WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The moving trucks show up here this morning to begin transporting me from Washington to California at long last, and not a moment too soon. I can’t take too many more weeks like the last one, which featured a true Washington classic.

Let’s see if I have this straight: Microsoft is a monopoly and, according to the ancient theory of antitrust, is therefore harming consumers. I knew this within minutes of Judge Jackson’s decision because swarms of reporters everywhere all booted up their laptops--which are both getting better and falling in price--and logged on to the Internet to read the decision, and then e-mailed their stories to various media.

Microsoft no doubt plays rough in the marketplace, though not as rough as Janet Reno’s FBI and ATF at Waco. (Now there’s a monopoly that doesn’t serve consumers. . .) It is well to keep our eye on how poorly the big-case precedents for the Microsoft suit worked out in practice. Revisionist historians have found that the infamous Standard Oil monopoly was much overstated, while Henry Havemeyer’s Sugar Trust kept falling apart from competition before the trust busters could even get them into court.

The Microsoft action should be regarded more as a revival of government’s hatred of any rapid accumulation of wealth and market power. How dare Bill Gates make a $100-billion fortune without the active involvement and permission of the government. Why, he didn’t even hire a Washington lobbyist or make campaign contributions--that is, not until the Justice Department knocked on his door with a summons. This case is a vindication of historian Jonathan R.T. Hughes’s description of antitrust as "an institutional sumptuary law for business enterprise."

About 20 years ago an obscure law professor compared antitrust laws to the tradition of the frontier sheriff: "He did not sift the evidence, distinguish between suspects, and solve crimes, but merely walked the main street and every so often pistol-whipped a few people." That then-obscure professor went on to become Justice Antonin Scalia. Can’t wait to hear the oral argument on the appeal of this case.

The other strange news of the week was the revelation that Al Gore was paying $15,000 a month to Naomi Wolf, a woman with movie-star looks who made tons of money telling the nation that the "beauty myth" is an oppressive male plot. This uber-feminist is now telling Gore how to be an alpha male, which is fresh confirmation that Gore is truly an omega man. Let’s see if we understand this: a Wolf is teaching the Veep to be more sheepish.

Meanwhile, Gov. George W. Bush can’t name the leaders of Chechnya, India, or Pakistan. In a nation where the vast majority of people can’t name their own congressman, this might actually help Bush. Gore rushed to say that he could have named all four leaders Bush was asked about, which is exactly the trouble with Gore.

All of this cries out for a campaign novel. Last time it was Primary Colors. This time it calls for the Milan Kundera touch, something like The Unbearable Lightness of Being a Presidential Candidate.

--Steven Hayward