for the ordinary. Witness this descriptionnof two policemen: neither “are viciousnmen; they are merely undiscerninglynobedient, totally devoid of that flexibilitynof mind we call imagination.” Styronnis less a chronicler of human sufferingnand injustice than he is one of a band ofnself-anointed nobles whose mission is tonthwart an America that, in their eyes,nroutinely oppresses the weak, convictsnthe innocent, cheats, swindles, pollutes,nand wages war. Styron and his readersnsee themselves as lifted above that mundanenrun of humanity who think thatnmurderers should be punished, whonsense that to excuse a criminal becausenof a bad environment is an injustice tonevery person who has surmounted a badnenvironment without wielding a bludgeonnon a helpless victim, DnThe Moral Posture of DefensenThomas G. Foxworth and Michael J.nLaurence: Passengers; Doubleday;nNew York.nLoup Durand: The Angkor Massacre;nWilliam Morrow; New York.nby Fred Westn1 hese two novels turn on the samenpivot: greed, if lust for power can benconsidered a form of greed. Passengersnrepresents corporate acquisitiveness atnits worst; The Angkor Massacre representsnthe thrust for political power at itsnmost despicable. The malevolent forcesnin each spill over national boundaries,nand the methods employed overlap.nPassengers is well named, the clearnimplication being that we mere citizensnare simply along for the ride as powerfulncorporations engage in a brutal race, annastronomically expensive race for whichnwe, the passengers, pay. The theme isnblue-sky clear: the robber barons ridenagain, bullying and murdering the peasantsnand bushwhacking fellow baronsnwhile battling for dominance. While thenstory is slickly written, the message, isnthe main purpose here, not literary artistry.nIt is not as much a novel as it is anpolemic.nFrom early colonial days Americansnhave been tradesmen. Commerce withnthe Indians was far more important thannslaughtering them and taking their landsnDr West lived in Vietnam for ttvo years.n—at least in the beginning. This pioneeringndrive imbued with the capitalisticnprofit motive developed America intonthe greatest nation on earth. But in thatnprocess, we are warned by these novelists,nperhaps America has lost her soul.nWe are faced with the critical question:nAt what point do constructive ambitionnand enterprise degenerate into destructivengreed and exploitation?nWhat’s good for General Motors isngood for America, said Charles Wilson.nUp to a point he was correct. A corporatentycoon in Passengers says (albeitnungramatically): “All of us are pulling fornthe state of this country and even whethernthere’ll be a country if our position innthe marketplace slips any further.” Industrialnmight won World Wars I and II,njust as it provided a superior standard ofnliving for millions of people. Thus, patriotismnwas—^and still is—often equatednwith American industry. As anotherncharacter in Passengers says: “There’s anwar going on, an economic war … asndeadly for some people as World WarnTwo.” And so industry is also equatednwith war, not merely competition. Thenauthors of Passengers go to extremes tonstress this: heads are literally choppednoff^; men are driven to suicide; foreignngovernments are coerced.nThis whole economic, ethical, andnspiritual problem is epitomized in thencurrent defense buildup involving giantnindustries, politicians, and ties with certainnforeign governments. In the face ofnundeniable Soviet imperialism whichnnnthreatens not just Europe, Asia, and Africanbut even our own heretofore sacrosanctnshores, the President has callednfor an awesome rearmament program.nHuman nature being what it is, therenwiU always be profiteers who exploitnsuch programs to their ovwi personalnends. But when such greed becomes anpredominant force in a program concerningnour national safety, then there isnreally trouble. While most Americans tonthe right of Jane Fonda acknowledgenthat the Russian bear is indeed a realnthreat, they are widely divided on justnhow critical a threat it is and how muchnfirepower is necessary to resist it. Evennthe President has fallen into the patternnof proclaiming that x billion dollarsnmust be appropriated at once for defensenor the nation will be lost. Only bynthrowing dollars via the Pentagon intonthe coffers of our huge industries can wenbe saved. The problem is not so simple.nA great number of very patrioticnAmericans, including veterans of recentnwars, feel themselves shoved into thencorral with the bad guys because theynentertain doubts about the “how” of thenrearmament program. Irrefutable evidencenhas built up for years of skulduggerynand inefficiency in our overallnmilitary program, from top-heavy brassnto extravagant cost overruns to shadynprocurement systems to less-than-thebestnmateriel. That being so, manynstaunch, defense-minded Americans believenthat cutting fat and reforming thensystem is a far more effective strategynthan simply throwing more dollars intonthe present system. As Navy SecretarynJohn Lehman said: “Get rid of those 6000nbureaucrats in the office of the Secretarynof Defense and save 20 percent of Pentagon’snbudget.”nPerhaps the President knows that hencouldn’t make the desired changes evennif he wanted to. Reagan doesn’t prevailnwhen economy-minded ax-swingers goninto action. When Proposition 13 reducedngovernment income in CaUfomia,nthe threatened politicians and bureaucratsnimmediately yelled that police andn•^^•35nAugust 1983n