dential campaign from collapse.nSince Mr. Reagan was sworn in asnPresident he has been plagued with thensame problem. Perhaps what is evennworse, the Reagan Administration at thenhighest level has been staffed by mennand women who have spent most of theirncareers opposing his political principlesnand program. President Reagan’s style ofngoverning, moreover, has been to giventhese appointees wide latitude to act onnhis belwlf. Such a loose style of Presidentialnleadership has had the effect of surrenderingna fiindamental weapon in thenWashington war.nWhen Mr. Reagan was elected in Novembern1980 he feced three institutionsnwith vested political interest in the Murenof his principles and program: a liberaldominatednCongress, the bureaucracy,nand the national news media. Yet, a majoritynof the men and women appointed fornthe purpose of carrying out his principlesnand program, given the latitude tondo so, are by temperament, intellect,nand background ill suited to wage thenkind of sophisticated political warfarenrequired to secure adoption of Mr.nReagan’s program. In general, most of Mr.nReagan’s appointees have been Nixon-nFord veterans, schooled in the policiesnof pragmatism and accommodationnj^ainst a formidable opposition that hasnnever known the meaning of the words.nThe result: a squandering of preciousnpolitical capital during the Reagan Administration’snfirst term. Mr. Reagan,npulled between the poles of accommodationnand confrontation, has also producedna climate of stalemate and a Murento realize the program he has advancednsince 1964.nThis is the political tragedy of thenReagan Revolution, perceived by neithernfoe, nor friend, nor the President. At itsnroot, the feilure of the Reagan Administrationnis a feilure of the President himselfnto judge the character and capacitynof those he has chosen to serve him. Hisnintegrity of intent and sincerity are unimpeachable.nStill, the rude reality remainsnthat he faces the same dangernwhich made Johnson, Nixon, Ford, andn34inChronicles of CiiltttrenCarter one-term Presidents: the gulf betweennpromise and performance.nA. darker and distorted perceptionnof Ronald Reagan is represented in PhillipnFinch’s Go4 Guts, and Guns, vsdiich presentsnitself as an analysis of the radicalnright, perceived by Finch to be groupsnranging from the Moral Majority to thenJohn Birch Society to the Ku Klux Klannand the American nazis. “Now they maynWhat makes this book interesting is thatnit provides a useful representative examplenof the younger generation of liberalsnwho have come to believe that thenstraw men and scarecrows as representednin this work are objective reality.nFinch sincerely believes that what henhas vmtten and set forth is a valid analysisnrather than the grotesque flight fromnreality and work of political pornographynthat it is. The Christian New Rigjit, forn”Finch has a sharp eye his descriptions are… fair, on target These right-wingersnare probably more dangerous to one another than to anyone outside their orbit.”n-Carpet’snbe more important,” Finch insists of suchngroups, “than they have been fiDt decades.nThose fringies on the right, without anybodynnoticing, have helped in their fractiousnand belligerent way to put RonaldnReagan in the White House.” Such seeminglynirresponsible statements emanatenfrom someone who describes himself as an33-year-old Roman Catholic “bleedingnheart liberal” who is the son of an “oldlinenblue-collar union man.” It is probablynthe latter association that saves Finchnfrom becoming totally divorced fromnreality. God, Guts, and Guns is a sincerenbut hopelessly confused effort to findnout what makes the radical right run. Fornexample, on one hand. Finch, after a yearnof personal interviews with members ofnthe radical right, concludes that theynhave little influence. At the end of thenwork, he claims that their extremist solutionsnmight be accepted should thencountry be confronted with a crisis atnhome or abroad. “So the danger doesnexist,” Finch warns, “there is always anrisk in freedom. We could purge ourselvesnof the extremists if we reallynwanted. But in doing so we would woundnour liberties and ourselves more grievouslynthan the Radical Right ever could.”nFinch never makes clear just how andnwhy the radical right has wounded “ournliberties.” Amid all the liberal smugness,ndistortion, and confused state of mind.nFinch tells us more about himself andnthe degree to which he has become thenvictim of his own political indoctrination.nnnexample, is lumped together in roughlynthree pages with the Ku Klux Klan andnthe nazis. Finch does not even use thenterm “New Right,” insisting that JerrynFahvell and the Moral Majority are somehownrepresentative of the radical right.nOne puts down Finch’s work in despair,nmindfiil of Max Eastman’s observation:n”The great enemy of human hope is notnbrute fects, but men of brains who willnnot fece them.”nPerh^ this best summarizes the statenof American poUtical life from right tonleft. Politics has rarely been governed bynobjectivity or guided by evidence andnexperience. Politicians rarely bother tonconsult history and the lessons it has tonimpart. But what makes today’s state ofnAmerican politics so depressing and atnthe same time dangerous is that sinceritynhas become an excuse for escapingnthe consequences of one’s actions. Sinceritynhas also become a convenient escapenfor those hungry for power overnour lives and liberties. By thefr sinceritynthey escape accountability for past folly,nfoolishness, and disasters. Such a state ofnaffairs is unique in our history. It raisesnthe question of whether a highly complexnand developed civilization can remainnboth free and productive if the politicalnleadership, which exercises suchnfar-reaching control over its fiimre, refiisesnto be governed by evidence and experience,nand, at the same time, esc^esnaccountability by a retreat into professionsnof sincerity when it is wrong. Dn