untraceable,” that still flow into thenelectoral process. Politics and Moneynshows us how Congress plays PAC man,nand is certainly useful if only for itsndetailed reporting of how PoliticalnAction Committees work now that thenelection financing reforms of 1974 havencome and largely gone. Drew seesnrepresentative government at stake, andnthere is no disputing her cause. But hernmethod raises doubts which begin withnthe subtitle: The New Road to Corruption.nDream Maker should have taughtnus that there can be only one such road,njust as there is only one oldest profession.nPart of the objection here stemsnfi-om the book’s source, a series of essaysnoriginally written for the New Yorker.nThat most sophisticate of intellectualnand liberal journals prefers a pose ofnextreme innocence in its writers. Thisnnot only guarantees their liberal purity,nbut allows a continuously shocked responsento ordinary, daily truths. Withoutnthe shock we might be less than certainnabout the worldly solutions that iheNewnYorker expects us to be thankful for.nWhile Drew’s attack on the PAC’s isnvirtuous, not virtuoso. Politics andnMoney is clearly a Democratic-leaningnbook, and Drew’s insistence on business/nlabor polarity can overlook their takingnthe same side, as well as the diversity ofninterest which often divides supposedlynhomogeneous business interests. Faction,nwhich Madison understood as andemocratic guarantee, we are nevernwithout.n1 he book succeeds best when it tellsnus what the new breed of PAC brokersnactually do. The case histories of ThomasnBoggs, Robert Strauss, and Anne Wexlernat work harvesting, reaping, and sowingnare finely tuned to expose self-servingnmomentum. But Drew needs to tell us angreat deal more about Congressmennwith their own PAC’s, for it is nowncommonplace that Congressmen notnonly take but also give to other Congressmen.nFor example. RepresentativenHenry Waxman, the Hollywood Democratnand liberal fiind raiser, gave $24,000nin contributions to members of thenHouse Committee on Energy and Commerce;nthey later elected him to a vitalnsubcommittee chairmanship. Politicsnand Money is worth reading preciselynbecause it explains that money has madenour politics more ideological. Thendanger is that we will choose too muchnon the basis of a candidate’s labels, lessnon his ability to govern. The liberalnsolution to this problem is explained bynDrew. She wants us to redefine what wenFreudulencenSince God is an awesome, virtuallyninexplicable, and’noncomprehensiblenexistence when it comes to a considerationnof totality, men who think thatneverything that is should be capable ofnbeing expressed in human terms have antendency to create idols from the stuff ofnlesser beings. Two men, both of whomnwere born in the 19th century and whonthus have a shimmering patina upon themnfrom time, have achieved mythical status:nMarx and Freud. Their feet of clay havenbeen replaced by dreams. For example,nsocieties of, as they’re called in thenponderous critiques, “actually existingnsocialism” show that Karl’s calculationsnwere wrong. But the supporters hasten tonsay that they’re not incorrect in themselves,nbut merely misinterpreted and sonmisapplied, which amounts to patternreminiscent of the fest talk of Borscht-beltncomedians. While Marxism is obviously,nobjectively a Mure, its fewning adherentsntenaciously cling to their delusions.nIn The Assault on Truth: Freud’snSuppression of the Seduction Theoryn(Farrar, Straus & Giroux; New York),nJeffrey Moussaieff Masson, formernProjects Director of the Sigmund FreudnArchives (he was fired) doesn’t show thatnFreud was wrong. That, we think, wouldnbe impossible to do, given the feet thatnwrong implies a veriflably correctnalternative. Its historical pretensions tonbeing a science notwithstanding, psychoanalysisnis more akin to a philosophy or annart than to something wherein there cannnnmean by “freedom of speech” in order tonreduce the importance of electionnfinance by means of insured and controllednbroadcast access. Drew wants ton”uncouple the idea of the ‘marketplace ofnideas’ from the idea of the ‘free market,'”nbut this is to pay far too high a price innConstitutional terms, nor will doing sonhelp us “get back to how the politicalnsystem was supposed to work.” In thenbeginning was the word, not the buck,nno matter how eternal it mav seem. Dnotablesnbe proofs Dr. Masson simply shows thatnFreud was a man. As a social being, he wasnrequired to tailor his public and privatenstatements with prudence, otherwise, henwould have become an outcast. To bensure, Freud rocked the boat with hisnsyntheses, but he had no desire to benkeelhauled. Freud once maintained thatnthe cause of some hysteria in adults wasntheir having been sexually abused asnchildren. It was a shockingly unpopularntheory. Freud, ignoring fects, moved awaynfrom this position and to one that maintainednthat many of the patients fantasizednthese early sexual abominations perpetratednon them by adults. His reasons forndoing so were less “scientific” and morenpersonal. But the fentasy concept becamendogma. Masson has marshalled evidencenthat calls attention to Freud’s “failure ofncourage” and the subsequent dubious activitiesnof many of those who were responsiblenfor creating Freudism. He is, then,na heretic in the eyes of the believers. Butnhe might just be a very honest man. [Hn^•^13nJune 1984n