potboiler meant either to praise or toncondemn. It is, rather, a cold-bloodedninquiry closer to a dissection than eitherna dissertation or a diatribe. The firstnpage of the preface states: “When Inbegan my research in August of 1976,nthere were no listings for Jimmy Carternin the Library of Congress card catalogue.nThough stories about Carter’snpast and his character had been floodingnthe media for the preceding eightnmonths, no independently investigatednhistories of his life had yet appeared.nI quickly discovered that many of thenstories circulating about Carter—includingnsome originating with Carternand his family—were factually inaccurate.”nThe author is being excessivelynpolite and remains so throughout thenbook. The last two chapters comprisen31 pages of psychobabble as though thenauthor is reluctant to state some conclusions.nShe cannot spit it out. Aftern507 pages, over 300 interviews, 14nbooks and archives, 15 newspapers andn10 pages of “source notes,” she has uncoverednslogans, symbols, campaignstrategynnotes and instant history writtennon the run by and for journalists,nbut she reveals little more than whatnshe said in the preface.nEver since Carter made the decisionnin 1972 to run for the White House,nhe had to build a facade of liberalismnacceptable to the Eastern establishmentnwhile retaining a conservative imagenin the South and meld both to appealnto a national constituency. As he hadnbefriended George Wallace in the past,nhe would now have to disavow him.nWhere he had been a hawk on the VietnamnWar, he would now have to becomendovish. Carter had a tremendousnadvantage in making those shifts. ThenNew York Times and Rolling Stonenare organs of upper-class liberalism thatnare eager to be and are easily foolednby anyone who embraces their leftliberalnstyle via speeches, poverty chicnand references to their counterculturenheroes. The fact that such journalistsnare seldom, if ever, read by a morenconservative middle and lower-middlen32inChronicles of Culturenclass is a plus for any aspiring politiciannwho is unprincipled in, the pursuit ofnthe White House.nGiving a speech on Law Day (May 1,n1974) at the University of Georgia,nCarter impressed left-freak journalistnHunter Thompson of the Rolling Stonenwith references to Niebuhr, Dylan andna few folk songs. The so-called “counterculture”nwas duly thrilled. For thenblue-collar factory worker Carter suddenlyndons a set of work clothes andndips his hands into a chute cascadingna stream of peanuts. For Playboy: “Lustnin my heart,” for fundamental Baptists:n”Amazing Grace,” for the Wildlife Federationnand the Sierra Club: “Fishin’nand swimmin’ when I was a boy,” fornthe industrialist: “Fm a nuclear scientist,”nfor the small businessman: “I’mna small businessman,” for the povertychicntypes: “I come from one of thenpoorest parts of the country,” for thenWallacites: “I’m a redneck,” and, lastnbut not least, for absolute fools andnnew-class intellectuals: “I’ll never liento you.” It’s all there in Betty Glad’snbook, but she fails to connect one partnto the other. If she had left out half ofnthe book or used it to cover the medianwhich so foolishly and incompetentlyncovered this most competent campaignernand incompetent President, it wouldnhave been a much more interestingnbook.nAs they did in the 1980 campaignnwith John Anderson, the national mediancan anoint a Presidential candidate andnproceed to sell him to the general public.nThe initial selling starts in thenpages of the New York Times and thenWashington Post—the liberal herd follows.nBefore this new face appears onnthe national scene it has already becomenfrom six months to a year old innthe editorial offices of the liberal establishment.nMore disturbing are the questions ofnhow a national media that so relentlesslynaxed the image of Richard Nixonncould be so inept concerning the campaign-strategynfacade of Jimmy Carter.nnnThat facade began to crumble only undernthe realities of the Presidential office—innIran, Afghanistan, Angola,nNicaragua — and unemployment andninflation at home. In truth, the nationnsuffered because the national medianfailed in their self-appointed mission.nThe Peter Principle is no great tragedynwhen it concerns a local departmentnstore, but the leadership of the Westernnworld should not be so casually treated.nThe two Presidents in the last twentynyears with whom our national medianwere enamored, John F. Kennedy andnJimmy Carter, were masters of symbolsnand slogans but left us a weaker nationnand a more cynical people. The mediandespise Ronald Reagan, and it’s easy tonunderstand why. Reagan never fudged.nThe statement “The Vietnam War wasna noble cause” would have been imprudent,nif not impossibly out of character,nfor Jimmy Carter. That Reagan defeatednCarter was also a triumph over thenmedia. That campaign, sadly, is hardlynmentioned in Betty Glad’s book. DnMOVING?nSend this notice to The Rocl