surdity or its real operational intent cannbe understood. . . . The peace ideologynsupplies answers to all questions,nand it gives them within a frameworkndevoid of visible foreign influence. It is,napparently, a homespun, good, cleannCanadian connection.”nThat perception, more than anynother feature, distinguishes the ideologynof the Canadian peace movementnas a masterpiece of Soviet propagandanand deception. “Backed by the powernof the Soviet propaganda apparatus,nbut nevertheless operating inside Canadanfrom a minority position, the Communistnelement has succeeded in shapingnan ideology that has no apparentnconnection with communism or thenUSSR, but which actually serves Sovietnpolicy in every respect.”nLast year’s election gave some indicationnof the movement’s effect on thenpolitical process. Despite the CPC’sndismal showing at the polls, both thenLiberal Party and the officially socialistnNew Democratic Party opposed thenMulroney government’s planned purchasenof nuclear-powered submarines.nBoth opposed the testing in Canada ofnUS unarmed cruise missiles, while thenNDP would have pulled Canadiannforces out of Europe and declarednCanada a nuclear-weapons-free zone.nThe return of Prime Minister Mulroneynreconfirmed Canada’s commitmentnto the defense of freedom, butnthere remains a significant body ofnopinion that would persuade Canadiansnotherwise.nIf Tugwell’s book is read as widely asnit deserves to be, it will do much toncorrect the imbalance. Nor is its applicationnconfined to Canada. In thenlexicon of Leninist dogma, peace isnwhat follows the final victory of communismneverywhere, and the author’snanalysis of the tactics and strategy employednwill be invaluable to all whonwould resist them.n”Defence,” he writes in his introduction,n”is not a warlike activity, but anresponse to a warlike threat. Freedomnand peace call for clear heads and stoutnhearts. These do not threaten anyone.”nKenneth McDonald contributes tonCanadian journals and The Freemannfrom his home in Toronto.n36/CHRONICLESnSays Who?nby Janet Scott BarlownCharacter: America’s Searchnfor Leadershipnby Gail SheehynNew York: William Morrow andnCompany; 303 pp., $17.95nDuring the long election seasonnjust past, Gail Sheehy wrote fornVanity Fair a series of “character profiles”nof various presidential candidates.nSix of those profiles, together with annintroductory essay and a long piece onnRonald Reagan, make up Character:nAmerica’s Search for Leadership, Ms.nSheehy’s latest book. In addition tonReagan, her subjects include GarynHart, Jesse Jackson, Robert Dole,nCeorge Bush, Albert Gore Jr., andnMichael Dukakis.nNeither a historian nor a psychologist,nGail Sheehy is instead a sort ofnpsychological free-lancer, a self-stylednspecialist in the components of politicalnleadership and personal character. Shenhas a lot to say on these subjects, andnmakes several interrelated points aboutnmodern American politics. In a nutshell,nthey are: because (1) the presidencynis an important office and (2)ncharacter reaps destiny, we as votersnmust (3) avoid reaping the destiny of anwould-be President with flawed character,nwhich is difficult to do becausen(4) candidates aren’t always what theynseem and voters are easily manipulated,ntherefore (5) Gail Sheehy will givenus a hand because (6) she knows a lotnmore about character, politics, and usnthan we do.nLet’s start with character. Ms.nSheehy defines character as “the enduringnmarks left by life that set onenapart as an individual.” These marksnare determined by heredity and environmentnand become evident in hown”people engage the great psychologicalnissues of adulthood — or deny, defy, ornelude them.” What this means innterms of Ms. Sheehy’s work is thatnwhen she approaches her subjects withnher psychological microscope, everythingnis going to get a look-see.nGail Sheehy gives three reasons whynit is “not useful, but essential” that wenexamine the character of would-benPresidents. First, the world is a dangerousnand complicated place and wennnmust “protect ourselves from electing anperson whose character flaws, oncensubjected to the pressures of leading ansuperpower through the nuclear age,ncan weaken or endanger the course ofnour future.” I can’t argue with that. Onnthe other hand, I don’t know a singlenperson who ever voted for a candidatenin the expectation that that candidatenwould “endanger the course of ournfuture.” But then, that’s Ms. Sheehy’snwhole point — voters don’t know whatnthey’re doing. Worse, they don’t knownthat they don’t know what they’rendoing.nIn Ms. Sheehy’s opinion, “[w]enhave suffered repeated disillusionmentsnwith recent presidents because wenfailed to enter into the compact awarenof even their most obvious patterns ofnbehavior.” Our political disillusionment,nthen, is the result of our behavioralnignorance. Ms. Sheehy’s logic onnthis point is as follows: after seeingnwhat Presidents do and don’t do innoffice, we know what they are like;ntherefore, if we could see what potentialnPresidents are like, we would knownwhat, once in office, they would andnwould not do. If, for instance, we hadnknown what to look for and where tonlook, we could have interpreted correctiynthe clues of Ronald Reagan’snchildhood and spared ourselves disillusionmentnwith a President who turnednout to be “dithering,” “passive,” “fiscallynincompetent,” and without “humannconnections in any meaningfulnsense”; a President who displayedn”self-delusion,” “monumental insensitivity,”nand “almost pathetic failings”;na President under whose leadershipn”America’s long-term economicnhealth and international position ofnrespect [were] weakened in criticalnways.”nThe second reason to examine ancandidate’s character is that “we neednthe cold slap of insight to wake us upnfrom the smoothly contrived imagesnprojected by highly paid professionalnmedia experts who market the candidatesnlike perfumed soap.” The slappernin this case is obviously Ms. Sheehy —nthe rest of us are slappees—becausenshe thinks the American electoraten(and often the media) have beenngulled by the image-making efforts ofnnearly every victorious presidentialncandidate since 1964.nMs. Sheehy’s third reason for exam-n