the balanced budgets. Similarly, Mr.nReagan’s successful handling of thenPresidency is dismissed as unworthy ofnemulation, and he is said to be out ofntouch with reality. His successful leadershipnof public opinion is explained awaynas mere theatrics. No matter what he,nEisenhower, or any other nonliberal maynaccomplish, they lack the necessarynpolitical orientation to earn them theirndue credit.nWilliam Leuchtenburg’s In thenShadow of FDR stands as a monument tonthis view. His thesis is that every Presidentnsince Truman has had to live downncomparison to Roosevelt, and that livingnin FDR’s long shadow has affected thenbehavior of these Presidents. Yet Leuchtenburgnonly chronicles the modulationsnin liberal judgments of Presidentsnand the Presidency since 1945. Indeed,nhis unstated operational definition of thenRoosevelt legacy is liberal opinion,nparticularly that of old New Dealers.nLitde is recorded of public opinion or ofnthe opinions of anyone not amongnRoosevelt’s most devoted followers. Thenshadow of FDR, then, is but a wraith ofnthe Brain Trust. Indeed, the figure whonlooms largest in this book is not FDR, butnEleanor Roosevelt. Leuchtenburg feithfiillynrecords her interactions with andnopinions of Truman, Kennedy, andnJohnson, as if her views were the mostnimportant in the nation. She dominatesnthis work, and other liberal views of thenpost-Roosevelt presidency are cast innrelation to hers. This is because hernviews were most important to Leuchtenburgnand his ilk.nThe consequence of this particularnconception of the Roosevelt legacy isnthat most of the Presidents Leuchtenburgnsurveys are unaffected by thensupposed shadow of FDR; only Truman,nKennedy, and Johnson really felt anynburden of the Roosevelt legacy, and theneffect on Kennedy and Johnson wasnmarginal. As for the others, Leuchtenburgnmust overwork weak links betweennRoosevelt and them to make hisncase. He makes much of Eisenhower’sn”owing” his Presidency to FDR, becausenRoosevelt had promoted Ike rapidlynduring World War II. The chapter onnNixon and Ford is an exercise in obfuscation,none that merely shows that the twonopposed FDR’s policies. Carter initiallynsought to identify himself with thenmemory of Roosevelt, but soon found itnof little value. Finally, because he cannotnbear Mr. Reagan’s outright repudiationnof the Roosevelt legacy, Leuchtenburgndevotes an enormous amount of space tondemonstrating that Mr. Reagan was, innhis youth, a liberal Democrat.nLeuchtenburg not only thinks thatnPresidents have been judged accordingnto the memory of FDR, but that theynought to be:nYet it has also been, and continues tonbe, beneficial to use Roosevelt’snperformance as a measuring rod, fornhis largeness of view has been, and is,nbadly needed. FDR displayed a hospitalitynto new ideas and vivid personalitiesnthat sets a standard for allnwho follow him. He demonstrated, asnwell, a willingness to concern himselfnabout excluded groups in Americanthat has been too little seen in recentnyears. In short, he showed that governmentncan be both imaginative andnhumane, a contribution that is asnnnrelevant to our own times as it was tonhis.nThe shadow of FDR, then, falls acrossnthe minds of Leuchtenburg and othernliberals rather than across the Presidency.nThe relevance of this legacy tonChief Executives, however, lies in thenliberals’ dominance of commentary andnthe academe. They continue to houndnthe Presidents with idealized reminiscencesnof the Roosevelt era. Moreover,nthey have added Kennedy to theirnpresidential pantheon, as theJFKhagiographynmarking the 20th anniversary ofnhis assassination illustrates. They havendefined the Presidency in their ownnterms, as the great engine of liberalism.n1 he Anatomy of Power, ostensiblynintended as a primer on the fundamentalnelements of power, is essentially an eflfortnto provide a philosophical justificationnfor the liberal concept of power. ProfessornGalbraith begins by analyzing theninstruments and sources of power in anrather abstract fashion, but quicklynreveals the essential message of his work.nHe develops a typology of power instruments—condign,ncompensatory, andnconditioned^-and traces the sources ofnpower in personality, property, andnorganization. It soon becomes apparentnthat this groundwork is only prefatory tonGalbraith’s main argument, as he revealsnin the examples he employs to developnand illustrate his points: power is held bynmen over women, corporations overntheir employees and the economy, andnthe elite over the masses. The message isnclear: power is mostly held by the nonliberalnsegments of society. Others havenUttie power.nThen come the concrete examples, allnof which are supposed to convince thenreader of the power of corporations andnthe military establishment, and of thenrelative weakness of the bulk of societynand the nonmilitary state in the face ofnthese forces.nThe modern military establishmentnstrongly concentrates power. Itnexacts a high level of submission fl-omnil9nNovember 1984n