ists like Michael Kramer of Time magazine,rnJoe Klein and Jonathan Alter ofrnNewsweek, and Michael Kelly of the NewrnYork Times (and now of the New Yorker)rnare ^dumping on the Clintons, Mr.rnWoodward has demonstrated somethingrnJoseph Schumpeter once said: “Selectiverninformation, if in itself correct, is anrnattempt to lie by speaking the truth.”rnHe has shown us that Mr. Clinton is doingrna great job against great odds. Andrnby publishing the most intimate detailsrnof White House interactions, Mr.rnWoodward forces his colleagues to dealrnwith the administration on his terms,rnnot on theirs. Which is why I call himrnSpinmeister-in-Chief. Agenda will bernregarded by historians as an essentialrnarchive in evaluating and writing aboutrnthe Clinton administration.rnMr. Woodward has been attacked forrnhis failure to provide footnotes. Well,rnnow, when George Shultz, Don Regan,rnEd Meese, and David Stockman publishedrntheir memoirs, they includedrnno footnotes to speak of. The authorsrnthemselves were the footnotes. Footnotesrnin and of themselves are no guaranteernof authenticity or even accuracy,rnunless one is listing page numbers of arnbook. Mr. Woodward’s technique, technicallyrnspeaking, is admirable. Ira Magazinerrn”rolled his eyes,” “Clinton beganrnto take notes furiously,” “Grunwaldrnsnapped,” “Stephanopolous thoughtrn[Vice-President] Gore at times had a tinrnear,” “Clinton leaned back and pulledrnhis feet up on the bottom rung of thernrocker,” and my favorite of all, “[Roger]rnAltman leaned down on a glass-toppedrntable, palms down. When he stood up,rntwo sweaty palm imprints were leftrnon the table.” If there were an annualrnArtistic Verisimilitude Medal, Mr.rnWoodward would deserve it (sweaty)rnhands down.rnAgenda is really a Beltway book. Unlessrnyou are part of the Washington scenernor a political scientist, it is boring. Perhapsrnsomebody ought to organize arn”Beltway-Book-of-the-Month-Club” inrnwhich case Mr. Woodward would be, Irnam sure, a Main Selection. All he wouldrnhave to worry about would be sharing hisrnbountiful royalties with Hillary.rnArnold Beichman is a research fellowrnat the Hoover Institution,rnStanford University, and author,rnmost recently, of Anti-AmericanrnMyths: Their Causes andrnConsequences.rnActing Uprnby Christopher CheckrnLiberty & Sexuality:rnThe Right to Privacy andrnthe Making ofrnRoe v. Wadernby David /. GarrowrnNew York: Macmillan;rn981 pp., $28.00rnFaithful Roman Catholics are routinelyrncriticized (this book is nornexception) for their unwillingness torncondone the use of contraception. Althoughrnit is commonly believed that oppositionrnto contraception is unique tornCatholic doctrine, it was only recentlyrnthat Protestants gave up the same fight.rnAs recently as the 40’s and 50’s, the AnglicanrnC.S. Lewis, in two of his most importantrnbooks (That Hideous Strengthrnand The Abolition of Man), portrayedrncontraception as something diabolical.rnIn 1930 the Lambeth Council ofrnAnglican Bishops approved artificialrncontraception as a method of limitingrnfamily size provided “this was done inrnthe light of . . . Christian principles.”rnOne year later, the Federal Council ofrnChurches in America formed a committeernon “marriage and the home” whichrnendorsed “careful and restrained” use ofrncontraception. While the Catholic clergyrndid roundly criticize the decisions,rnthe Washington Post, also rebuking thern”modernistic plan for the mechanicalrnregulation or suppression of humanrnbirth,” as well as “schemes for the scientificrnproduction of human souls,” printedrna harsh editorial, pulling no punches:rnCarried to its logical conclusion,rnthe committee’s report if carriedrninto effect would sound therndeath-knell of marriage as a holyrninstitution, by establishing degradingrnpractices which would encouragernindiscriminate immorality.rnIf the churches are to becomernorganizations for political andrn”scientific” propaganda theyrnshould be honest and reject thernBible, scoff at Christ as an obsoleternand unscientific teacher, andrnstrike out boldly as champions ofrnpolitics and science as modernrnsubstitutes for old-time religion.rnWhat the Post predicted—the trailrnfrom “careful and restrained use” andrn”Christian principles” to condom distributionrnin the public schools, sociallyrnsanctioned sodomy, and the “right” tornkill an unborn child—follows directlyrndown the slippery slope.rnThe latest text in the field is Mr.rnGarrow’s. That he rejoices in the steadyrnerosion of social morality, born of civilrndisobedience (Garrow’s specialty, itrnseems) and blessed by the federal courts,rnhardly matters. Christians who favorrncontraception while opposing abortion,rnwhether unable or unwilling to acknowledgernthe theological connectionrnjoining the first to the second, might tryrnreading what must be the most detailed,rnif unoriginal, account to date of the legalrnand political links. By wading throughrnthe not uncomplicated machinationsrnthat led to the legalization of contraception,rncreated a right to kill unborn babies,rnand ended (dare we hope?) with thernsocial approval of virtually every possiblernsexual deviance, they will gain a clearrnenough picture of the worldview of thernauthor, and of his heroines and heroes, tornmake the relationship obvious: refusingrnto accept the mysterious but inseparablernbond between intercourse and the creationrnof life malforms the conscience tornsuch a degree as to make acceptable thernmost bizarre and immoral behavior.rnCivil disobedients, murderers, eugenicists,rnsodomites, fornicators, and menagernd trois participants, all idolizing “privacy”rnas they chew through the Decalogue,rnmake up just some of the people whomrnGarrow describes in his “Acknowledgments”rnas “wonderful and impressive.”rnThe temptation to give Garrow creditrnfor not having whitewashed the opinionsrnand actions of his protagonists isrneasily overcome. Why should he have?rnIn his world, from which all standards ofrndecency have been stripped, what behaviorrncan possibly require the airbrush?rnWhere intolerance, judgment, “hate andrnanger,” and imposing one’s morality onrnanother are the only sins, deceit, eugenics,rncivil disobedience, sodomy—to sayrnnothing of murder—are, if not virtues,rnat least morally neutral. It may well bernthat the only “truth” Garrow would bernwilling to embrace is the “right” of eachrnAmerican to pursue immoral behavior,rnunfettered by either conscience orrnconsequence and protected by the federalrncourts.rnIf this massive book had any value,rnthen, it would be as a clinical investiga-rn32/CHRONlCLESrnrnrn