- nomic system and the technologies that sup- port it put strains on how we think about doing business, and, indeed, challenge the very notion of a sovereign state. As we move towards a monopoly media, we lose the ben- efits of lively, accessible debate that are so essen- tial to a successful democracy. The inability of centrist, liberal, and progressive forces to command widespread support and to state clearly their core values and vision also con- tribute to a lack of real alternatives for the vot- ing public. While the Right did not invent these phenomena, it has certainly learned how to capitalize on them. Conclusion L ooking at these instances of the Right’s recent choices of issues and tactics we have seen irrefutably that the Right is anti- democratic.  Its agenda is to shrink democ- racy by severely limiting government’s ability to provide social services, by allowing big monied interests to control elections and influence  our  representatives,  by  rolling back the gains of a range of human rights movements, and by undermining judicial independence.  As  the  George W.  Bush Administration  completes  and  surpasses the agenda of the Reagan Administration, we will see a further contraction of democ- racy  and  more  and  more  people  placed “outside the fence.” This should come as no surprise. The Right’s  leadership  has  openly  advertised its vision for the future of the country for over 20 years. The examples listed here are only some of the ways in which the Right is challenging democratic principles and practice. There are, unfortunately, many more. The Right is simultaneously moving ahead  on  many  fronts,  and  this  assault affects us everywhere—in our city halls, schools, courts, homes, and wallets. While it is valuable to acknowledge our separate situations, it is also useful to recognize the connections across the issues that concern us, remembering the adage that an attack on one is an attack on all. The Right strategi- cally  connects  its  campaigns  addressing race, gender and sexual orientation under the umbrella of promoting “traditional family values.” This strategy allows for an attack on one  group  to  spill  over  and  affect  other groups. Today’s Right is firmly embedded in the center of the Republican Party, welcomed in by the language of a better future for the average person and wrapped in the colors of the flag. If we continue to uncover the anti- democratic trends of the Right, we can see that although the rhetoric and tactics of the Old  Right  have  changed,  much  of  their legacy remains, and not just in the cries from the Far Right. We need to see the Right’s agenda very clearly, identify its antidemo- cratic core, and challenge its campaigns as they appear. Only then, we will be able to reassert the vision of an expanded democ- racy that reflects a commitment to meet the needs of us all. For research assistance, Jean Hardisty would like to thank Pam Chamberlain and Betty Furdon; and for editing assistance, Elly Bulkin, Nikhil Aziz, Denise Bergman, Kate Cloud, Ruth Hubbard, Rosario Morales, Mitra Rastegar, and Sunny Robinson. End Notes 1 A  slightly  different  version  of  this  article  appears  in Defending Democracy: An Activist Resource Kit (Somerville: Political Research Associates, 2001). 2 Because the Right has demonized these terms, we need to define them for ourselves again. Here we use the term “liberal” to refer to those who favor the reform of social and economic inequities and “progressive” to describe those who once called themselves leftists, those who seek more radical  change.  Using  these  definitions,  a  progressive perspective informs this article. 3 In the United States, the understanding of the theory of democracy stems from the writings of Benedict de Spin- oza, a 17th century Dutch theorist of democracy; John Locke, a British philosopher who wrote about democra- tic self-government as a political ideal; and John Stuart Mill, 19th century English economist and political the- orist who expanded Locke’s ideas to include individual freedoms. See: Benedict de Spinoza, A Political Treatise (1677); John Locke, Two Treatises on Government (1690); and John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859). Modern demo- cratic theorists have updated the work of these thinkers and have identified race and gender as illegitimate crite- ria for excluding a person from his or her democratic rights. 4 For a discussion of this expanded view of democracy, see: Isaiah Berlin, “Two Concepts of Liberty” in Isaiah Berlin, Four Essays on Liberty (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969). 5 Robert Dahl described this view of democracy in detail (and approvingly) in his book, Polyarchy. The working def- inition of polyarchy is: officials, chosen fairly through elec- tions, make policy decisions on behalf of citizens they represent. This view of democracy is widely accepted throughout academia and in the State Department’s clas- sification  of  third  world  countries  as  “democracies.” 6 “If  the  people  are  corrupt,  the  more  democracy,  the worse the government.” Patrick Buchanan, Washington Inquirer, January 18, 1991. 7 Though most of the New Right’s leaders were young Republicans who had been burned by the failed candi- dacy of Barry Goldwater, old-timer William F. Buckley, Jr. played a central role in crafting a “fusion” politics that united several conservative ideologies. 8 Richard Viguerie, The New Right: We’re Ready to Lead! (Falls Church, VA: The Viguerie Company, 1980), p. 214. 9 Paul Weyrich, one of the most prominent New Right lead- ers, wrote in March 1984, “Conservative in the black com- munity means racist and that is understandable.  The leadership on the right, however, bears no resemblance to the reactionary Southern icons of the past….I am sure there are people who call themselves conservatives who are  prejudiced.  But  the  leaders  are  far  from  it.”  Paul Weyrich,  “It Would  Help  If They  Really  Knew  Us.” Conservative Digest, vol. 10, no. 3 (March 1984), p. 44. 10 Chip Berlet and Matthew Lyons, Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort (New York: Guilford Press, 2000), p. 227. 11 David S. Broder, Democracy Derailed: Initiative Cam- paigns and the Power of Money  (New York: Harcourt Brace, 2000), pp. 1-21. 12 Jack Citrin, “Who’s the Boss? Direct Democracy and Popular Control of Government,” in Stephen Craig, ed., Broken  Contract?  Changing  Relationships  Between Americans and Their Government  (Boulder: Westview Press,  1996),  pp.  268-93,  and  Clarence  Lo,  Small Property Versus Big Government (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), pp. xi, xiv. 13 Daniel A. Smith, Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy  (New York: Routledge, 1998), pp. 52-85. 14 Primaries and final elections differ. Individual candidates receive matching funds in federal primary elections if they raise $5000 in each of 20 states. Political parties receive matching funds if they make a showing of 5% or bet- ter in the previous presidential election. 15 Nathan Glazer, Affirmative Discrimination  (New York: Basic Books, 1975).   16 In 1998 Glazer entered the public debate again, with his book  We  Are  All  Multiculturalists  Now  (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), defending affirmative action with the very arguments he had rejected and disdained in Affirmative Discrimination. 17 The chronology of the development and marketing of this stereotype by right wing organizations is documented in Lucy Williams, “Decades of Distortion: The Right’s 30 Year Assault on Welfare.” (Somerville, MA: Political Research Associates, 1997). Also see: Gwendolyn Mink, ed.,  Whose Welfare?  (Ithaca,  NY:  Cornell  University Press, 1999). 18 Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 104th Cong., 2nd Session., “Background Material and Data on Programs Within the Jurisdiction of the Comm. On Ways and Means,”1996, p. 474. 19 Doug  Brugge,  “Pulling  Up The  Ladder: The Anti-Immigrant  Backlash.”  The  Public  Eye,  vol.  9, no. 2, Summer 1995, pp. 1-10. 20 The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act greatly expanded the list of crimes leading to deporta- tion and permanently barred the re-entry of non-citi- zen immigrants convicted of aggravated felonies, without any right to apply for a waiver. The law allows for the use of secret evidence in any deportation cases where the The Public Eye THE PUBLIC EYE SUMMER 2001 11