Socialists, Communists, and the middleclassnRadicals. The Communists remainednaloof from the government, while thenRadicals were notoriously opportunistic.nBlum’s most important decision duringnthe Popular Front government wasnto remain neutral during the SpanishnCivil War, an action which sealed thenfate of the Spanish Republic. Why did henchoose this course? Lacouture suggestsnthat Blum, an ardent Anglophile, wasnswayed by the British Tory government’snopposition to aid for the Republic. However,nit seems that the palpable threat ofncivil war in France itself necessarily restrainednBlum. Blum regarded the uprisingnas a blow against his own PopularnFront The International Brigades whonfought for the Loyalists are rememberedntoday, but many Frenchmen fought fornthe Nationalists. The right and segmentsnof the army were openly supportive ofnthe rebels, which must chasten a governmentnbordered by the two principal alliesnof the Nationalists, nazi Germany andnfescist Italy. Blum’s policy was strange:nchallenging Russia, Germany, and Italynto join his noninterventionist standnwhile covertly providing token amountsnof aid to the Republicans.nWas Blum’s choice of socialism necessary?nCould he have maintained hisnideals with another vehicle? The domainnof choice was not wide. The right wasnopenly anti-Semitic, hostile to the Republic,nand quite prone to violence (both assassinationnand street mobs). As for thenbourgeois parties, they were exemplarsnof opportunist parliamentary politicsnand tainted by corruption, such as thenPanama Scandal and the Stavisky Afiair.nBlum and Lacouture take for grantednthat socialism is just.nMany readers will undoubtedly approachnthis book with hopes that it wiQnallow them to predict the actions of thenMitterrand government. They will bendisappointed. Mitterrand is not LeonnBlum, and the world of today is radicallyndifferent from tiiat of 1936. The Communistsndid not participate in the PopularnFront cabinet, and the balance of sup­nSOinChronicles of Culturenport between the two parties was farnmore equal in 1936. France at that timenwas in the depths of depression and hadnvery real external and internal threats tonits security. Moreover, thanks to denGaulle, Mitterrand as president has pow-nTies that StranglenStanley Rothman and S. RobertnLichter: Roots of Radicalism: Jews,nChristians, and the New Left; CbcfordnUniversity Press; New York.nby J. David Hoeveler, Jr.n3ecularity, it’s often stated, is the governingnnorm of life in these late-20thcenturyntimes. The refrain rings sonfeimiliar that we take note when we hearnthat, for some explanations of humannbehavior, religion counts. Here we haventhe most exhaustive and detailed studynof a movement of the recent past andnmore than halftray through it the authorsnpause to explain what they have madenclear akeady; the most important key tonthe radical personality types that constitutednthe American New Left of then1960’s is religious background. But oursnare confiising times. Stanley Rothmannand Robert Lichter feel safer referring tonJewish and other groups as “ethnic”nrather than “religious” categories. Andnwell they might, for the central focus ofntheir smdy is the radical, thoroughly secularizednJew. Bom to a femily whose religionnsurvives as no more than distantnmemories of immigrant grandparentsnand their ghetto culture, these childrenninherited a family pattern thoroughlyncosmopolitan in outlook and modernistnin style. If there was a religion to rebelnagainst, it was but a ghost. So the dramanhere does not follow the femiliar scriptnof a generation gap and its attendingnhostilities. The Jewish rebel movedntoward the same liberal and radical ex-nDr. Hoeveler is a professor of history atnthe University of Wisconsin—Miltvauheennners not dreamed of by Blum as premier.nLeon Blum sought to do right by his nationnand the world. He can be faulted fornthe lack of imagination that restrictednhis choice to socialism, but his devotionnto justice itself was not a failing. Dntremes of the parental model.nRoots of Radicalism is essentially ancontribution to psychology. Based onnextensive questionnaires sent to morenthan 1100 students at four Americannuniversities and amplified by in-depthnanalyses of a more select group, the studynattempts to draw personality portraits ofnconservative, liberal, and radical students.nThe authors provide a critique of thenstudies that preceded theirs; they findnserious weaknesses in all of them, mostnoften the investigators’ biases in favor ofnthe New Left. Rothman and lichter avoidnappealing to any mode of psychologicalndeterminism in accounting for thenemergence of the New Left in the 1960’s.nThat phenomenon sprang from coincidentalncauses that provided a uniquenhistorical occasion to vent iimer dilemmasnand hidden rage. The authors believe,ntoo, that psychological fectors governednthe larger shape of the radical movement,nwhich sprang from a heavily Jewish dominationnin the early years, one continuousnwith a European and American tradition,nand moved to a non-Jewish dominationnmuch more violent in character.nThe Jewish presence in Westernnradicalism emerged with its escape fromnthe European ghetto. The Enlightenmentnand its militant expression in Napoleonndismantled the structure of feudalismnand seemed to promise to assimilate allnpeoples into the modem state. ReformnJews embraced these causes, but anneven more religiously deracinated groupncarried their zealousness iato revolution,nsocialist idealism, and Marxism. Thisntradition of dissent, by the early decadesnof the 20th century, received a more formalizednacademic expression in the writ-n